Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The hand analogy — no single finger is the hand, yet the label functions undeniably on the composite — anchors Khensur Rinpoche’s central instruction in this 100-minute session on Śāntideva’s ninth chapter. After a brief opening meditation on loving-kindness and universal responsibility, he explains why ego-grasping is the root of all suffering and why only emptiness realization can sever it. He uses the hand example to show how persons exist merely as labels on the five aggregates, then introduces a threefold distinction: the “I” can appear as solidly self-existing (ignorance), as a bare neutral feeling (ordinary mind), or as merely labeled (post-realization) — and practice targets only the first. The session closes with guidance on pairing calm abiding with analytical meditation. Suited to practitioners already following this series.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 12 Ch9 Wisdom 1994 11 29.mp3
UUID: 4ba4508b-5a78-4ab4-8080-53413c5ce97e
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Śāntideva Ch9 Wisdom (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1994-11-29
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 100.0 minutes
Words: ~6,081
Firstly, we shall meditate for a few minutes on kind thought where we shall meditate on what is known as the precious mind of enlightenment. In our case, we out of being compassionate towards ourselves, we prepare in action so that we may not have any sufferings in the future. Similarly, by being loving to ourselves, we prepare and engage in actions so that we may have happiness in the future. If that’s the case with ourselves, then we can think in the same mind how all other beings equally do want happiness and all equally do not want suffering. So in that sense of situation, ourselves and all other beings equally do want happiness and equally do not want suffering.
Because of such reasons, it is therefore appropriate on our side to be compassionate towards all beings, and out of that compassion, thinking about removing the sufferings, the problems, the dissatisfactions of all other beings. Similarly, we need to be loving to all beings where we are thinking about bringing unchanging, excellent, the ultimate happiness to all beings. In brief, in our meditation here, to such a way of thinking, we shall briefly try to develop within ourselves loving kindness and compassion towards others. Well, therefore, on the thought considering others more dear than ourselves, we need to develop compassion and loving kindness towards others, towards all beings. Once we have developed these two thoughts, then the next is to develop the superior thinking or universal responsibility, which can be developed in our mind by thinking firstly how presently as a human, myself, when one thinks in terms of one’s self, one thinks as a human myself, I have all the capability to follow a meaningful and unmistaken spiritual path.
Therefore, as a human with such capability, I do have the capability to help others by following a meaningful spiritual practice and by that way making progress on the resourcefulness of one’s mind to help others. So through such a way of thinking about oneself, or one’s present rebirth as human with its capability, one then eventually will develop the determination that even if it comes to the point where I alone have to bear the responsibility to remove all others’ suffering and to bring happiness to all others, I’m prepared to take that responsibility. So such determination is then greatly admired as superior thinking or interpretively the universal responsibility. In conventional working or social things and responsibility, we can look at the example this way, where, say, if there is a child who got the right schooling and then later on makes it in life very successful, being successful in whatever job or work the child has been doing. And in that way, everything about the child’s livelihood and our facility and from the part of the child’s physical strength is so good.
Then on the other hand, let’s say, if the same child’s parents, due to circumstance and aging, not only physically, they can be feeble and weak, but materially, and in terms of earning their livelihood, they have become so destitute, then it is appropriate for the parents to expect that the child should look after the parents. This is in classical context of social working, where there is inherent affection for one another. So in such case, it is appropriate for parents to expect that the child should look after them and help them in all ways possible. Similarly, on the part of the child, it is the child’s responsibility to look after the parents and do all that is necessary. Let’s say if the child happens to neglect the parents, then we would say it is extremely mean from the part of the child.
And the post delivery part, laughter was the word used in Tibetan was boy, but it could be changed into son or daughter. That doesn’t have the specific gender, but in the translation already was adapted to child. So to such a way of thinking, eventually, when your state of mind thinking for the benefit of all aged mothers and siblings who are countless like the limitless extent of the space, I must, at any rate, overcome all my mental weaknesses and attain all perfection of the mind, so that way I must, at any rate, attain Buddhahood. And to attain Buddhahood, I will engage in the necessary learning, reflection and meditative familiarization of the path, especially here the evening’s topic of the study and practice, which is emptiness, one of the twofold principal aspects of training in the Mahāyāna or the Great Vehicle path towards enlightenment. Buddha Śākyamūni in his discourse called The King of Meditative Concentration explains whoever grasps onto the self as truly existent is a child or infantile, and one would be deceived by that way, whereas the nature of every phenomena is in the nature of suchness or that very reality.
In brief, in the discourse of King of Meditative Concentration, the Buddha explains the way how to meditate on emptiness, because that discourse very specifically goes into great extent about how to meditate on emptiness. What in meaning the advice in the following part explains is when one meditates on emptiness first, the referent upon which one meditates on emptiness should be ‘I’ or self or the person, and once one has meditated well on that, then one can shift upwards one’s meditation on emptiness upon other phenomena such as the aggregates, the personality component parts, and then just about any other phenomena. And if one does that, then it is effective, not only effective, it is a way by which one would know or realize emptiness better through a more skillful method. Or if it is asked for what purpose one needs to meditate on emptiness? Well, the purpose is this way where we as a mundane being without perfection of mind, have our own experiences of suffering.
Not only that, we don’t have things going our way when we want them going our way, and things don’t happen our way when we want them in our way. Not only that, the things we wish to have for ourselves, they don’t come, and things we don’t wish to have for ourselves, they come in abundance. In brief, in this way, as mundane being in the cycle of suffering in saṃsāra, everything thereabout is not going just right, not going right, not going right. Therefore in this way all are in the nature of unwantedness, a real object of disgust. If that’s so, then we need to be freed from such existence, and the very method by which we can be able to be free from all of them once and for all, from their very root, is the method of realization of emptiness, and that’s precisely the purpose for which we need to meditate on emptiness.
In the case of bodhisattvas, the greatly realized practitioners who dedicate their effort all for others, in their case, they meditate on emptiness by knowing that it is through realization of emptiness one can be able to overcome one’s own suffering as well the sufferings of all other beings. Of course, they do have the basic motive of the mind being in altruism cherishing others as more important than oneself. But with regards to the actual method, how the bodhisattvas go about removing others’ suffering is firstly by actualizing the realization of emptiness themselves through which the freedom from one’s own suffering and eventually the freedom of others from their suffering could be possible. So this point seems to be important for all of us to take a special note of. Why is it so that to remove one’s as well as others’, why is it so that in order to remove one’s suffering and suffering of all other beings, one needs to meditate on emptiness? Well, the reason is because all sufferings have their roots in the ignorance, which is ego grasping, grasping at the ego or self or personal identity as solidly existing there while it is not so, as their roots in ignorance, the ego grasping.
In order to uproot that very root of all sufferings, one needs to apply realization of emptiness, the understanding that the ego does not exist in that way, because that is the only method by which ignorance, the ego grasping can be terminated once and for all. So that then fits very well the reason why then one needs to meditate on emptiness. Oh, well then, how are we to go about terminating the ignorance, the ego grasping mind. On that point, the great teacher Dharmakīrti says, without expelling its object, it cannot be forsaken. What that means is the object of ignorance, the ego grasping is the apparently or supposedly existing, supposedly truly existing ego or ‘I’ or person.
That is the object at which the ego grasping, the ignorance mind grasps at, so that it is the object. Now in order to remove the ego grasping which grasps at that very object, firstly one needs to expel that object. Here, expelling that object therefore then means to understand that the ego or self which one mistakenly grasped as truly existent actually does not exist, so it does not exist by its own characteristic, it does not exist inherently. So that is how its expulsion has to be. And here, the meaning of that advice then says, no matter whatever other types of wholesome mind or wholesome thought one develops, if one is not able to expel that object, the attribute about that self or ego, then it is not possible at all to get rid of ignorance, ego grasping.
So the mind by which one can be able to expel the inherent existence about the ego is only the realization of emptiness. And in that way, it is thus explained unless one has that realization which we understand the ego has not inherently existent, one would not be able to overcome the ignorance, the ego grasping. In that way, Buddha Śākyamūni, in our citation last Tuesday evening, says in the discourse of the same name, King of Meditative Concentration says, not by any other means. That means that part means any other means apart from realization of emptiness would not bring about liberation from the cycle, liberation from suffering. Liberation from cycle or suffering is of same meaning with peace, because that state of liberation, free of suffering itself, is peace.
So in other words, then it can be understood that the Buddha here advises one will not be able to attain eternal peace unless one has overcome ignorance, which is possible only through realization of emptiness. Similarly, great teachers on emptiness understanding, such as Nāgārjuna, Śāntideva, Jetsün Tsongkhapa, and all other who explain emptiness unanimously of same emphasis explain that is the point, meaning realization of emptiness is the only way out from suffering. Also, through such way of relating about importance of realizing emptiness, then one needs to develop the awareness that I must make effort towards realizing emptiness and in an attempt towards realizing emptiness, one may then listen to the teachings, read books and study the scriptures and books and discuss amongst one’s companion practitioners, and based on those preliminary parts, one then may need to do the actual practice of meditating on emptiness. Because there aren’t that many sessions of Tuesday evening teachings on emptiness left, meaning before Rinpoche leaves. Therefore, it seems necessary here towards the conclusion to briefly go through the purpose and the need to realize emptiness and then how to meditate on emptiness itself.
So please keep well in your mind. Also to meditate on emptiness firstly all phenomena can be classified into two: a person and phenomena, phenomena being anything apart from a person. And one first needs to meditate on emptiness of a person or of ego. But let’s before going into that, let’s first briefly say about what has been covered so far. Well, last Tuesday evening, and there was preceded immediately before that, we have looked into how to establish emptiness of phenomena by way of applying the reasoning of dependent arising.
So in that way emptiness about phenomena roughly has been covered in our study by applying the reasoning of dependent arising. And here this evening we shall start from the way of meditating on emptiness by firstly taking the person as the topic of emptiness in accordance with the advice by Buddha Śākyamūni, where impliedly it explains that the realization of the emptiness about a person is easier to realize compared with the realization of emptiness upon phenomena. So therefore we shall first look into how to meditate on the emptiness of person. In the selflessness of the person which is another way of saying the emptiness of person, in that meditation, firstly, it is extremely important to identify well what a person is, because based on that identification then one can do the actual meditation whether that person is actually existing or not or whether its nature is of emptiness or not. So the emptiness about the person, the meditation on the emptiness about the person will go well if one firstly has identified well what person is, so in that way let’s first identify what person is.
So what person is, is firstly there are five aggregates: form, feeling, recognition, activity and consciousness or in other words, body, feeling, recognizing part of mind, activity and the whole mind or consciousness. Now, person is merely labeled ‘I’ upon the composite or upon the five aggregates. So in that way, based on the five aggregates, the label given as ‘I’ is what a person actually is nominally speaking. Although all Buddhist tenets unanimously agree that person is the label or labeled as ‘I’ or ego given upon the basis of five aggregates or in other words, they do equally agree that person is labeled ‘I’ with dependence on the five aggregates. Yet when it comes to what actually that ego or person or ‘I’ is, then each of the various Buddhist tenets explain differently.
The lower tenets, they go as far as saying that the five aggregates are the person, and some they say the mere composite of the five aggregates is the person. Some say it is a type of mind called omnibasis, which is the person, and some say it is the mental consciousness, which is the person. Here we have to define or identify a person in accordance with the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, which is the highest Buddhist tenet, because our Tuesday evening reference teaching is in accordance with that tenet. The ninth chapter is in accordance with that tenet’s understanding. So what that tenet, the highest Buddhist tenet explains is firstly it says that the person is not any of those which is asserted by the other lower Buddhist tenets.
It explains the person is not the five aggregates, it is not the mere composite of the five aggregates, it is not the omnibasis mind, it is not mental consciousness as well, it is not the continuity of the five aggregates either. Then how the highest Buddhist tenet, the Prāsaṇgika, explains a person is. Before going into that let’s first make it clear that person is no different to ‘I’ or in English you might say ego so ego or ‘I’ whichever. So ‘I’ and ego or person mean same, they are of same meaning. So then let’s look at how ego, ‘I’ or person is defined by the highest Buddhist tenet.
It explains that firstly we do get this feeling or notion ‘I’ whenever we think of ourselves. So there is a feeling of ‘I’, and this is more vivid when we think, say, in the form of I am going, I am sitting, I am talking, I am eating, so forth. So there is that notion or feeling or concept of ‘I’. So that very basis, that very base which is ‘I’ that is explained to be the person by highest Buddhist tenet. For example, when we think of nose, then that very thought or notion thinking nose that arises on the basis of nose and that thought or notion does not arise on the basis of something non-nose, something that is not nose.
Similarly, hand, when we get the notion of hand, that thought or notion arises on the basis of hand and that notion does not arise on the basis of anything that is not hand. Similarly head, that also arises on the basis of head. So the head is the basis of that notion of head in that way. So like that ‘I’ which is the person, what is person or ‘I’? Well that very basis with dependence upon which there arises the notion ‘I’, ‘identity’, ‘me’.
So that is here the Prāsaṇgika explains ‘I’ should be recognized, or in other words should be identified as the person, that very base upon which there arises the thought ‘I’ that is the person. Śāntideva says what is to be realized and what realizes are relative. Similarly, explanations are in accordance with what is renowned in the mundane, meaning what is renowned conventionally. So what that part in meaning says is the Prāsaṇgika, the highest Buddhist tenets’ perspective and its explanation when it comes to conventional phenomena, is very much in parallel hand to hand, or in accordance with the way in mundane conventionality things are known or accepted and known. In that way, there is explanation in terms of conventional explanation of things is very acceptable and in accordance with the worldly conventions, whereas we don’t find the same in the case of other Buddhist tenets. For example, those who assert partless particle which is at that time far beyond the concept of normal or the convention of conventional view.
It was quite dramatic at that point. Similarly, mind only Tenet’s theory of explaining things being of mind and the imprint split is quite very remote to ordinary conventional way of thinking. Therefore in accordance with such perspective to say that aggregates are the person, the composite of aggregates are the person, mental consciousness is the person, omnibasis is the person, are not only refutable when applying reasoning, they don’t withstand the test of reasoning, but also in way of conventional relating of a mundane mind, how things relate in one’s experience, they don’t match that well. So we can relate that they even contradict with conventional experience of our mind how it thinks and relates with things. For example, in the case of ‘I’ or ego, the person, there is a notion of ‘I’ on the basis of ‘I’, on that very basis of ‘I’, the ego, then there is that concept.
But when it comes to aggregates, which is under the, in this case can be understood as body, and when it comes to hand and so forth, the notion arises differently, where it is to literally relate to how when one thinks of the aggregates, one’s body, one thinks body of ‘I’, or in other words, my body. And in case of hand, one gets a notion, hand of ‘I’, my hand. So similarly, my mind. So in these cases, the very fact that there is a separation of the mental thinking, which can be understood in terms of language, indicates that the body or the hand and all so forth cannot be one, cannot be ‘I’ or the person because otherwise there’s no point to have that separation to think body of ‘I’ or my body or my hand, my mind. Instead, there should be I-body, I-hand, I-mind.
They cannot be off in between, body of ‘I’ and so forth. Whereas in the case of ‘I’ or ego, the notion arises ‘I’. There’s no separation. So that itself indicates that the body or the aggregates and their hands and so forth cannot be the person or the ego by the very same meaning that they are, seeing the feeling of mind and relation of mind’s experience towards them is something not one with that. It is seen to be separate.
So that is the reason. When this is seen in terms of Tibetan linguistic analysis, the very fact the phrase is ‘aggregate of I’ or ‘of I’ indicates that the two are separate things, where one is one which has the attribute and one is the attribute. So there is a link of the two joined by the word of or relative word. And in that way, the two are quite clearly separate and not one. Similarly, when one uses the phrase my shape or shape of eye in Tibetan, and similarly, my color, whatever white color and so forth, then the phrase is color of eye or say color eye white.
So in that way, there is a link where the two are joined with a locational separation instead of being one. So in other words, in other languages, the very fact one has to say my aggregate, my shape, my color. That itself indicates there is a separation. Otherwise, it should be eye-shape, eye-color, and so forth. A notion of ‘I’ which is spontaneously there and this spontaneity of the notion thinking ‘I’ could be responsible or could be attributable to having been habituated with the notion for many lifetimes and for such a long duration, and therefore, then there is this notion of ‘I’.
Now, the very basis upon which that notion arise, that very basis is to be called the ‘I’ equal or person. And to identify what a person is, it simply would then mean that very basis on which the notion ‘I’ arises is the person. Also, such a person is labeled with dependence on the aggregates, and by that way, there is not any person that is there without being labeled on the aggregates. It is fact because on the basis of the five aggregates form, feeling, recognition, activity and consciousness, the ‘I’ or the person is merely labeled upon them. So there isn’t any independently existing ‘I’ or person which is not labeled on the aggregates.
For example, this part of the body is called hand, but this is not hand, meaning the thumb. The index finger is not hand, middle finger is not hand, the ring finger is not hand, the back part of the hand is not the hand, the BAM is not the hand, the flesh bone and the skin is not the hand. As well, the four elements, earth, water, air, and fire potencies, are as well not hand. Yet yet on the composite of these components and based on their congregation when the label hand is given and that is hand. So hand is merely labeled on the basis of these basis of label, the skin, fingers, bones, and so forth.
So apart from these basis of label, there is not any hand to be found. And yet, the hand does exist upon being labeled on these components, the basis of label, and undeniably thus the function. So that part indicating it is undeniably there functioning its job. If each of the component parts are hands, then there’s no need for the composite to be called hand. Each of them can be called hand.
And in that case, that part should not be called finger. It should be called hand. Use of other fingers that need to be called finger, they may as well be called as hand. Therefore, like in the case of person, the ego, and like in the case of hand, all phenomena in accordance with the highest Buddhist tenet, Prāsaṇgika, it is explained all phenomena exist in the manner of merely labeled on the basis of the basis of label. That any phenomena, whatever they be, that they exist merely as merely labeled upon the basis of their label.
By that very fact, it also indicates that there cannot be any phenomena which is labeled independently or apart from the basis of label. There cannot be any labeled phenomena which has not a basis of label. Due to this very perspective, therefore, all phenomena are explained to be labeled existent or imputedly existent. By this it means whereas in the case of the lower Buddhist tenets, they classify all phenomena to be of roughly, from one perspective, of two types: substantially existent and imputedly existent, that they do say there are phenomena which exist in solid matter or substance. Whereas here, the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka says if it is existent phenomena, it necessarily is a labeled and imputed phenomena.
With dependence on the aggregates, when there arises to our thought the notion of ‘I’, that notion can arise in three different ways. So in that way, we can say the way the notion of ‘I’ appears to our thought, in this case mind, same meaning. So the way the notion of ‘I’ appears to our mind can be of three different types. Also, out of three ways how the notion of ‘I’ appears to one’s mind, the one way of appearing is the ‘I’ appears as if it exists without being dependent on name and label given upon it on the basis of aggregates. So it is precisely a manner of ‘I’ which seemed to exist from its own side, which seemed to be formed and existing from its own side independently without being dependent on name and label.
So that also would include that it seemed to exist without being dependent on aggregates and the name and label given upon it. So in essence it is a way of appearing where the ‘I’ or the ego seem to be there existing solidly in dependence upon its own. So that is one way how the ‘I’ appears. And then the second or another way of the ‘I’ appearing to mind is where the ‘I’ simply arises as ‘I’, just plainly as it is. This means it does not appear or arise to one’s mind as if it is existing from its own side without depending on name and label.
Instead it is merely a notion or feeling of ‘I’. And this would then be the way how innate, just innate or inborn in a sense. It is there, as it were, being habituated from past, it is there from birth. Therefore innate, inborn. Together, the word actually is simultaneously born, the word is.
So, simultaneously born notion of ‘I’, so innate. So, that is one way how ‘I’ appears, just mainly as ‘I’ without any philosophical hang ups or notions about its existence and so forth. And then one way of how it appears is where it appears as merely labeled upon the aggregates by name and label, and it does not exist from its side. So that is one way of appearing that the ‘I’ appears as merely labeled entity, labeled by name and label on the basis of aggregates, and the ‘I’ does not appear to one’s mind or thought as if existing from its own side. The third way of appearing of the ‘I’ where the ‘I’ appears as merely labeled by name and label on the basis of aggregate is the way how it appears to someone who has realized emptiness, because how it happens is although to one’s mind or thought the ‘I’ appears as merely labeled, yet nominally one views the ‘I’ or the person as functioning undeniably, that it is the one which engages in wholesome and unwholesome actions, and it is the one which reaps the experiences or consequences of those actions.
So there is undeniable functioning of the ‘I’ or ego while it appears as merely labeled entity. How that is so is because someone who has realized emptiness, then subsequent to realization of emptiness one is able to present in one’s thinking and perspective choicefully in the sense within one’s awareness that having realized emptiness, subsequent to that, one is able to view that the ‘I’ nominally functions in its working and so forth. And this comes about after having realized the emptiness of the person or ‘I’. So in that way, to use strictly scriptural language, it would mean it is the way of presenting conventional truth phenomena by someone who has realized emptiness in that way. Also, this is the way how the person who has realized emptiness is able to have the notion of ‘I’ appearing that way.
That is the third one. And secondly, where the ‘I’ appears merely as just as it is, just the notion of ‘I’. That is just a general person’s way of feeling ‘I’ or the notion of the ‘I’ appearing to its mind. And those two are the mind which are corresponding to fact because how the ‘I’ appears to these minds actually, that is how it functions and also that is how it is to be found there nominally. The first way of appearing ‘I’ is the way how ‘I’ appears by way of ignorance. So we can then return or reverse backwards saying that is the way how due to ignorance the ‘I’ appears.
Such thought is the ignorance and it is mistaken and it is the root of all our sufferings. So in our meditation on emptiness, we need to think well and try to get a perspective about these three ways how ‘I’ appears to our mind and try to identify the three possible ways the ‘I’ or ego appears. As regards the three, the third one is the way ‘I’ or ego appears to someone who has realized emptiness and the other two are the way ‘I’ appears even to someone who has not realized emptiness. Therefore in meditation on emptiness one first needs to identify the first two ways, in this case first two in the sense, in the list. So one needs to identify the first two ways the ‘I’ appears to the mind.
And between the two, the second which is mere ‘I’ appearing, that need not be stopped. One need not refute or cancel that in one’s analysis. Instead, one needs to concentrate one’s reflection and meditation on the way how the ‘I’ appears by way of the first manner, which is how ‘I’ appears due to ignorance and to the ignorant mind as if it exists from its own side. And then having identified well, then one needs to check well how one’s mind grasps onto the notion of that ‘I’ and the manner how one’s mind, in this case, ignorance, how ignorance grasps at that ‘I’. So once having identified that, then one needs to go through other trainings necessary to realize emptiness, such as in accordance with Śāntideva’s teaching, wherein one part of the writings of the teaching says, impure thoughts are very well terminated by special insight completely with the force of calm abiding.
So in accordance with such advice, one firstly needs to have practice of morality as the basis for calmed abiding. Calmed abiding for new people simply means the single pointed meditation of mind where one gains concentration of the mind. So based on morality one then needs to attain calm abiding and then one applies that calm abiding with one’s understanding and realization of no self of person or selflessness or emptiness about person. The part why calm abiding is necessary is because when one has the calm abiding or mind having calmed down, having calmed of all distractions and failings and abiding on its object, therefore calm abiding, then it is like where the strength of mind, of its concentration, can be placed on any given object for any length of time without any movement and distraction and so forth. It is as if like on the table the cup is placed so firmly the cup remains there unless the table is shaken, then the cup starts to move.
Unless there is a shake, the cup remains there. So like that, when one’s mind achieves calm abiding, then with that calm abiding or single pointed power of mind, one then remains focused on meditation here on the no self of ‘I’, or lack of concrete self or identity of ‘I’. And through that way one would be able to do very effective and strong meditation on the selflessness of a person. Another example of the calm abiding remaining single pointedly focused on its given object of meditation is like a peg which is put onto one location. It remains there unmoving if it’s placed very well.
So one remains one’s mind focused on the ‘I’ which one has identified earlier. So in that way, while remaining mind focused on it, with another portion of one’s mind, one needs to do the analysis. How much of one’s other portion needs to do the analysis? Well, let’s say if the mind is the five fingers, then the main portion of mind, remains on the object of concentration, the ‘I’, then it is the four other fingers which remains concentrated, and the fifth finger which is just a portion compared to other is the one which does the analysis. And what it analyses is, it analyses whether how that mind which views the ‘I’ grasps onto the ‘I’.
And one needs to check how and in what manner it grasps at the ‘I’ and to find out whether that way of grasping is to be found upon the object being viewed at or not. So in that way it needs to be checked in that way. Again to emphasize, it is a very fine portion of one’s mind which is doing the analysis while the remaining part of the mind remains focused. So in terms of going back with the previous two ways the notion of ‘I’ appears, then at this point one needs to identify whether the way the mind grasps at the ‘I’ is, is it that it grasps the ‘I’ as merely appearing or as if the ‘I’ existing from its own characteristic without being dependent on name and label. If it is the first part, the ‘I’ merely appearing, then one doesn’t need to be concerned about that.
Instead, if it is the ‘I’ which seems to exist from its own side, then that is what one has to very well identify and has to know very well. And that exactly is what at this point then becomes the identification of object of negation or identification of that which is to be proven as not existing there. Okay. So we shall stop here, and any questions, we’ll leave a few minutes for that. There wouldn’t be that much difference.
It’s fine whichever way it turns out to be. But in some cases, our dreams can be deliberately accomplished. An expression normally meaning one can make dreams happen and use them for certain revelation or forecast and so forth, in which case one first needs to go into certain practices and then when the dreams happen they would have valid meaning and they can be of meaning. Otherwise, just dreaming or non dreaming hasn’t got much meaning. It has its own practices, meaning it’s altogether different field.
It will have to be explained separately perhaps it might not be a good idea to have it in open public teaching. Yes, so the question was, what are the practices through which dreams can be accomplished? Yes. It seems to me that if there is no need to go through all that process of apparently complicated procedure, emptiness realization would be an easy matter. Then everybody would have realized, and saṃsāra would be by now empty without any residents.
It would help even on the spot to think the ‘I’ is merely labeled, but more precisely speaking, just thinking ‘I’ is merely labeled may not be that helpful. Instead, it would be far more effective and helpful to think ‘I’ is merely labeled, therefore it is not inherently existing, it is not truly existing. If one thinks that way, no matter whether the other person says you are horrible, and that’s for example according to question, it should help. It would make difference. To think that the other person’s words of remark are not truly existent would be helpful.
To think what they are saying is not truly existent. The very fact you are thinking is very good. Now you need to intensify it. Our ‘I’ is to be