Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The shock of being called a thief over the telephone — that sudden, puffed-up sense of a solid, independent “I” — is the example Khensur Rinpoche uses in this 99-minute session to pinpoint exactly what emptiness analysis must target. Continuing a series on Śāntideva’s ninth chapter, Rinpoche explains why ordinary practitioners should tackle emptiness of the person before emptiness of the aggregates, then walks step by step through the four key points of the “one-and-many” reasoning: identifying the object of negation, establishing that the ‘I’ must exist either as one with the aggregates or as separate, and then showing both options produce absurdities that cannot withstand scrutiny. A story of a fifteenth-century disciple of Tsongkhapa clutching his sleeve in fright the moment he realized emptiness illustrates what genuine arrival at this understanding feels like. For practitioners already engaged with emptiness analysis.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 13 Ch9 Wisdom 1994 12 06.mp3
UUID: 335681a2-6ddf-4a39-8876-d74560f180ef
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Śāntideva Ch9 Wisdom (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1994-12-06
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 99.2 minutes
Words: ~6,525
We shall start with few minutes meditation on kind thought where we shall meditate on precious mind of enlightenment. Amongst many beings in the universe, we, in our case, born as a human. We are quite distinct that compared with many other species of beings, we have certain features which presently makes us beings who have special capabilities. The capabilities we have are such as having good wisdom or good mental clarity through which whatever we attempt to learn and realize we are quite very good at going towards that direction. And then in our own state of the mind’s wishes, we have this spontaneous wish with our mind where we do not want to be with sufferings and the unwanted consequences of unwholesome actions we do. We as well have this spontaneous wish where we do want to be with happiness and the wholesome consequences or the results of the meaningful actions we do.
Although we may wish things we wish to have to be with, but we are not able to. Yet, from another perspective, because as humans we do have the good wisdom, we are able to know that something which we wish to have for ourselves, it has to come from a cause because it is a result, and the causes have to be excellent causes, and one needs to work towards accomplishing those causes to which there is certain the things which one wished to have, one can actually have. From that perspective, yes, as humans, we have the distinct capability of mind to realize from where things we wish to have come from and to work towards having those. But also, on the other hand, merely wishing the things we do not want to experience not to happen is not good enough, that is not effective, to not let things we don’t wish to have not happen, because unwanted experiences, the things which we do not wish to happen to us, themselves are results of certain doings. So they are results and they are results of certain doings.
In that way, they are produced by causes. So if we are able to stop the very causes, the causes of those unwanted experiences and things we don’t want to happen to ourselves, then we would be able to stop the actual unwanted experiences themselves. Therefore, we have the good wisdom by which we are able to know that wanted or wishes can be accomplished by way of actually engaging in accomplishing the sources of those wanted wishes. Similarly, we have that good wisdom by which we can understand the unwanted wishes or the unwanted experiences, they can be stopped if we stop the causes by which those are produced. So we have that has effect in our capability as human the insight to see that the causes do produce those.
And in that way, if we do realize or are able to understand that, then it becomes necessary that we as well need to engage in accomplishing the causes which produce the happiness, the wanted wishes, and not to engage in the avenues which are the causes of bringing the unwanted wishes. So that part becomes necessary. Put in summary, we then have the realization. If we have that, then it is necessary that we do something about it. So then how are we to go about doing the necessary accomplishment of the causes producing wanted wishes and to stop the causes of unwanted wishes.
Well, the actual way how that is done can be through any of the two supposedly possible ways. That is one from our physical effort and the other from our mental effort. Between the two, mainly it is with our mind that we need to do a twofold practice. Also, it will come down to actually applying our mind in practicing those two directions. The mind itself can be of two states, the wholesome state of mind and unwholesome state of mind.
If one by being motivated by unwholesome state of mind, then that would lead one to engage in unwholesome actions physically and verbally by way of speech. And out of that comes the detrimental consequences, the sufferings one experiences later on. By the same way, if motivated by the wholesome state of mind when one engages into the wholesome actions through body physically and verbally through speech, one reaps the consequences which are good, the consequences being happiness. So, in that way of tracking down the sources of our happiness and suffering, we can then quite comfortably say that it all comes down at the roots, the two states of mind. The method by which one is able to develop the wholesome state of mind and the method by which one is able to stop the unwholesome state of mind is what in the original Sanskrit language is called Dharma and in Tibetan it is called chö, the transformative complete unmistaken instructions and guidelines.
Between the two parts of the state of mind, wholesome and unwholesome, if we have to look at the wholesome state of mind, we can classify it being of certain degrees roughly as small, medium or highly developed, the great wholesome state of mind. In this way, there can be varying levels of the wholesome mind itself. And amongst the various levels of wholesome mind, the best, the supreme type of wholesome mind is the mind or the state of the mind called the precious mind of enlightenment, aspiring enlightenment to benefit others. Well then, how is that state of the precious state of mind called the precious mind of enlightenment developed and what it is. Well, it starts that state of mind starts with training where one thinks others more important than oneself.
In that way, one cherishes others more than oneself. And out of such basic altruism, there comes out this strong wish or thinking not only oneself but all suffering beings to be free of suffering and the causes of suffering. And this then is followed by the training of mind thinking, not only myself, but all suffering beings be with happiness and the causes of happiness. Such twofold preceding training of mind towards altruism I call the compassion and loving kindness. When one has developed compassion and loving kindness, one in the course of training just does not limit one’s training to mere compassion and loving kindness.
Instead, one develops one’s altruism further to higher level thinking, I alone am prepared to take upon myself alone the responsibility to actually remove the sufferings of all beings and to bring happiness to them. When a practitioner by that way of thinking has developed such thinking, then that thought is called exalted thinking or superior thinking or interpretively the universal responsibility. And the very fact it is called superior thinking has the connotation that the thought has become superior as compared to mere compassion and mere loving kindness. Well, so far in the course of one’s training, one has developed up to the level of thinking alone and prepared to take the responsibility to remove all others’ suffering and to bring them happiness. But if one scrutinizes oneself, whether or not one has the resourcefulness and the capability to actually accomplish that, one would find that presently, as ordinary being or common being, one does not really have that capability.
Instead, if one thinks well, one would realize it is possible only if one has overcome all one’s mental shortcomings, got rid of all impure thoughts and has perfected in actualizing all excellent qualities of mind, then that is possible. That state where the two are accomplished is called enlightenment, Buddhahood. So out of such realization, one then needs to develop the aspiration or thinking and therefore must actualize or attain that state of enlightenment. Also, one here needs to have the special motive thinking in order therefore to remove all unwholesome state of mind and to actualize all wholesome state of mind, I will take interest here in learning about the emptiness topic within the great vehicle or Mahāyāna path. And whatever I will learn, I’m determined following that to reflect or contemplate on the meanings of what I’ve learned through that way, ascertain decisively whether there are the directions to be followed or not.
Once having ascertained, I will then, up to best of my ability, meditatively train or familiarize towards that direction. So please, at this stage, try to develop that type of altruistic motive in engaging in the discourses here. The best method by which one can overcome all unwholesome state of mind and one can accomplish all wholesome state of mind are the method of training on bodhicitta, the precious mind of enlightenment, as well as the method of training on the wisdom realizing emptiness, so those two methods. Śāntideva says, without coming in contact with the object of analysis, one would not be able to realize its objectlessness. So, in this way, here in this particular part of the teaching, the reference is with regards to that which is to be proven not there, the so called object of refutation.
Also in the few recent Tuesday evenings, the discourse touched upon the meditation on lack of true identity from the part of person, what is called selflessness of the person. So this evening, we shall continue on that topic. The sublime instructions on emptiness explain that for ordinary practitioner between the two types of emptiness realization, the realization of emptiness upon person and that of phenomena, it is easier firstly to realize the emptiness upon a person. Now, this needs clarification because, of course, as regards emptiness and that which is to be proven as not there, the object of negation, there is no difference at all between that which is to be negated upon the person and that which is to be negated upon phenomena. But with regards to the way how ordinary beings project onto these two references, and by that way, the way how ordinary beings come to realize the mistaken ways of those projections, there is a difference that it is easier to realize that in terms of person as compared in terms of phenomena.
This point is very clearly made by great teachers such as Jetsün Tsongkhapa. That is how that point is so is because earlier we have looked at what is meant by phenomenon or phenomena in this context and what is meant by a person. Then we already are quite clear that phenomena refers to the aggregates, the personality parts, and by person it refers to the ‘I’ which is merely labeled upon the aggregates. So, these two are the references upon which we are to establish the emptiness of their inherent existence. So, it is explained, compared to the emptiness upon the aggregate, it is much easier for ordinary practitioner to first realize the emptiness of the ‘I’ which is the person and which is just labeled upon the aggregates.
The reason why there is difference of one being easier to realize as being emptiness nature and the other difficult is because of this fact and the coming explanation. And the fact is that the aggregates are the phenomena. Now, aggregates to an ordinary person appear as if they exist from their own characteristics, yet in actual fact, the aggregates or the personality parts, in actual fact do not exist from their own characteristics. In that way, what they appear is not how they exist. Similarly, the case of ‘I’, which is the person, that applies the same, what the ‘I’ appears to ordinary person is not actually the way it really exists because ‘I’ appears to ordinary person as if it exists from its own characteristic, meaning it exists solidly from its side.
But that is not how it exists. So, if that’s the case, then in the case of ordinary person, it is easier to realize that the ‘I’ is not existing as it appears compared to coming to realize that the aggregates or the personality parts do not exist as they appear. So that precisely would have to be the reason behind. For example, say the reflection of face in the mirror, in that case it is so much easier to straight away realize that although the face appears in the mirror, it is not a face. So, it is emptiness of face.
It is so easy to realize that fact that we can see even the simple folks of the mundane society who are not trained in the understanding of reality and so forth. They as well would be able to understand or realize that that is not the face, although it appears so. Not only it is that way that it is realized not as it appears, meaning the face reflected in the mirror, but even logically with simple reasoning one would understand. The very appearance of the face in the mirror depends on many factors and causes such as it is due to the contact or the gathering of the face and the mirror and the actual act of facing towards the mirror, that the reflection appears there. In that way, although the face in the mirror seems to appear solidly there on its own, it does not do so because its very existence and appearance does depend on all those factors. So in that way, that would be a support or way of thinking of its non existence contrary to its appearance.
Now, like an example, in the case of ‘I’ which is based on the aggregates and in that way the person and its state of existence is something which appears with dependence on the aggregates. That the very appearance of ‘I’, ego, the identity, if it is to arise in its valid way or meaning nominally valid, so if it is to appear in its valid way nominally, then it does have to appear with dependence on aggregates and so forth. So if one has that understanding that the manner the person or the ‘I’ or the identity appears is the way of appearing with dependence on aggregates, then that necessarily brings about the understanding that the ‘I’ cannot and does not appear without depending on aggregate. So in that way it is easier to realize that the ‘I’ does not exist on its own. Instead the way it exists and for it to appear it is in the manner of depending on the aggregate.
So when related with the perspective what it appears is not how it exists. We can say the manner the ‘I’ appears as if independent of aggregate is not how it exists. It is easier to realize compared to that of aggregates. Also the very fact that there is the difference in the way to realize, easier and more difficult, the manner how the person and aggregates appear and the manner how they don’t exist compared to their appearance is the reason behind for the earlier statement by those teachers saying that it is easier to realize the emptiness upon the person as compared to one upon the aggregate, the phenomena. So it is necessary to realize the perspective of what it appears is not how and what it exists as.
And through that way, to come to the realization of the emptiness of the no self or lack of identity from the parts of the reference of analysis. For example, when put into the context meaning, the aggregates are the basis upon which the ‘I’ or the person is labeled. Now the manner in the aggregates in mistaken consciousness perspective appears as if it appears from its side. The word used is as if it appears from its own characteristic. But in actual fact that is not how it exists.
And to realize that that is so, in actual fact, is the realization of the selflessness of phenomena or understanding that phenomena do not exist with concrete self identity. Similarly, the manner the ‘I’ which is the labeled attribute upon the aggregate, the way it exists is as if it exists from its own side, as if it exists by its own characteristics. But in actual fact that is not the way how it exists. If one realizes that, then that in meaning is the realization of the selflessness of a person. So let’s look in the case of the aggregates or the personality parts.
In their case, the way they appear is not how they really exist. And to come to understand that, there are many effective reasonings presented in the instructions throughout. But it is recommended that amongst various reasonings to establish, say, the aggregates or personality parts do not exist as they appear. It is recommended that the reasoning of lack of one and separate identity is considered one of the best reasonings for beginners in the sense of a person on the initial stage of the path. It’s one of the best for the beginners to come to understand that point.
Also in this way it might be interesting to look into that reasoning. When one is applying the reasoning of being devoid of one and many, one and many is literal — devoid of one and separate entity, it is explained that reasoning is applied by fourfold understanding called applying the four important points, of which the first important point is the important point of ascertaining that which is to be negated. The second important point is to ascertain the entailment, the logical text used as the entailment or pervasion that equally covers so it will become clearer. And third important point is to ascertain the lack of true existence as one entity.
And the last or the fourth important point is to ascertain the lack of true existence as separate or many entities. It is explained to apply these four important points complete in one’s reasoning is extremely helpful and in that way a perfect recommendation or recommended instruction. Amongst the four important points, the first is the important point of ascertaining that which is to be negated or in other words that which is to be proven as not existing there. Now with regards to that, firstly, why it needs to be ascertained, why it needs to firmly convince in one’s understanding is because obviously in the course of one’s learning and practice one would hear phenomena are things, are emptiness of existence from their own characteristics, that one would hear that person does not exist from its own characteristic. But that is mere falling of words as sound and in that way mere falling of the concept of the lack of existence from their own characteristic.
Now in one’s practice one really needs to, in one’s realization, in one’s experience, come to ascertain that the existence from their own characteristic is not to be found. So in that way one needs to experientially come to realize that which is to be negated is so. Now how one needs to realize through experiences, say, example, here, especially in the West, people use telephone so many times. The telephone in the house rings and rings, makes the ringing tone. So when such happens, let’s look at an instance of one telephone call where the phone rings and then one has to say hello from this side and on the other hand the respondent says hello.
So is it true that that’s what happens? Now say when there’s a phone call and one responds and then each of the two sides checks whether the right person is on the other side of the line and the introductory bit all happens. Now in one incident, if it happens where the other person confirms who the other person is talking to, meaning if you are on this end, then if the other person confirms that they got the right person talking to, then following that, if that person says, You are a thief, then instantly at that time you get a shock. I’m being accused as a thief. And then you just look up in dramatic animation in the air with glaring eyes.
Something like that. See, how can I be the thief? So that happens. So at that point, one then thinks, oh, I’m being accused. I haven’t done anything.
So there is immense build up of resistance, retaliatory strategy from one’s thinking and there’s a whole puffing up of some resentment, irritation, anger, so forth. So that’s what happens. So then at that time there comes about the experience, the puffed up feeling in one’s mind thinking, I am being blamed, I am being accused. So there is an intense feeling of ‘I’ and with relation to it being blamed and so forth. The nature of such feeling, experience, notion about ‘I’ at that time is not something where one thinks ‘I’ is being blamed on the basis of one’s mind, meaning one does not relate ‘I’ at that moment as one’s mind and it being blamed.
Also, the moment experience of that moment is not where the blame of ‘I’ is being perceived as if it is one’s body or the aggregate. Instead, at that moment, on the mere congregation of the mind and the body, there is the notion ‘I’ and ‘I’ being blamed. So that very moment, the experience, the notion, the feeling of the ‘I’ and it being blamed and ‘I’ is what in scriptural language is called very solid, solid. So it is very solid because it is an experience of the ‘I’ or the notion of oneself as if it exists independently without depending on anything at all. So in that way there does arise at that moment such a feeling of ‘I’, that is the notion at that time.
Also, it is not the notion or feeling of ‘I’ which is in the case of I’m sitting, I’m staying, I’m going and so forth. Instead it is far more intense beyond that ordinary notion of ‘I’ where the notion or feeling about ‘I’ is as if it exists without depending on anything at all, as if it is completely self sufficient. So that very is the ‘I’ which here one has to disprove as not there. Therefore, it is the one which is to be negated. It is what is called that which is to be refuted, to be proven not there.
Such a notion of ‘I’, which is to be proven not there, arises on the occasions of immense fluctuation of happiness and suffering. It is not regularly there when things are just not abnormally high or low. So not when things are not so happy and things are not so full of suffering. Instead, when one is so happy or when one is so sad or things are full of suffering, then the notion of that ‘I’ happens. And similarly, when things of immense fluctuation in good and bad happen to oneself, then that is when it arises.
Also, whenever during such occasions of immense fluctuation of happiness and sadness or suffering when such an ‘I’ arises then one needs to do the analysis whether such manner of ‘I’ actually exists or not. And the way how that is done is one needs to split one’s mind into two portions of which one portion remains on that notion. So if we are to look at it as an illustrative measure, then we can say if the mind has five parts, then four parts of the mind remain on that notion, I am being blamed and I am being said something, that emotional intense grasping at ‘I’. And then one portion of the five, the one portion of mind, has to do the analysis whether the way that ‘I’ holds, whether the way the ‘I’ seems to be, does it exist or not. So in that way, a very fine level of wisdom has to do the analysis and then it needs to check whether that ‘I’ actually exists or not and out of such analysis of checking, one should come to a conclusive to be able to ascertain that it does not exist.
So the language used is we need to ascertain or be convinced that that is not how it exists. If there is such a solid, solid ‘I’ existing as it appears, then it has to exist either as one single entity or as many separate entities. So in that way one needs to ascertain how does the ‘I’ actually exist, whether as one entity or as many. Because if something exists, it is entailed, it can be established that there are only those two possibilities, either it exists as one entity or as separate many entities. But here when this point is applied to understand the lack of existence from the part of ‘I’ as truly existent, then one needs to apply by thinking or coming to the terms of conclusion that if the ‘I’ exists, it should exist as one entity with the aggregates.
Or if it so exists, it should exist as a separate entity from the aggregates. There cannot be any other way the ‘I’ would exist. So to decisively come to that conclusion about any possible manner of the ‘I’ existing on its own in those two ways is what is called the second important point of ascertaining the entailment, ascertaining the necessary coverage. And then comes the third point which is the important point of ascertaining the lack of true existence as one entity. In which case it means if the ‘I’ exists as one entity with the aggregates then it would exist as one entity from its own characteristic way of existence.
And if that is so, then that would imply that the ‘I’ and the aggregate exist inseparably as one, not to be separated into parts or portions. That would be the case. If the ‘I’ and the aggregates exist as one from their own characteristic, then there will also be the erroneous implication that because there are five aggregates therefore ‘I’ also would have to be of five in number. Similarly, by the same reasoning, because there is one ‘I’, that would mean there will have to be only one aggregate, not all five. Not only that, generally our aggregates or the personality parts are the things acquired karmically and one who acquires them karmically is the person, the ‘I’.
But contrary to that, in that case the implication would be that what is being acquired and who acquires it are of one. In that case all presentation and all facts about the separateness of object, doer and deed will fall into pieces, meaning would not stand anymore. Instead, it would mean the doer and the object to bring and the deed itself, the three would become one, so there would be such erroneous implication. Not only that, because the ‘I’ and aggregate would have to be one, existing as one, then whole usage of their separateness in the language would also become not possible. Therefore, the whole concept and the way of relating would become contrary because generally the ‘I’ and the aggregate being separate there is the whole usage by the language and the concept that my aggregate and ‘I’ being separate in that way or the aggregate of ‘I’ or my aggregate.
There is a separateness. That is how it is, but contrary to that it would then mean aggregate and ‘I’, there will be no such room or there is no such ground to say that it is the aggregate of the ‘I’ or my aggregate. Instead aggregate itself has nothing it owes to or it’s owned by. So the ‘I’ and the aggregate all would have to be one. Therefore, the ‘I’ and aggregates being of one in nature and existence, then there are all those fallacies to be disproved or fallacies by which that is disproved through reasoning. Therefore that way of existence of the ‘I’ and the aggregate as truly one is ruled out. Now, if there is any other way that the two inherently or from their own characteristics exist then it would have to be as separate.
So therefore it’s the next part. Now let’s say in that point if the ‘I’ and the aggregates do exist from their own characteristics as separate then the erroneous or the wrong implication, mistaken implication there would be that the two become unrelated separate entities because the two exist separately from their own characteristic, from their own side. That very point would mean the two exist separately not depending on anything at all, in which case the two, ‘I’ and the aggregate, do not depend on each other. But that is directly contrary to the fact because ‘I’ is labeled upon the aggregate, it is the attribute labeled and the aggregates are what is being labeled upon, they are the basis of the label. So that is how it would frankly be, but opposite to that it would then mean they are two unrelated separate entities, nothing to depend on, not relative to each other.
Example of that would be then like the cat and the dog, which conventionally speaking don’t have anything to do with each other. They are separate, exist on their own. So it would become like that. So in that case because the dog does not have the characteristics of the cat it would then mean that the ‘I’ does not or would not have the characteristics of the aggregate, which in turn would mean that although the aggregates do have the characteristics of being subject to the suffering of birth, sickness, aging and death, the ‘I’ is not with such characteristics because of the very fact it is separate from the aggregates and it doesn’t have any characteristics which are with the aggregates.
In that case it would mean ‘I’, being separate from the aggregates, doesn’t have all those characteristics of the aggregate, which in turn also means that ‘I’ doesn’t get born at all. And if ‘I’ doesn’t get born, then it means it is a permanent phenomenon. And if it is a permanent phenomenon, then it as well doesn’t have any experience of pain, heat, cold, dying, sickness and all of that. So that’s where the laughter was. It will have none of that.
There will be none which goes to next rebirth from this rebirth. As well there would not have been one which came from previous life to this life. It would mean that there isn’t one which actually is the basis that experiences happiness and suffering. Also that becomes the fourth important point, the important point of ascertaining that the ‘I’ and aggregate do not exist separately from their own characteristics. So together when we look through each of four, one then firstly has the important point of ascertaining that which is to be proven as not there. And secondly, the important point of ascertaining if they exist, it should exist either in the fashion of being inherently existing or truly existing as one with the aggregate or as separate from the aggregates. There cannot be any third or any other way if there is any apparent existence of that.
Thirdly, if it does exist in the manner of being truly one with the aggregate, then there will be all those erroneous implications that would not withstand the test of reasoning. Similarly, if it exists separately, then there will be all those erroneous implications that would not stand the test of reasoning. So in that way, in one’s practice or analysis, one then would say that one would come to realize that the ‘I’ does not exist truly one with the aggregate as well as truly separate from the aggregates. So in this way, one needs to analyze through reasonings. To start with, the notion or the intense feeling of ‘I’ as if it is existing from its own side would be similar to the time when someone over the line says you are a thief. So in this way, one needs to apply reasoning and come to analyze through that way whether they are existing in that manner or not. To start with, there is that notion of intense ‘I’ as if existing from its own side, which as we discussed earlier, over the line when someone says you are a thief.
There was a bit of smile at that time saying ‘you are a thief’. Like that there is that what’s called feeling or the notion as if it exists from its own side, the ‘I’ or the self. Now one through this way of analyzing has to come to the conclusion: if it does exist from its own characteristic as truly one with the aggregate then there will be all those fallacies, and if it does exist truly separately then there will be all those fallacies of being separate from the aggregates truly. So in brief, that very emptiness, the absence, total lack, the total lack of existence of the ‘I’ as truly one and separate from aggregate need to be realized upon that very ‘I’ which earlier before one’s analysis one has retained as the feeling or the notion of that ‘I’. So in a way, the post delivery part was, in a way, you need to apply the analysis conclusion to be applied upon that very feeling of the ‘I’ one had earlier from the beginning of the analysis.
So one needs to again and again think with reasoning and meditatively familiarize, in the sense meditate, contemplate on that very manner: if the ‘I’ is to be existent, it should exist in those possible ways. Out of such, one then towards the end needs to have a very decisive conclusion that ‘I’ does not exist from its own side at all, as one and as separate. Therefore, really, the ‘I’ does not exist from its own characteristic at all. So it has to be like a conviction, the emphasis of the part was one has to have conviction, a decisive conclusion on that. And that very conviction then needs to be again and again meditatively familiarized and then one would gradually come to realize the actual reality, to interpret meaning the emptiness about the ‘I’.
Now let’s say an example if someone has a very valuable thing in the person’s place and as for the place or the boxes where the person would put that valuable thing there would be only two boxes, say two safes. So the person only has two safes, let’s say, so the implied laughter in that was, say, a pauper has only two safe boxes in the house. So, in that case then, the valuable thing the person has, if it is to be searched by the person, it would have to be found in either of the two possible places where it would have been put. So afterwards, if the person in trying to search for the valuable thing looks at one box there and finds that it is not there, the person would have a feeling, oh, it is not here, now it must be in that box, meaning the safe, and goes on to look into the other safe box.
If the person finds that valuable thing is not there either, then that very moment there is a feeling of the thing is not there. So along with that feeling there is a notion of the emptiness, notion of vacuum about the thing, the valuable thing, which is now, if to be found, would have to be in either of the two boxes but is not there. So there is that feeling of vacuum of that thing. Not only that, if the thing is extremely valuable then there will be a great feeling of scariness. One would be so scared.
So that’s where the latter part was. One really would have a shock, shock of their life. So in that sense, one would have a scary shock feeling. So wouldn’t you say that that is how it feels at that time? So that person, in trying to look for the valuable thing, does not find it in either of the two possible places, then at that point of realizing the valuable thing is not there, would feel scared, shocked, and some people even might cry.
Similar to the example in our case we from beginningless life have been so much habituated with the mistaken notion that the ‘I’ solidly exists without depending on the aggregates and without depending on anything at all. Now as a practitioner when one applies those ways of fourfold important points of ascertaining the lack of independent existence from the ‘I’, then one would realize that the ‘I’ does not exist truly because it does not exist truly as one with the aggregates nor truly separate from the aggregates. Out of such understanding there will come the realization that ‘I’ is not there. So one would realize ‘Ah, the ‘I’ is not there, it is not to be found.’ Although it may not be the case with those of sharp faculty practitioners.
But in the case of dull faculty practitioners, it would have to be said that at that time there would be a feeling of scariness, a great shock, a sense of fright at that time. In the past, when Jetsün Tsongkhapa, the great fourteenth century teacher, was explaining emptiness in an important occasion on a very retreat place above this monastery in Tibet, a little bit above the actual location of the Monastic University of Sera. At that time, amongst those who received the teachings was the great teacher, Jetsün Sherab Sengge, who later on founded or established the Tantric College of the lower location in Central Tibet. And also, that great teacher was one of those receiving the teachings. And in the course of the teaching on the spot, Jetsün Sherab Sengge realized emptiness.
And the moment he realized emptiness, he felt scared, scared in the sense like a change of motion, and held onto his shirt sleeve as if in great sense of shock, a transformative state of mind. And at that point, the teacher giving the instruction, Jetsün Tsongkhapa, was very pleased and also through his enlightened state of mind realized that this disciple has realized emptiness and being very pleased said, ‘Behold there’, meaning one who has understood the emptiness and appearance, he has placed his conventional phenomena on the shirt sleeve. So in this way, a fair number of practitioners do get frightened at that moment. But in the case of a very sharp faculty practitioner, scriptural meaning expression meaning very intelligent practitioner, in their case instead of being frightened there is immense happiness, a feeling of joyfulness at that time. So we shall stop here.
So if there are any questions, we shall have few minutes, although it’s quite late already. No. Yeah. No. That would not be appropriate.
Instead, it has to be on the spot feeling, meaning current feeling.