Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. “What is the ‘I’ that persists across rebirths, and is it identical to consciousness?” drives much of this 70-minute Q&A with Khensur Rinpoche at Buddha House. He opens by mapping the three scriptural collections — Vinaya, Sūtra, and Abhidharma — onto the three higher trainings in ethics, meditative stabilization, and wisdom, then briefly orients newcomers to the practical benefits of Dharma practice. The session then turns to close philosophical analysis: the distinction between selflessness of persons and selflessness of phenomena; the “I” as a non-associated compositional factor, neither form nor consciousness, merely imputed by concepts or terms; and how five Buddhist schools differ on where karmic latencies are implanted. A closing exchange asks whether the Buddha can have compassion without conceptual consciousness, answered through the image of the sun shining on everything equally, without discrimination or intent.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 18 Eye of A 1989 03 28 poor quality.mp3
UUID: 57ab57d1-97a4-4846-a936-9a7b0b1d4171
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Opening the Eye of Awareness 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1989-03-28
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 70.5 minutes
Words: ~2,854
Categories of the teachings of Buddha. The three categories are sometimes referred to as the three baskets. What are the three categories of teachings? The three the three scriptural collection. Three scriptural collections.
So these are the three higher training, higher training ethics, meditative stabilization and wisdom. Three scriptural collections. So the three scriptural collections are the collection of discipline, sets of discourses and of manifest knowledge. Discipline, Vinaya, sets of discourses, Sūtra and Manifest Knowledge, Abhidharma. So the three scriptural collections are the words of the Buddha which have been collected in texts, in the scriptures.
So they’re called these three scriptural collections. If we say how they differ, these three scriptural collections, they differ in accordance to the extent they set forth the three higher trainings. The higher training in ethics is most extensively set forth in discipline. Higher training in meditative stabilization is most extensively set forth in the sets of discourses and a higher training in wisdom is most extensively set forth in manifest knowledge, the scriptural collection of manifest knowledge. So the difference is that the, when we talk about the difference between the three higher trainings and the three scriptural collections is that the three scriptural collections are the actual words of the Buddha set down, the scriptures.
But these words just have a subject or that is that which is being expressed by these words, the subject matter. It’s just like when we say the word pot, the actual word pot is referring to an actual pot. The word pot, the sound pot is not a pot. It’s referring to something. It’s expressing some subject and that subject is pot.
Likewise, the set of discourses, the scriptural collection discipline is the words of the Buddha and the main subject that it sets forth is the higher training in ethics. The scriptural collection of sets of discourses sets forth as its main subject meditative stabilization, the higher training meditative stabilization. And the scriptural collection of manifest knowledge sets forth as its main subject the higher training in wisdom. This is the relationship between the three scriptural collections and three higher trainings. So as we go along, if you have some question concerning the subject that’s being talked about, if you have some doubts that you’d like to clear up, then please ask your questions.
So there is no place where there are no sentient beings. That sentient beings pervade everywhere. They’re pervasive above space. Wherever space, whatever place in space, there is a sentient being at that place. Sentient beings are pervade all of space.
They are equal to space in their extent. Wherever there is space, there are sentient beings. So in developing this motivation initially, we are seeking to develop the thought that all sentient beings, that without leaving out even one, that is so we use the image of wherever there is space then all sentient beings who exist in that space for their benefit I am going to listen and practice, etcetera. In the practice of Dharma, we’re seeking to develop develop the skill of all of our activities, of our body and speech, and develop skillful states of mind. This is essentially what we’re working with in the Dharma.
So the practice of Dharma involves in the development of a kind heart, the qualities of caring, love, not harming others as well as you can to help others. If we can act in this way with a caring manner and with a relationship of love toward others, then we’re going to have harmonious relationships, not only within our family, but within the entire country. And this way we can bring happiness to everyone around us. So in the practice of Dharma we can begin to go beyond even all the various types of sickness. We begin to act in a very skillful manner and decrease our unskillfulness in acting.
So by developing the qualities of love and compassion, that we will have a happy mind, that others will be happy with us, we will be happy ourselves. If our mind isn’t happy, then there’s no way that we can be physically happy at well-being. Practicing well in this life, not only will we be happy in this life, but we will create happiness for future lives one after another. So we’re talking about the general qualities of practicing Dharma for some of the new people who perhaps haven’t heard these ideas before. Essentially, we’re practicing the Dharma in order to bring ourselves happy and to create all the various conducive conditions for happiness and as a way to eliminate suffering.
And for those who practice the Dharma, then not only our actions naturally become more skillful actions of, for example, body and speech. As a consequence of that, others will like us. We are very popular with others. As a consequence of practicing the Dharma well, when we are afflicted with some kind of physical illness by taking to mind our practice of Dharma, thinking about the Dharma then we can actually eliminate physical illness and also if any mental problems that we might be having by taking the mind of the Dharma We can eliminate those. So you’re older students, you know all this, but there’s a few new people here.
I thought it just mentioned a few of these ideas. Yeah. Well, you answered the question. So, we pass through these nine mental levels attaining calm abiding, which is single-minded placement upon its objects such that there is no distractions. And then having attained that, we then, part of our mind begins the examination, takes as its object emptiness and begins an examination of emptiness.
So in addition to having developed the calm abiding, we take emptiness as the object, begin to examine it. Again and again, taking emptiness as the object and they will develop an additional special bliss, physical and mental bliss. When this is attained, having emptiness as our object, have attained special insight. It’s a good question that you’re asking. So if you don’t have any questions, Rinpoche has some questions.
So we, Rinpoche discussed, explained selflessness of persons and selflessness of phenomena. What is the difference? Selflessness of persons and selflessness of phenomena. So selfless of persons is the selfless of the non inherent existence in terms of persons or in general sentient beings. And then self instead of phenomena is non inherent existence in terms of phenomena other than persons or sentient beings in general.
That’s right. So how do distinguish between that which is a sentient being and that which is not a sentient being? Sense. You mean sense consciousness or sense faculties? So if sentient beings are selfless, then don’t sentient beings have a self?
This is my question. Are sentient beings selfless? Don’t sentient beings have a self? They don’t have a self. So the terms self, I, and being, where I’ve been using the term person, So what is the hand?
The hand is imputed to the collection of its various parts, the palm of the hand, the fingers, the back of the hand, the skin. Putting those together, impute, designate, mean, we give it a name, hand, and the hand is able to function. It’s able to perform all these tasks without investigating, without analyzing, the hand exists. So there’s the the I which which is which pervades the continuum of our existences from the past lives, from the previous lives, the life previous to that, to the previous that. There is this constant I which is flowing throughout this continuum of lives, to the present lives and we’re going to continue into future lives.
By the power of that I, that is what takes rebirth in this life, for example. But in this life there is a that the eye takes on a specific form for example, that I am a monk. Now the eye, that’s a particular form that the eye has taken in this life, but it only was able to do that through the power of this continuum of eye coming from the previous life and which has taken rebirth in this life. But the eye wasn’t a monk in the previous life, for example. This is a particular form of the I in this life.
There’s this I which is a continuum of I extending throughout the rebirth and then a particular expression of that I in each rebirth, in this case, for example, as a monk. I’m sorry. Is that identical to consciousness? There are two different views on this within the Autonomy Middle Way School and the Consequentialist Middle Way School. According to the Autonomy Middle Way School, the consciousness is that which takes rebirth, and therefore the consciousness is the being and therefore is the I.
And the continuum of the I is the being. But the Consequentialist Middle Way school, the I is that which is merely imputed to the aggregates. Therefore, it is not a consciousness. And the eye takes rebirth and that the eye is merely that which is imputed to the aggregates. So the eye is not a consciousness.
Oh, there’s no word in No word. Well, probably means “mahasattva” — [unclear]. Or you’re translating a word that can be translated as self, self grasping, ego grasping. This constant I — I’ll set this aside for now. Is that a — so the I is momentarily arising, disintegrating, so it’s constantly changing.
It’s it’s not it’s neither form nor consciousness, but it is what’s called a non associated compositional factor. That is a functional thing which is neither form nor consciousness. So in this life, when the I takes rebirth as a human, then the I is a human. In the future, maybe it takes rebirth as a deity, as a celestial being, and the I is a celestial being. Then in the future, whether it’s a dog or whatever, the I is that which it takes rebirth as.
So it would be when we have the imprints of if in a previous life we were born as a dog, we would have the latencies of dog karma on our continuum. The eye, the eye. And it’s just the karmic imprint of having taken rebirth as a dog. But the imprints according to the Consequentialist Middle Way School are implanted on the mere I, but in the Autonomy Middle Way School they’re implanted on the consciousness because that is the I, imprinted on the consciousness. So the I — the imputer is either conceptual consciousness, or the things are imputed either by concepts or by terms.
So as we say, we we we say we call it this is a person. We using words, we’re using sound, we impute the person, or it can be imputed by concepts. So the the imputer is conceptual is concepts and terms. So, you know, we we in this case, the we this is the basis of imputation, and we say, this is a hand. We use a term.
We mean this the basis of imputation, hand or we simply see it and we think, ah, there’s a hand. So in one case the hand is is dependent upon being imputed by terms and the other case is being imputed by concepts, conceptual consciousness. So without being without being imputed, it doesn’t exist. There’s no hand there unless it’s been imputed. So the person is not a mere label.
The person is not merely a label. It is that which is labeled, and that which has been labeled and not merely labeled. Yeah. So the I, the two I’s, is the I which continues throughout the various existences from previous lives to future lives. This continuum is the I, which is this is the I.
This I continues throughout the various existences. In in any one particular existence, there is a particular eye. There is like the eye of this eye. So we can’t talk about the two eyes in terms of one particular existence because the the the first eye only exists in terms of the I which is continuing throughout various lifetimes. But for one person it will just say continuing in going through one life, but a person might have a very different conception of self at different times through their life.
Like one time they might think, Is that conception of yourself as well? So if we to take the group in we were talking about is the general I of this life, you know, taking a particular the I who is Dale, for example. But if we just take the instances all the various instances about Dale, of I, you know, and then when there’s this I which is continuing throughout all this, then we we could posit two I’s, even in a lifetime. Yeah. So does that mean it’s various different levels of conception of self?
Perception of What does that mean? Well, seems that when I think about what I feel as being you know, my my Wait. Wait. Let me I’ll ask another first question. You know, let’s get this cleared up first.
You’re you’re saying that the I is is your conception of you of I. Is that what That’s kind of what we have to clear that up first. It’s it’s more of our I. your conception of yourself is your I. Is that right?
Yeah. Okay. Good. Conception of yourself. This this is strict, but I ask the question.
So the conception apprehending the I is not the I. The conception apprehending the I is not the I. Look. Look. Look.
This is a consciousness Mhmm. And awareness. So within the mind only school, there is a certain person where the alaya is the mind basis of all. That’s what I mean, mind basis of all. I think that I’ll just translate it as storehouse consciousness.
Mind basis of all. That’s the example of a person. So all of the tenets in Buddhism, they say that the latencies of karma are implanted on the beam. But then they differ as to what is the being, what is the we’ll just use the word person, what is the person. And lower two tenets, the Great Exposition and the Sūtra schools, they say that the continuum of the aggregates is the being and therefore the latencies of karma are implanted on the continuum of the aggregates.
In the mind only school, the person is the mind basis of all and therefore the latencies are implanted on the mind basis of all. In the Consequentialist Middle Way school, they say that the mental consciousness is the person and therefore, the latencies are implanted on that. In the Autonomy Middle Way school, the mere I is the person and the latencies are implanted on the mere I. So different examples of what they what they mean by person, or being. So, is your conception of yourself yourself?
That’s words are getting kinda is it? Yeah. Is your conception of yourself yourself? What are you saying? Is the conception of conceiving a flower?
Is there a flower? No. It’s the same. Same. But it seems that that’s the only thing that I can that I can oh, it’s difficult to explain.
But This is itself, but is there anything other Is itself anything other than that? No. I don’t know. Do any of the people who haven’t been here before or new students, will there is there any particular question? Do they have anything I’d like to ask?
Anybody? I was just questioning all that. He said that Buddha has no conceptual consciousnesses. Awarenesses such as compassion or conceptual consciousness. The question arises, well doesn’t the Buddha have compassion because he doesn’t have conceptual consciousness?
So I said I wasn’t satisfied with the answer. But the Buddha — remember what you were saying — explained that, for example, the Buddha does not have motivation, for example, to teach. That it’s like the moon, like the sun rising. This it it shines on everything. It doesn’t have discrimin discrimination about what it shines on.
The moon shining, it it reflects in this water. It reflects in this water. So therefore, you know, according to the karma of sentient beings, they may receive their teaching, which is appropriate to their karma, whatever it might be. There’s no conception about teaching or motivation toward teaching in any way particular. The sun shines on everything equally.
So I don’t know. It doesn’t explain that he has great compassion, But he doesn’t have a conceptual consciousness. The Buddha’s speech is interpreted by the various beings in accordance with with their desire according to their various karma or whatever. Some, on hearing the same teaching, some might understand selflessness, some might understand emptiness and it also is able to, no matter which language, they’re able to it’s able to be understood in their individual languages. So you’ve asked many good questions, you’ve been studying well, which I thank you and I appreciate it very much.
So I’m going to stop there.