Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Opening with Nāgārjuna’s verse — “A person is not earth, not water, not fire, not wind, not space, not consciousness” — Khensur Rinpoche uses this 100-minute session to unpack what the Precious Garland means by “person.” He examines each of the six elements in turn, showing why none, nor their collection, can constitute the self, then introduces the Middle Way claim that the person exists only as imputed by terms and concepts upon the aggregates. A snake mistaken for a coiled rope illustrates how imputation operates without collapsing into non-existence. Rinpoche then works through five formal reasonings refuting an independently-existing self — covering identity, containment, unrelatedness, and mixture — before a Q&A that addresses whether direct realization of emptiness severs one’s relationship to the conventional world, and whether Buddhas retain the five aggregates.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 PG 1991 03 26.mp3
UUID: cf03d97b-b1cb-461e-a377-a232f0193c6d
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Precious Garland 1990-1991 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1991-03-26
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 100.0 minutes
Words: ~5,399
awakening heart. We should begin by appreciating the fact that we have a wonderful human life, which has many very precious qualities, and rejoice in this fact. in dependence upon us, the qualities of the present life that we have, we can eliminate our various sufferings and find complete happiness, but we have to make use of this capacity. If we don’t make use of it, then this capacity, this chance will be lost. And how can we achieve that?
And by what means can we implement in terms of our practice? We begin with a healthy attitude. Out of a healthy attitude comes a healthy conduct, and from that flows forth healthy types of results. And by a healthy attitude, we mean the kind hearted attitude of the awakening heart, which seeks not for one’s own personal individual happiness alone, but seeks to bring happiness to all sentient beings and to eliminate all of the suffering from all sentient beings and to bring them to such a type of happiness which is stable, will be lasting. And how can we achieve this in?
It is by means of eliminating all our various faults and developing our qualities until we bring them to consummation. It is in this way that we can bring about complete happiness not only to ourselves but happiness to others. To proceed with this process of eliminating our various faults and developing and finally bringing to consummation all excellent qualities, it is necessary that we understand well the methods to achieve this in, that we understand these various methods, the techniques to bring this in by listening to the various teachings, by reading books, and by this process we transform our mind. So just now we are going to engage in a process of listening in order that we can finally understand the methods and thereby put them into practice. And for the next three minutes try to develop the altruistic motivation of the awakening heart that I’m going to listen to this teaching whereby to develop my qualities, to eliminate my faults in order to ultimately be of benefit to all sentient beings.
Beginning with a verse from Nāgārjuna’s Precious Garland in which it says, A person is not earth, not water, not fire, not wind, not space, not consciousness, and not all of them. What person is there other than these? So here the word is being translated as person, and more properly it could be just being in general. In Tibetan the word which is being translated is kebu, which in Sanskrit is pudgala, and pudgala means possessing capacity. One who possesses capacity is a being.
And this was translated in, from pudgala was translated into Tibetan as one who possesses power, one who possesses some kind of potency. Possessor of potency. So, we’re talking about a being who possesses a potency, and the potency or some type of power, the power is to capacity to do some types of work, to act. And these acts can be both negative or positive. The context of our discussion, it would be that a being possessing the capacity to eliminate their various faults, to bring the consummation of their excellent qualities, to eliminate their suffering, to achieve happiness.
That being possesses this capacity, this potency. So there’s this term, possessor of potency, but if we simplify and we can just talk about a person, and we’re talking about beings in general, but we’ll just use the term person because it relates strictly with ourselves. Now a person is not earth, a person is not water, but the aggregates. Now with respect to the aggregate of forms, or just simply say the body, The body possesses earth. That is to say, it has weight, it has solidity.
Some people are so heavy they can’t even get up. So it possesses this factor of weight or solidity. This is the earth element. It possesses this. So it gives hardness or solidity.
But this earth is not the person. Additionally, within the body, there exists the element of the water element and this is the various fluids within the body, for example the blood, lymph, etc. The various fluids within the body is the water element, but the person is not the water element. Then within the body again there is the fire element. Why?
Because there is heat present within the body, the factor of temperature. This also is not the person. Then there is the element of, usually translated as wind energy element, wind energy, and this is what animates the limbs or provides for motility. Additionally within the body is the space constituent, the various hollows in the body. For example, we have hollow spaces in our mouth, in our nose, in our lungs, many places where there are empty spaces.
For example, the air is able to flow in and out of the lungs due to the empty space within the lungs. So these represent are the space constituent. So the passages in which the respiration is able to take place is the space constituent, the hollow. That also is not the person. And lastly there is the mind element, that is the various factors of consciousness.
For example, thinking, you know, last year I did this, now I’m doing this, next year I’m going to do that. Factors of feeling, feelings of happiness, feelings of suffering, various types perceptions. This is a flower, this is a book, etc. Various types of perceptions, these all constitute factors of consciousness or the mind, and the mind is not the person. So, there are various minds and mental factors, none of which is the person.
So, it says that each of the various elements and constituents are not the person. And the verse continues to say that not only are each of these various elements consistent with not the person, but all of them, that is to say, the collection of these are not the person. Well then, does a person exist? Is there something which is unrelated to these, which is the person? And the fact there is nothing which is unrelated to these, which is the person?
Then we might think to ourselves, well, that makes the person, the person becomes nonexistent. Well, then your question might arise. Well, it seems as if the person doesn’t exist, but that is in fact not the case. The person exists and the way that person exists is in terms of being imputed by means of terms and concepts in reliance upon the collection of the aggregates. So, the being or the person exists by way of being imputed, designated by means of terms and concepts upon this collection.
That is to say, the person is merely imputed by conception and terms. And in dependence upon that, a functional acting person exists. So the person is imputed to a basis and the basis of imputation are these six elements. The earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness element. in dependence upon these, the person is imputed to these by means of terms and concepts.
Likewise, all phenomena whatsoever are imputed in exactly the same way. So likewise, all phenomena are merely imputed by conception and terms. For example, a car. A car exists, but what is the car? If we begin to examine individual parts of the car, for example the wheel is not the car, the motor is not the car, the frame of the car is not the car, each of the parts are not the car.
But there is a car which goes, we can drive it, we can buy it, we can sell it. But each of the parts nor the collection is the car. The car is merely imputed to this collection of parts by means of terms and concepts. The same applies to a hand. If we examine the various parts, each of the fingers is not a hand.
The skin is not the hand. the palm is not the hand. The back of the hand is not the hand. None of the parts of the hand, the collection of these parts is not the hand. But in dependence upon collection of parts, we impute hand.
So simply by merely being imputed, we can come to understand hand. So these were various examples that we’ve been using. Mainly we’re concerned ourselves with initially coming to an understanding of the selflessness of persons, that is to say the emptiness of persons, and here in this discussion we are saying that the person is merely imputed to these six factors of earth, water, fire, air, and space and consciousness. And that by means of terms and concepts, the person exists, has capacity to perform actions. What is the way that objects are imputed by beings of conception?
We said that the person, the being is imputed to the collection of the five aggregates, or we can say that person is imputed to the collection of the six elements, but what is the way that the conceptions are actually being designated or imputing the object? And we can use as an analogy the way in which a snake is imputed to a coiled striped rope. The conditions are such that it’s becoming dark and one sees what is in fact a coiled striped rope, but it appears due to the darkness which is coming, it appears to one to be a snake And one sees at that place a snake and the concept snake arises in one’s mind, and one says snake, snake at that place. Likewise, the way in which the person is being imputed to the aggregates is the same exact way in which the snake is being conceived where there is a rope. The person is being conceived of on the basis of the five aggregates.
There appears where there is the five aggregates, a person being imputed by means of concepts and that person is able to carry on various functions. This is an analogy of the way in which imputation is operating, the way in which objects are being imputed. This is the purpose of this analogy, that in the same way that we impute snake to coiled rope by means of concept, all phenomena are being imputed in the same way. So the snake is merely being imputed by means of conception. But is there really a snake?
No, there’s no real snake there. The snake is merely, only being imputed by the power of conception. The person is likewise imputed to the five aggregates. The person depends upon the five aggregates. By the power of concepts and terms, the person is imputed, designated to five aggregates.
Now, what is important, this is an analogy of the way things are imputed. There is no snake where there is a rope. What we’re trying to show is that all objects are merely imputed and this snake is merely being imputed even though there’s no snake there. It only arises in terms of concepts. There’s no snake there, really.
But there is in terms of a person which is being designated to the five aggregates, the person exists. So, we’re not talking about whether the snake exists or not, just the way this imputation is operating. This is what this analogy is getting at, the way of imputation, not as to whether things exist or not, but the way the snake is being imputed and the way the person is being imputed in terms of being imputed by concepts is exactly the same, that they are merely imputation by concepts. In making use of analogies, we should never try to make an exact point correspondence between every point of analogy and object of analogy. This would be extremely rare.
Here we’re only taking one point and trying to understand one point in this analogy. That is the way things are imputed, just that point. So the person is merely being imputed, designated, projected, in dependence upon, in reliance upon the aggregates or the six elements, for example, of earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness. So, the person is being designated and dependent upon these six elements or the five aggregates, whichever the person is dependent upon these, is imputed and dependent upon these. When we conceive that the person is not dependent upon any other factor, that the person on the contrary exists from their own side independently, objectively, then this self or person is what we mean is the self of persons.
A self which does not exist in dependence upon anything, which exists objectively, independently. This is the self of persons. This is what is meant as the truly existent self or the truly existent person. In fact, the self is empty of that way of existing. It does not exist truly.
It does not exist independently. It exists dependently. So when we meditate on emptiness, and we’re meditating on the selflessness of persons, we should proceed in a meditation with one’s own individual I, in this I, I. I exist. I go, I sit, I do many things.
But this I exists in dependence upon being imputed to the aggregates or elements. The basis of imputation are the five aggregates or the six elements. This I exists and it exists in dependence upon being imputed to the basis of imputation, the six elements of the five aggregates. This I does not independently exist, it does not truly exist, it does not exist by way of its it is not self defining, it does not naturally exist because Why is it not truly existent? Why is it not independent existing?
Because it exists in dependence upon a basis of imputation. What is that basis of imputation? The basis of imputation is the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness. If I exists merely by imputation, in dependence upon the six elements, then the I which exists objectively from its own side, independently, does not exist. If the I is merely imputed in dependence upon the six elements, then an I which exists objectively from its own side independently does not exist.
These two are mutually contradictory. A dependently existing I and an independently existing I. If the I is dependently existing, then it cannot independently exist. Therefore, this non existence, the non existence of an independently existing I is emptiness. The non existence of an independently existing I is emptiness.
So we all know that these elements exist, these elements of earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness. These elements act as the basis of imputation, that the I is merely imputed to this particular basis of imputation. The I which is not imputed does not exist. So, the I exists in dependence upon all of these six elements of earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness. Therefore, we say that the I does not naturally exist, that it doesn’t exist by way of its own defining power.
It’s non self defining. Now it exists in dependence upon these six. Now if we go further in analysis and in turn we look at each of the six elements, each of those again is not self defining, is not naturally existent. Each of those exists in dependence upon being imputed to a basis of imputation. The basis of imputation of for example water is the collection of the atoms of water, the minute particles of water.
The conglomeration of these acts as a basis for imputing water. The same is true of earth, water, fire, earth, the collection of earth atoms taken together acts as a basis for the imputation of earth. Therefore, all of these earth, water, fire, air If we take as an example our hand, our hand does not naturally exist. It is not self defining. It exists in dependence upon being imputed, being designated all in dependence upon all the parts of the hand.
in dependence upon all the parts of the hand, we designate, we project, we label hand. So the hand is imputed to the collection of its parts. The hand does not inherently exist. That is to say the hand does not inhere in its parts. It is imputed to those parts.
It does not inhere in its parts. Therefore the hand is not inherently existing. If we go on in our analysis and we say that the hand does not inherently exist, and we look at the base parts upon which are the basis of imputation of hand, and we say, does the thumb inherently exist? Well the thumb also does not inherently exist because it is also imputed to the basis basis of imputation and that is the skin, the nail, the bone. And dependence upon that collection of these parts, we designate, we impute to this base’s thumb.
So also the thumb does not inhere in its parts. The thumb does not inherently exist. And we can go through all of the parts. So we can proceed through this method of analysis with any object. Example, our face.
Our face does not inherently exist. The face does not inhere, but it is imputed to the collection of its parts. For example, the nose, the mouth, the eyes. Through that collection of parts, we designate face. The face is designated to the basis of these parts.
But again, we can go further and take each of those parts and say, well does nose inherently exist? No, that also is designated to the basis of its parts. We can carry this further and we can proceed to any object as much as we like. According to the highest tenet system, highest philosophic school, which is the Consequentialist Middle Way school, are, all phenomena are nominally existent, nominally existent. All phenomena are merely imputedly existent, merely imputedly existent.
This is extremely subtle and quite difficult to understand that all phenomena whatsoever, may they come about by the power of being designated to a particular basis of the imputation, by the power of terms and concepts. Therefore, they only exist by way terms and concepts. Therefore, they only have nominal or imputed existence. If an object existed not in dependence upon terms and concepts, if an object existed not by means of terms and concepts, it would be a truly existent object and no such object exists. All phenomena whatsoever exist by way of terms and concepts.
So, this is one way in which we can proceed in our meditation on the emptiness of persons. That is to say that the person is empty of existing without depending upon terms and concepts for its existence. There are actually five ways, five procedures in reasoning by which we can cultivate the understanding of personal selflessness. There are five methods of reason which we can make use of. So, there are two factors which we have to understand.
One is, we say that the self is imputed to the aggregates. Here’s the self is imputed to the aggregates. The aggregates are the basis of designation or the basis of imputation. The self is that which is being imputed. The self is the phenomena which is merely imputed, the imputed phenomena and the basis of that imputation is the aggregates.
So, the merely imputed self which is imputed on the basis of the five aggregates nominally exists. We say that it nominally exists or you can say it conventionally exists. That is to say it exists in dependence upon terms and concepts. So the imputedly existing self is imputed to the basis of designation, the aggregates, and nominally exists. It’s important that we be able to distinguish between two types of selves.
Now we’ve just talked about one type of self, the self which exists. It exists independently, is a dependently existing self. It exists in dependence upon the aggregates. It’s able to perform various functions, various activities. This self exists, but there is a distinct other self, a self which does not rely upon anything else.
The self which is to be refuted, this self does not exist. The self which does not rely upon anything else doesn’t exist. So, there is the self which exists in dependence upon the aggregates and this self exists. It performs various activities. And then there is a self which does not depend upon aggregates.
The self which does not depend upon aggregates. This is the truly existent self and this self does not exist. The truly existent self does not exist. It is the object to be refuted, to be negated. So, we’re going to proceed in a manner of five reasons in establishing the selflessness of persons.
The manner of making use of five reasons in establishing the selflessness of persons. So, first reason. So, we’re trying to understand, we’re talking about the self which does not depend upon the aggregates, a type of self which does not depend upon the aggregates. This is the self we’re trying to refute and the first reasoning that we make use of to refute it is the self and the aggregates are not the same, are not identical. The self and the aggregates are not identical.
So, we’re talking about a self which does not rely upon the aggregates, and we say the first reason we’re going to make in refuting this type of self is that this type of self, this particular type of self and the aggregates are not the same, they’re not identical. What would be the fault if they were identical? If this self and the aggregates were the same, then because they cannot be the same because the aggregates undergo production, birth, and they undergo disintegration, aging and disintegration. But this self does not, this self which is not reliant on aggregates does not undergo the processes of production, birth, or aging, and disintegration. But the aggregates do, therefore they can’t be the same.
So basically, what we’re going after is to prove the non existence of a self which is not dependent upon the aggregates. That this type of self which is not dependent upon aggregates does not exist and we’re proceeding through various reasonings. First, we’re trying to show that this type of self can not be the same as aggregates because this can be refuted, this is contradictory. Neither is the self, this non dependent self, the container of the aggregates. That is to say the aggregates are not contained within the self.
Just like we pour tea in a cup, the cup is the container and the tea is the contained. The aggregates are not contained within the non dependent self. If in fact the self were the container of the aggregates, then we should be able to see the self, but we do not see such a type of self which is the holder or the possessor of the aggregates. Therefore, self is not the container of the aggregates. On the other hand, are the aggregates the container of the self.
The aggregates do not possess the self in the sense that the self is contained within the aggregate. If the self were contained within the aggregate, then it should be understood, it should be seen, but no one has seen such a type of self contained within the aggregate. So let’s say we covered three reasons. In each of these, we’ve talked about some type of relationship between the self and the aggregates. For example, whether the self was contained within the aggregates or the aggregates were contained within the self.
But a fourth type of reason would be that there is a self which has no relationship whatsoever with the aggregates. They’re unrelated. And such a type of self cannot exist. It’s self which is completely unrelated from the aggregates cannot exist. So such a type of unrelated self, a self which is unrelated to the aggregates cannot exist.
If such a type of self existed, then whatever occurred to the aggregates would not occur to the self since they are completely unrelated. And therefore the aggregates could go through the process of birth, aging and death and the self would not suffer the same consequences. The self would be permanent, unchanging. That’s the fourth reason. The fifth reasoning is using an analogy that if a piece of wood were burning completely ablaze, such that the fire and the wood become the same entity, that the fire and the wood are completely integrated, they’re the same entity.
So, using this analogy of the fire and the wood burning, the burning wood become inextricably mixed. Likewise, can the self and the aggregates be mixed to the extent where they’re as if inextricably mixed. This really isn’t a suitable reason. This isn’t because all phenomena whatsoever have the quality of either being the same or different. For example, with respect to this table, whatsoever phenomena that we can set forth, it has to be either identical with the table or different than the table.
There’s nothing which is a mixture of the two. This being nothing which is the same as the table and different than the table. And likewise, with respect to the self and the aggregates, either they are the same or they are different. They cannot be a mixture of the two. Just as self and the aggregates are not somehow inextricably mixed like fire and burning wood.
So, if this self that we’re looking for, if it existed, it must exist in one of these five ways that we’ve covered through these five reasons in terms of the aggregates. If the self exists, it be either the same as the aggregates or if it’s not the same, it must be different than the aggregates and we’ve covered the possibilities of difference. As far as difference, it could be in terms of contained and container or it could be in terms of no relationship or it could be in terms of being mixed. And none of these are suitable. So therefore this self does not exist in any of these five ways.
Therefore it does not exist. Meditating on the selflessness of a person is not easy, is it? You have to think a lot. So, we have to go through various rigorous types of reason analysis and it’s not easy to do. We’re saying, well, if it exists, then it must be this.
If doesn’t exist, then it must be this. If this self exists in terms of the aggregates, then it must be not this. If the self existed, then it must be this, but that doesn’t work. It’s like if we set out to do some kind of work and we think, well how can I do this work? Well, first I’ll try this method and so we do this and that doesn’t work.
And then, I’ll try this other method and we do that and it doesn’t work. And then you try another method. Finally you say, well there’s no way. It can’t be done. So likewise with the self, try to understand how does it exist and we try to analyze.
If it exists this way, then that way of existing entails this and therefore it must be this, but that doesn’t work. And so that can’t be right. So we go on, if it exists this way, then this must be this, then it must be this, but that doesn’t work out. Until finally we realize the non existence of this type of self. So we proceed through numerous types of reasoned analysis, and the more types of reasoned analysis that we can make use of, the quicker we’ll be able to refute the object of negation, the object which is being refuted, and therefore the quicker that we’ll be able to realize emptiness.
Within the great vehicle, there are as many reasonings to come to realization as emptiness as there is space. Manners of reasoning are numberless. Each of them has their own power to help us generate this realization of emptiness. Understand this particular type of reasoning. It helps us understand from one specific viewpoint what we’re trying to get at as far as emptiness is concerned.
It has that power to help us facilitate us understanding that particular aspect. Another type of reason has the power to help us understand the aspect. We’re coming at from understanding emptiness from many different points of views. Each of these various types of reasoning is having their own potency, their own particular power to aid us until finally we quickly realize emptiness. So it’s just in, again, any type of goal that we set, some type of activity we’re trying to achieve.
If we have many avenues of approaching it, we’re going to be that much more successful because maybe one way won’t work for us at that particular time, and therefore we have to be able to make use of others’ standby methods to achieve the same end. If we do that, if we have these various types of alternative methods, then we can quickly arrive at our destination. So I have some questions. So, the self which is proceeding through this reason analysis is the nominally existent self, the self which exists in dependence upon the aggregate. Which can explain to show how does a consciousness which has directly realized emptiness relate to its nominal consciousness?
How does it relate to its nominal consciousness? Its nominal How does it relate to it? While it’s directly realizing emptiness, how does it relate to its nominal self? How does it relate to the nominal world? Does it relate to the world?
For a non Buddha or just a non Buddha or just a Buddha? Yeah, so you want to specify? You mean like, does he move around in the world or she move around the world? What he answered just so far was that even if a person is having direct realization, still have a relationship with their world because just as I sit on this cushion, I’m having a relationship with the cushion. Just because though you’re having directly realization of emptiness, aggregate form isn’t going anywhere.
It doesn’t become non existent. Can you give me something that isn’t either same or different? Give me a phenomena. Neither the same nor different. Give me an example.
Okay, give me an example. Okay, it to me again. Are Okay, earth, flour, water, and eggs. Those three, that’s your example. Or are you saying the cake?
No, maybe stick with your example first before we complicate it. Give me something which is neither the same nor different. The moon water flowing into the sea. There’s not or different. For example, if we take an example of the table, whatsoever phenomena must be either identical with the table or it must be different from the table.
There’s nothing which is neither identical nor different from the table nor not different from the table. The whole same holds true for the aggregates. If the aggregates exist, then whatsoever phenomena must be either identical with the phenomena with the aggregates, must be identical with the aggregates or they must be different from the aggregates. There’s nothing other there’s no phenomena which is not one of these two. The only thing which is identical to the table is the table.
Everything else is different than the table. So first he said when there’s no more dependent arising. Why you say that? Okay, so when the end of cyclic existence comes, yeah? And then one enlightened, but not in the physical body, there’s no more aggregate.
Why do you say there’s no more aggregate? There’s no reason for them. So you say the aggregates become non existent at the time of enlightenment? But one has the aggregates of a Buddha, so the aggregates don’t become, the Buddha does have aggregates. The Buddha is imputed and dependent upon her five aggregates, on her five.
Therefore the Buddha is not inherently existent. Five aggregates. So the Buddha has aggregate of forms, feelings, perceptions, thought constructions, and consciousnesses. It’s not a beautiful form. There’s no Buddha which does not possess, have an aggregate of form.
There’s no intermediate state for a Buddha, Bardo. Only for ordinary beings. Only ordinary beings have to go through the intermediate state.