Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using the image of a farmer who searches two mountain pastures for a cow and finds neither, Khensur Rinpoche illustrates the logical structure of emptiness reasoning in this 97-minute commentary. He works through Candrakīrti’s two selflessnesses — of persons and of phenomena — explaining why the “I” is taken as the primary meditation object: it is the chief root of cyclic existence, and its coarse object of negation arises in the mind more readily than that of external things. He then walks through why a naturally existent self must be either identical to or separate from the five aggregates, shows both positions fail, and explains how this reasoning leads to a non-affirming negation — the direct apprehension of emptiness. The talk closes with practical instruction: applying awareness of non-true existence to everyday activities such as walking and eating, and the necessity of supporting emptiness meditation with purification, merit accumulation, and a teacher’s blessings. Suited to practitioners with some background in Madhyamaka philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 17 Eye of A 1989 03 21.mp3
UUID: 5bef7676-760e-4b4f-8e8b-f4f2c0b2d6c6
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Opening the Eye of Awareness 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1989-03-21
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 97.0 minutes
Words: ~5,747
So we should adjust our motivation such that we’re going to listen to this teaching on the profound great vehicle in order to put into practice the means whereby to attain complete perfect Buddhahood for the sake of bringing happiness and peace to all sentient beings equal to space. So Candrakīrti said that there are said to be two selflessnesses. The selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. These are spoken of for the purpose of freeing one from cyclic existence. So in this verse Candrakīrti says that selflessness are divided.
There are two types of selflessness: phenomenal selflessness and personal selflessness. And that the, by selflessness we mean emptiness, and that emptiness is divided by way of the basis, the foundation of the emptiness, the basis of the emptiness. And there are two types of bases. There are the bases as persons and the bases as phenomena. By phenomena, I mean other than persons.
Anything other than persons. Okay? Persons and phenomena. So emptiness is qualified by which basis it it is qualifying. The emptiness is characterized by which basis it is qualifying, whether it’s personal selflessness or phenomenal selflessness.
So initially the teachings on emptiness were spoken of were given by the Buddha, and then these were commentated by various great masters down to Nāgārjuna, and he was commentated on by the master Candrakīrti in his text engaging in the middle way. So when we talk about persons, this I’m using the word person just in a way of translation. Actually, all sentient beings are included, but just for the sake of ease, we use this term person. This is my translation note I’m making. So when we say selfless of persons, we’re talking about selflessness of sentient beings.
And what we mean by a sentient being is the I which is imputed to either the four or five aggregates of the being. The eye which is imputed to either of the four or five aggregates of the being. And this by the five aggregates, we mean the body aggregate, the form, feeling, compositional factors, and consciousness. Now generally in the form realm there are five aggregates. We say four or five because in the formless realm there’s no aggregate of form.
Therefore, there it’s the being is the I is imputed to the four aggregates, minus the form aggregate. So we’re just talking about the general types of sentient beings, all the various types of animals and persons, etcetera. So then when we talk about phenomenal selflessness or the selflessness phenomena, by phenomena we mean those things other than living beings. Those which have no life force such as the earth, water, trees, rocks, things like this. Those which are not living, those which have no life force are what we’re calling phenomena.
So the way we’re using these two terms, those things which have no life, those non living things with no life, we are terming phenomena and their selflessness is selflessness of phenomena and we’re talking about the emptiness of those non living things. When we use the term selflessness of persons or I’m going to use the term selflessness of persons but you should think of it in terms of sentient beings, we’re talking about those things which have life force, which are living, which are beings, and therefore we term their selflessness the selflessness of persons or the selflessness of sentient beings, and we’re talking about the emptiness of sentient beings or the emptiness of persons. So when we talk about the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena, these emptinesses are the same. They’re both the same in their subtlety. Their only difference is by way of they’re just being divided by way of the basis.
But the emptiness is the same as far as subtlety. So the emptiness of phenomena cannot be applied to the emptiness of persons, and the emptiness of persons cannot be applied to the emptiness of phenomena. Certainly, in the great texts which set forth the meaning of emptiness, such as the Root Wisdom by Nāgārjuna and Engaging in the Middle Way by Candrakīrti, that in their presentation, first they present phenomena emptiness of phenomena, and then they put they first they present selflessness of phenomena, and they have a presentation of selflessness of persons. This is the order of their presentation. So the reason for this order of presentation is that presenting selfless phenomena first is that we can because we can directly see things like flowers, plants, and because we can easily, their emptiness is much more readily understood because we’re directly able to perceive them.
So this is, you know, as we in accordance with our with our last session when we were explaining selflessness, it was much easier to take the example of a flower in explaining the four essentials, the reasoning making use of the four essentials, that it’s very directly, more readily understood because we can directly see it. Those who are striving for liberation must meditate on emptiness. Now until we are able to realize emptiness, there’s no way that we can be liberated from cyclic existence. The root of cyclic existence is ignorance and the only method that we can get rid of ignorance with is the realization of emptiness. So we have to meditate on emptiness.
And the order of meditating on emptiness is that first we meditate on the selflessness of the person. So why is it that we in our meditation practice take up selflessness of persons first? It’s the root of cyclic existence, the root of all our afflictive emotions, the root of all our suffering is the conception of the self of persons. That is not to say that we circle in cyclic existence due to the force of both the conception of the self of persons and the conception of the self of phenomena. But the greater force but it is the conception of the self of persons which has a greater force in acting as a root of cyclic existence.
Therefore we take this as our first object of meditation. So it is dependent upon this reason that it is mainly that the conception of the self or person acts as the root of cyclic existence, that this is taken as the primary object of our meditation initially. Though in fact the selflessness of the conception of the self or phenomena does act to maintain cyclic existence but the main root is the conception of the self of persons. As Candrakīrti says in his treatise on the Middle Way that was mentioned before, Seeing with their mind that all afflictions and defects arise from the view of the transitory collection, yogis upon realizing the self is the object of this refute self. And here the self that they’re discussing when they say the transitory collection is the self as conceived of by the conception of the self of persons.
So one reason that we take the selfless person as an object of meditation is that though selfless of person and the selflessness of phenomena are of the same nature, The emptiness of a person and emptiness of phenomena are the same in nature. That due to the subject upon which the emptiness is qualified, that is the person, that it’s easier to realize emptiness and dependence upon the subject person. It’s easier to realize emptiness upon the person as opposed to phenomena. So if we consider it from the point of view of the basis upon which we are generating the understanding, it is said it’s easier to generate the understanding of emptiness and dependence on the basis as of the person rather than phenomena. Why is this?
What is the difference between the ease of realizing the selflessness of the person as opposed to realizing the self phenomena. If we say very roughly, if we take it as a basis, or example, the glass, we want to it’s difficult for the basis of imputation or the basis of designation, imputation designation of the glass to appear to our mind. It’s difficult for the basis of designation of glass to appear to our mind. But if we illustrate it on the basis of person, that is, what is we try if the basis of imputation of person appears to a mind easily. And what is that basis?
It is the I which is imputed in dependence upon either of the five aggregates. The I which is imputed in dependence upon either of the five aggregates is the basis of the imputation of the person. The eye which is dependently imputed, which exists by way of being dependently imputed, easily appears to our mind. The I which exists as a dependent imputation, a dependent designation. The I which is dependently relies on designation.
Its existence relies on designation. The I which relies for its existence on being designated easily appears to our mind. Whereas, and also the eye, the non existence of an eye which does not rely upon being imputed for its existence easily appears to our mind. The eye which does not exist which which does not exist, not relying upon imputation for its existence easily appears to our mind. So we can easily, it usually appears that the non existence of the appearance of relying on other, that the appearance of something which has to rely on other to exist, that the non existence of that is something that does not rely on other for its own existence but exists only within itself.
Even this rough idea easily appears to our mind. So the rough or the coarse object of negation can easily appear to our mind. That is the rough, or coarse, object of negation: something which does not rely on anything outside of itself. It exists from its own without relying on anything else. It exists from its own side without relying on anything else.
That is the coarse object of negation. And depends upon understanding that then we can approach the subtle object of negation. It is because the coarse object of negation easily appears to us in the case of the selflessness, the the conception of self of persons that we take this and independence as our primary object of meditation and in dependence upon this, we then are able to realize the subtle object of negation. What is the subtle object of negation? So that is a phenomenon which is established under its own power, relying on causes and conditions, parts or name and designation.
So the subtle object of negation is the phenomenon which is established by way of its own power, another word would be independently established by way of its own power, and which does not rely on causes and conditions, parts, name and designation. And the nonexistence of that is the subtle emptiness of that phenomena, the nonexistence of such a way of being established. So when the individual thinks, everyone thinks I, we all have this that arises in all our minds. This I. Now this I appears to our awareness, to our consciousness, to our awareness if the way it appears to our awareness as if it didn’t rely, as if this I does not rely on causes and conditions.
It does not rely on name or designation, but exists from its own side. That’s the way it appears. And this is the subtle object of negation, Such a type of eye. So such a type of I, if it is in fact established in the way it appears to this type of awareness, called truly existent, naturally existent. If the eye were established as it appears, then the place where it’s been imputed, that is the aggregates, the place where it’s been designated, that is the aggregates, it would have to be either the same or the different different than those aggregates.
For example, when we talked about the flower last week, we talked in deciding that and discussing the reasoning of the four essentials that either the flower must be the same or different than its basis of imputation. There’s no other way. We must come to this decision. We talked about the four essentials last week. We talked about in terms of the I.
The I, that it’s the I which is the object of negation, that is the I which is not dependent upon name or causes and conditions, that is to say a naturally existing I, that this naturally existent eye must be either the same or different than the aggregates, we come to this decision. Then we understand that there is no other possibility, this was the pervasion, that something either must be this, an object, a phenomenon must be either the same or the different. And this is the, I call this the essential of ascertaining the entailment or in other word would be ascertaining the pervasion. Last week, we talked about the flower. This was the selflessness of phenomena.
Now we’re talking about beings, and we’re talking about the selflessness of persons. So we’re investigating the eye, eye, which does not rely upon causes and conditions or name or designation. Now the place where the I is designated, the place where the I is being designated is the aggregates. This is the place of designation. You know when we talk about persons, the place where we’re talking about the person is at the aggregates.
This is the place where the I is existing in terms of the aggregates. The I exists in terms of the aggregates. Now if this I naturally exists, it must be either the same or different than the aggregates. So we’re investigating whether this I is whether it’s the same or different than the aggregates. The place where that we see the eye is upon the aggregates.
So that’s that’s the case we’re investigating. If the eye is the same or different than the aggregates. If it’s If the eye is the same as the aggregates, it must be indivisibly the same. It must be in no way different than the aggregates. If something is the same, it is in no way different.
So if the eye, the natural existing eye of it is the same as aggregates, is indivisibly same, indivisibly the same as aggregates. There’s no way of difference in the aggregates. If that were in fact the case, then because there are five aggregates, there would have to be five naturally existent eyes or self. Because there are five aggregates, there would have to be five cells or five eyes. On the other hand, if the or there would have to be five eyes or since there is only one eye, one self, there would only be one aggregate.
But there could only be one aggregate. But we know there are five aggregates, but there are not five cells. And we know that there is only one cell and there are not five aggregates. We know that there is one cell and there is more than one aggregate. And we know that there are five aggregates and there are not five cells.
In this way we negate, refute the naturally existent eye as being the same as the aggregates. So are many faults which accrue if we assert that the I is the naturally existing I is the same as the aggregates. If the self or the eye was the same as the aggregate, then when the aggregates are burnt in a fire, for example, and destroyed, then the self or the eye would be destroyed. And therefore there would be nothing which goes on to a future life. Or, again, if they were the same, if the natural existence itself and the aggregates were the same, then since the I or the self goes on to a future life, the aggregates would have to go along to a future life.
And if that were the case, a person in this life would have to be a person in their future life, a dog in this life would have to be a dog in their future life since the aggregate goes along with itself since they’re exactly the same. So there’s a limited number of reasons that we can apply in this situation when the naturally existent self is said to be the same as the aggregates. We can find many faults with that type of conception. That is the aggregates are the appropriated. They are the objects of appropriation.
The self is the appropriator, the agent which is doing the appropriating. They cannot be the same. They have to be different. So we can apply these reasons in order to refute that the naturally existent self is the same as the aggregate. Now if it so it must if the naturally existent self in fact exists, it must be different than the aggregate.
It must be either the same or different. We refute it the same, so it must be different. So when we say different, it must be completely unrelated, in no way reliant upon one another because these are truly existent. They’re they’re independent of one another and completely no relationship with whatsoever with one another. The I and the aggregates are clearly unrelated to one another, unrelatedly different.
So therefore, if such were the case between the aggregates and the self or the I, then when the aggregates were in pain, for example, you know, we hurt our hand, it would not make sense to say I’m hurt because there is no relationship between the pain in the hand and the I or the self because they’re unrelatedly different. If the body, if the form aggregate has a pain in its head, it doesn’t make any sense to say, I have a headache, because there’s no relationship between the pain in the head and the self or the eye. It’s just like a person in a door. Something completely unrelated in the same way. If somebody has white hair, it would not make any sense to say, I’m getting old, because the body and the self are completely unrelatedly different.
There would be no aging of the eye in that case. When we say, you know, when the aggregate is walking, is going, it makes no sense to say, I’m going, because the aggregates, the activities of the aggregate and the activities of the eye are clearly unrelated. So we’re discussing a self, an I, which is unrelatedly different to the aggregates. The self which does not rely on the aggregates. Such a type of self, if in fact it did exist, it would have to be permanent.
And the word permanent here means unchanging. That it would not undergo anything which any type of activity which was related to the aggregates. It would not undergo birth, aging, dying. It would not undergo production, disintegration. It would not undergo any sickness.
It would not create any karma. All these faults would accrue if the I or the self, if the being, the I, the self, these are all synonymous terms, the person existed not relying on their aggregates. So this I, which does not rely on causes or conditions, does not rely on name or designation. If it in fact exists, it must exist either the same or different than the aggregates. There’s no way that this naturally exists in I, exists as the same as aggregates, there’s no way that it exists different than aggregates, therefore it cannot exist.
It must be either the same or different and it’s not the same or different, therefore it does not exist at all. And one must come to that firm determination that the naturally existent eye does not in fact exist at all. So if, by way of example, analogy, if one thought there was a cow and and that went up the mountain, and up this mountain, there were only two possible paths that it could take, and therefore, were only there were only two pastures in which it could be. There were no other paths. It’s a very narrow climb.
There were very narrow paths, and there were only two possible places that this cow could be. And you you really think this cow is up there, and you and you’re almost certain it’s up there. And so what you and you go actually to search for the cow, and you go to the one pasture, and you look thoroughly, and you search thoroughly, examine thoroughly the pasture and you don’t find it. It’s not there. And you go over to the to the other pasture and you look in that look in that pasture, examine it thoroughly, investigate it, search it, you know, throughout.
It’s not there. Then there are the cow which had appeared to your mind before that you thought was up there. That then becomes the the nonexistence of that cow will now appear to your mind. You come you’re firmly determined, ah, that cow simply does not exist at the mountain. The cow does not exist.
The cow which appeared to you so vividly before, there will now appear the nonexistence of that cow. And this determination comes appears to your awareness, this mind. Likewise, the the naturally existent eye which which so vividly appears to you, if in fact it exists, it must be either the same or different than the aggregates, the place where we see it. When upon examining examining that place, it we examine that it’s not the same, and then we examine it’s not different. And there’s no other place it can exist.
There’s no other possibility. So there appears to our mind the the nonexistence of the of the naturally existent eye, and this is the realization of the emptiness of the eye. So you went searching for this cow, this cow which you appeared so vividly before you in your mind that and upon searching, the only two possible places that it could exist, there then arose the determination in your mind of the nonexistence of that cow. There’s the factor of of the nonexistence of the cow appears to your mind. The factor of the nonexistence of the cow appears to your mind.
This is is called a non affirming negation. A non affirming negation. Now and if we apply this to the example of the self or the I, we are have been habituated to a naturally existing I appearing to us. Again and again this naturally existing I appears to us, habitually appears to us. If if this eye exists, then we’re going to it must exist at the place where it appears, that is the aggregates.
It must be either the same or different. We search throughout the the the aggregates that it whether it’s the same, then we we see that it’s not the same. We search whether it’s different. It cannot be the different. Therefore, there now appears to our mind a non affirming negation, which is the factor of the nonexistence of the naturally existent I.
We come to this determination. Ah, that I, which I so so vividly appeared to me before, does not exist at all. This this determination. There appears the nonexistence of the naturally existing I. There appears this emptiness of I, of the nonexistent of the naturally existing I.
This is in our meditative process. We abide in this determination, in this this understanding when this factor of the nonexistence of the naturally existent eye or the emptiness of the naturally existent eye arises in our mind, we simply abide and accustom our mind to that determination, to this factor which appears to our mind. So the Buddha said that not seen is the best seen. That not seen is the best seen. And what he meant by this is that the I which is the object of negation, that is the I which appears to which has habitually appeared to us, which which we always see.
That is the eye which is not reliant upon causes and conditions or names or designation. This is the eye that we normally see, that we usually see, which is usually appearing to us. But upon examination through reasoning, we are able to refute that this eye in fact exists, that this object of negation does not exist at all, and the object of negation no longer appears to us. We no longer see that I and this not seen is the seeing of emptiness. And this is the best seeing and this is the realization of emptiness.
So it’s not sufficient to to come to an understanding of emptiness a single time. We have to realize, we have to understand emptiness again and again. We have to understand it many times. And that in this developing, in this process of cultivating the realization of emptiness. But additionally, we have to make requests to our spiritual teacher, our lama, for the blessings.
And additionally, in intermediate periods outside of our meditation, we should have to practice the methods of purification and the collection of the various accumulations. Additionally, we should study the various texts which explain emptiness. We have to employ a variety of practices to make use of both method and wisdom. Coming to an understanding of emptiness, it is not simply that alone which is sufficient. We have to have assisters.
We have to have the assistance of collecting positive potential. We have to have the assistance of the blessings of our spiritual teacher. We have to make use of the study of various texts, but we have to make use of a variety of methods. And in this way, through meditation, we will day by day improve the power of our mind, the strength of our realization will grow day by day. Our realization, our understanding of emptiness will become more and more subtle.
And and at last, we will gain completely we will gain realization of emptiness. And with this you know, even if we want to gain realization of emptiness, just just through thinking and hearing about emptiness, developing a conviction in the existence of emptiness is has unimaginable produces unimaginable positive potential, unimaginable results. Just simply the conviction or the belief that emptiness exists. Yes. So, that we cannot come to the realization of emptiness only by meditating on emptiness.
That we need many complementary conditions. We need many assistors. Just as even if in the case of really activities, if we are undergoing undertaking some very difficult type of activities and type of work, that necessary to to develop the skills in doing the work, but not only that, to seek others’ help, to seek their advice, to, it may be necessary to pay others, to assist us, but we have to in accomplishing even a worthy activity, it’s necessary gather together all kinds of supports in order to bring about the success of that activity. And what to say of something as with such great meaning as the realization of emptiness? Likewise, we have to bring together a variety of supports in order to be successful.
We cannot only engage in meditation on emptiness alone. So what’s the way of meditating on the selflessness of persons? If you have any questions, we can talk about that. So it’s very difficult. So, it’s difficult for the the object, the basis of designation of phenomena to appear to our mind, as [unclear] said, in connection with the glass.
The basis of designation of the glass is very difficult for that to appear to our mind. Whereas the basis of designation of person can appear to our mind easily. That is to say that the the basis of designation of the person is the five aggregates. Upon the five aggregates, the person is designated. And understanding the the nonexistence of the the of the self, which does not rely upon those five aggregates, we can we can come to easily come to a rough understanding of the object of negation.
in dependence upon understanding the rough object or the coarse object of negation, we can understand the subtle object of negation. We simply cannot jump in and come to any real understanding of the subtle object of negation. We have to work towards that. So we’re talking about the ease of generating the appearance the mind. If we take another analogy of the emptiness of a person, of reflection of a face in a mirror, is easier to understand than the emptiness of persons.
Even, what do you say, unlettered persons, worldly persons can understand that the appearance of a face in a mirror is not established the way it appears. It’s merely an appearance. It’s not really a face. Even really people can understand that. So this type of it’s empty of being an actual person, the reflection of a face in mirror.
This is easier to understand than the emptiness of a person. So, you know, there’s this order of the ease of of the appearance of generating the appearance to the mind. So there’s no special words. No special text to quote. It would be good just to think about the non true, that things do not truly exist.
Things do not truly exist. So in any activity, can in connection with any activity, you can meditate on emptiness. You’re walking, you can think about the non true existence of the walker. When you get up, think about the non true existence of the getter upper. When you’re eating, think about the non true existence of the eater.
So all these all activities you can apply the non true existence of that particular being who’s engaged in that activity. If you study logic, then you understand what pervasion means. This book uses the word entailment. I don’t know why they use the word entailment. I use the word Pervasion.
This entails this. If it is this, then it must be this. So if something is a product, it is it is pervaded by being impermanent. If something is a product, is pervaded by being impermanent. Product entails impermanent.
If it is this, then it must be this. Is pervaded by being this. This entails this. If it is a, it it is pervaded by being b. It must be b.
It follows. It’s necessarily b. If if it’s a, it’s necessarily b. So the Tibetan word for flower is metok. The Tibetan for flower is metok.
So if something is a metok, it’s pervaded by being a flower. If necessary, it’s a flower. It has to be a flower. If something is a metok, if an object is a metok, it is pervaded by being a flower. Why?
Because there is nothing which is a metok which is not a flower. There’s nothing which is a metok which is not a flower. It must be a flower, which follows and entails, is pervaded by. If something exists, it must be either the same or different. If something exists, it is pervaded by either being the same or different.
Why? Because it’s there is nothing which is the same and is not the same or different. If something is exists, it must be either the same or different and and and and entails existence entails either being the same or different and pervaded by either being the same or different. So there are many ways of positing the graded process of coming to the realization. There’s the process where coming, you know, the various tenets, the four tenets, coming to an understanding of the lower tenets, what they mean by selflessness as a means of understanding what the higher tenets understand.
Understanding their coarse understanding of selflessness and serving as understanding higher levels of tenets. Also, you know, first as Tsongkhapa said that first we have to understand have to understand selfless of persons before we understand selflessness of phenomena. Before we understand selfless of persons, we have to understand subtle impermanence. Before subtle impermanence, we have to understand coarse impermanence. So this is gradual process of understanding.
I was just wondering if you want show the distinction between the coarse and subtle objects of negation. Negation in relation to the person. So when the Consequentialist Middle Way school talks about the selfless of the person, they’re talking about the subtle selfless of the person. Whereas when any of the lower tenets, that is autonomy middle way school down, talk about the selfless of a person, they’re talking about the coarse selflessness of the person. And likewise for selflessness or phenomena.
The Consequentialist Middle Way school talks about when they say selflessness or phenomena they mean not that they mean, what they’re referring to is the subtle self as a phenomenon. And in the lower schools talk about the self as a phenomenon, they’re talking about the coarse selflessness of a phenomenon. [unclear]. So the selflessness of the person, object of negation with the selfless of persons according to the autonomy and Middle Way school is the person which exists independently without relying on the collection or the continuum of the aggregates. The person which exists independently without relying on either the collection or the continuum of the aggregates is the object of negation within the selfless of persons according to the autonomy Middle Way school.
Yes. And then according to the Consequentialist Middle Way school, as was explained, that the object of negation is the person, which is established independently without relying either without relying on parts, meaning, or designation is the object of negation. So we have to go through the understandings of the four tenets. There’s degree of graduation and a degree of subtlety of the presentation of the realization of the self as you move up through the tenets. The lower tenets are coarse, have a coarse understanding that it is only the highest school which has the most subtle realization.
So the method, we have to understand the lower tenets before we can understand the higher tenets. So that is the method of of gaining the realization is working through the tenets at each of their presentations. If the realization of emptiness and selflessness is attained, may that be sufficient as a cause for liberation from cyclic existence, or are there other things which would still hold on, still hold into