Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Opening with a structured perspective-taking meditation, Ven Jampa Gendun asks listeners to inhabit four viewpoints — a loved one, an acquaintance, someone of the opposite sex, a person you’re in conflict with — and look back at yourself through each set of eyes. In this 46-minute commentary, he then turns to the Consequentialist Middle Way view that all phenomena are merely imputed by terms and concepts, with nothing self-defining coming from the object’s side. He illustrates imputation through the example of naming a newborn “John,” contrasts this with the Autonomy school’s position, and draws a parallel with philosopher Nelson Goodman’s “world making” theory. A Rorschach inkblot analogy shows how collective karma shapes shared perception. He closes by reframing emptiness positively — as reality’s open-endedness — and its practical outcome: freedom from fixed views and the capacity to reshape the world as a pure land. Challenging material; the speaker is candid that it requires many hearings.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 HoM 1993 11 03.mp3
UUID: 7bbc1538-94b8-453e-b393-299dfc0771ce
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1993-11-03
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.9 minutes
Words: ~4,394
So we’ll begin by first imagining, thinking of someone that you that you love, that you have a great deal of caring for, someone you feel you’re close to. Imagine that person in front of you. And we want to put ourselves in their place, try to feel their feelings, look at the world out of their eyes. How would it be to be them? So as best you can, put yourself in their place.
How would it be to be them experiencing their experiences, living out their life? And look back at your former self, your old self, and what is it that you see? What is it that you feel? Do you feel loved and understood? Do you feel valued, respected?
And express what it whatever it is that you see that you feel to your former self. Now think of an acquaintance, perhaps someone you work with, that you go to school with, that you see quite often in the course of your various activities. And again, try to put yourself in their place, feeling their feelings. How would it be to be them? And look back at your former self, and what is it that you see that you feel?
Do you see indifference, friendliness, competitiveness? How do you see your former self? And express whatever it is that you see that you feel. And then think of someone of the opposite sex. Imagine that person in front of you.
And we want to put our self in their place in terms of gender. How would it be to be of the opposite gender in their place? How would you experience the world your everyday life? How would it feel to be the opposite gender? And look back at your former self.
What do you see? How do you feel? Do you feel oppressed by this person? Do you feel understood by this person? Do you feel devalued by this person?
Objectify in terms of gender? Now express what you feel, what you see when you look back at your former self. And then finally, think of someone you’re having some problems with, someone you don’t like, you’re having some dispute, arguments, difficulties. Imagine that person in front of you. And as best you can, try to put yourself in their place.
Look at the the situation out of their eyes from their perspective. And look back at your former self, and what is it that you see that you feel? You see someone who’s full of hostility, closed mindedness, open mindedness, someone who’s being defensive, open, and express whatever it is that you feel to your former self. So each of these four people have their own agendas, their own issues, their own lives, and values, and feelings, experiences. However you may feel about them, however different they may appear to you, try to develop a sincere wish that they’d be happy and direct that out to all four these individuals wishing them well.
That’s essentially what they want. And bring your mind back to the breath. And then gently, in an easy relaxed manner, becoming aware of your body. Slowly, becoming aware of your surroundings. There’s no hurry.
Take your time. So we’re looking at the the course of developing the awakening mind, the final thought of the Buddha with respect to the nature of reality itself, that of the Consequentialist Middle Way school. So, you know, trying to understand that the very nature of our ignorance influenced our ignorance driven thinking process, due to that influence, the world appears to us to be broken up into isolated concrete chunks, things out there, independent of ourselves, independent of our own minds. And in turn, we ourselves appear to have some kind of intrinsic identity, a concrete solid self. So these appearances are then so this is the way things appear to us continually and intermittently, where we sleep, when we’re awake, whenever.
That’s the way things appear. We we then accede to these appearances. That is to say, there’s there’s an acceptance that this is in fact the way things exist. They not only appear that way, but in fact they exist that way. On the basis of that acceptance as to the reality of those appearances, All of the various dysfunctional reactive patterns of, for example, attachment, aversion, etcetera, are set into motion.
These precipitate actions. These the actions that we are engaging are inappropriate with with respect to the final nature of the objects. Somehow, our our our you know, the the our actions are never quite appropriate because they’re always mistaken with with respect to the final nature of ourself in the in the world about us, all the various things that we’re relating to. The traces of these actions, of these misguided actions, these what we call karmic formations predispose us to to to as a result of these these latencies within our mind, these tendencies within our mind, these habitual patterns within our mind, predisposes as the result to select out, to organize, interpret our environment in such a way that we experience our world continually as one degree of dissatisfactoriness or another. That’s the way that we interpret our world due to the influences of these latencies, these predispositions laid down in our mind by the force of these misguided actions based upon ignorance.
So, you know, if the world is continually experienced as one degree of suffering, dissatisfactoriness, another continually rather than peace, And we see ourselves, due to the influence of these latencies, with one limiting identity or another, rather than our own open ended potential of Buddhahood. So the only way that we can finally bring it into this process, this process of conceptual elaboration, conceptual projection, the stories that we begin to spin, that we that we say to ourselves about these objects based upon misconceiving their their nature. If we didn’t misconceive their nature, we wouldn’t begin to spin all these tales, have these fantasies, these these imaginations with respect to these various objects about their ability to bring us pleasure, their their abilities to solve our problems. We would see them in and of themselves for what they are. We would relate with them appropriately, and therefore they would not be problematic.
They could fulfill their expectations, what they have a certain capacity. We would not overestimate their capacity Nor would we depreciate their capacity. The only way that we can finally bring this this this process of conceptual elaboration. What I mean by that is yeah. This conceptual elaboration, the fabrication, the stories, the projections that we that we we which we are continually seeing the world through, that we filter reality through our our particular misconceived versions, The stories that we tell ourselves about things out there in terms of their desirability, in terms of their repulsiveness, in terms of their, ultimately, nature, their final nature.
Until we we bring this process to an end and the source of all our suffering you know, the only other way that we can bring this process to an end is to understand the part that language and concepts play in our perception and experience of the world and ourselves. All phenomena this is kind of You know, the the Dalai Lama once said that dependent arising is the slogan of the Buddha, and then they actually printed up some badges, dependent arising. And here, the most profound dependent arising, as hopefully we’re going to get to, has different meanings at these various stages that we’ve been going through in terms of understanding the development of the awakening mind. But here, at the final thought of the Buddha, dependent arising has as its most profound interpretation, all phenomena are merely imputed by terms and concepts. All phenomena tables, people, glasses, buildings, light, space are merely merely imputed by means of terms and concepts.
And this is the final thought of the Buddha. Once we directly realize just this, this is what we’re trying to realize, just this, the all this proliferation of the storytelling, these these elaborate conceptual elaborations, all of these further conceptions cease of themselves. One abides in perfect peace and the ultimate obstruction to omniscience having been removed from the mind. One has the ultimate ability to work skillfully with others in leading them to peace as well. So this is what just this, that all phenomena are merely imputed by means of terms and concepts.
So the autonomy school, the autonomy stage, the stage that we just have spoken about previously. The autonomy middle way stage. The autonomy school asserts that that the identity of objects, we identify we identify objects through the force of the object’s own defining characteristics, that objects have some kind of inherent identity. And it’s by means of recognizing identity that we bring objects into existence, that we impute the objects. That, you know, the the consequentialist school, the stage that we’re discussing at present, the final thought of the Buddha, on the other hand, asserts that objects do not determine their own identity.
There is nothing they have no defining characteristics of their own. The objects are not self defining. That having recognized a certain object, we go on to say it has the characteristics by means of which we identified it. So there is no there is nothing about the object which makes it what it is. So, you know, the the the autonomy school would assert that all phenomena are imputed by terms and concepts.
They agree that we that all phenomena, tables and chairs and glasses, we impute them. What it means to impute, you know, we’re going to discuss this. You know, is not as if somehow the glass is projecting itself, casting its image on my mind, and I come to know that object by the force of the object itself. But it is terms of there’s I in my visual perception there’s something which stimulates the conception using the term glass, which is then imputed to that object, and I come to I see glass. So there’s karmic formations, these tendencies, these latencies of mind are stimulated into conceiving glass.
There’s nothing about that object which makes it a glass. It is simply that object has the it stimulates the conception which thinks of that object as a glass. There’s nothing about it which makes a glass from its own side. So this is the this is why in the in the in the the difference between autonomy and the consequence stages at the autonomy stage, they would say, yes, I agree. All phenomena are imputed by means of terms and concepts.
That it depends upon some inherent characteristic, say in terms of water, that which is liquid and wet or that which is wet and fluid. In terms of that appearing to my mind, I think, oh, there’s water. There’s something there’s something there’s something about the characteristics of that object which which determine what I’m going to call it, but I have to call it something before it to come into existence. It’s dependent upon my giving it name, my labeling. But there is something which determines what I’m going to label it coming from its side.
But the Consequentialist Middle Way stage is saying that all phenomena are merely imputed by means of terms and concepts, and the word merely is important here because it eliminates the notion that phenomena are in any way self defining, that phenomena in no way define themselves. They do not intrinsically exist, That water does not intrinsically exist. It does not define itself as water. There is no objectively objectively existing factor coming from the side of the object, which makes it what it is. It is purely, in terms of my own subjective determination.
The characteristics of phenomena do not inhere in the object, but are merely imputed to them by the perceptual process itself. The very process of perception brings phenomena into existence. Phenomena are dependent upon that perceptual process, that labeling process. They arise in dependence upon that conceptualizing process. Phenomena and their characteristics do exist, but merely by means of imputation and not inherently so.
Now, we used the example of, you know, to a a man and a woman, they have sexual intercourse, and they conceive a child. Yeah? And the child is born, and the child is given the name John. So the person John comes into existence in dependence upon causes, sexual intercourse, etc, in dependence upon parts, a body and mind, but also in dependence upon being designated, being given the name John, and being thought of as John. So prior to being given the name John, John did not exist.
A baby existed, but John did not exist. John’s existence is dependent upon being labeled John, being given the name John, and being thought of as John. Was John is dependent upon being given the name John. There is no inherent attribute of the baby which determines that it be called John. It has no characteristic of John-ness about it.
The baby did not exist as a naturally existent basis. There was nothing about that baby which demanded of us. If we’re going to name it correctly, we have to call it John. So, John was brought into existence through the perceptual process itself. You know, we we can we if when upon hearing this, we can begin to question.
Maybe we can begin to understand in some way this this the process of imputation, how we bring objects into existence. But it seems as if if nothing is coming from the side of the of object. The question eventually arises, if nothing objectively exists and an object is what it isn’t merely by being called and thought of as such, then we can call anything anything, and that makes it so. Whatever we imagine to exist must exist. But this is not so.
And our world our reality is one which has been communicated to us. It exists as a as a conventionality. Nothing ultimately exists. Everything only conventionally exists. Everything conventionally exists, and that is enough for its existence.
You know, these convention these conventionalities are not the arbitrary whims of or imaginings of individuals, but the social constructs. You know, we we we are this is the given universe in which we the world in which we’re born to. It’s been communicated to us. We cannot call houses you know, we cannot call dogs cats and cats dogs and and to name them properly. This would not be in keeping with an ideal conventional cognition.
There’s nothing about a cat which makes it a cat except the conventions which are established for us, in which we are which have been communicated to us, which we are born into, which constitute our world, the rules by which we are trying to make sense of our experience. You know, we are we are born into a particular version of reality we call world. The objects which make up our world with all their attributes are are only imputed, determined by the force of popular conventions, and and they don’t intrinsically exist. It is in the context of this version of the world that we determine truth and falsity, that, you know, what can and cannot cannot be correctly labeled as such. Harvard philosopher Nelson Goodman has developed the view of world making, characteristics of words and symbols.
So we’re trying to overcome the mind, overcome the tendency of mind to think in terms of thingness, of this what we call reification, that of absolutism. We exist in a particular version of world. This world has been communicated to us. It does not absolutely exist. It is exists in terms of symbols and language and concepts.
The world making characteristics of words and symbols, he argues, that all of the various worlds of scientists, artists, and ordinary men and women are but versions that can be judged right or wrong in terms of various internal characteristics or by comparison of versions with each other. But they cannot be judged true by testing against any foundational real world, because there is no such real world beyond our versions. There is only our version of the world. There’s nothing behind that our version of world. There’s a tendency in mind to almost believe or hope there’s something behind those appearances, that there’s something that there’s some real world out there concrete that we can hold on to, that we can find security in.
Something more than mere appearance and something more than a version which is being communicated to us in which we are continually involved in its co creation. There’s a tremendous drive, ignorance driven drive, to see more than that, to superimpose a way of being upon everything which it doesn’t possess out of this fear of an open fluid way of relating. You know, he summarizes his you thus: Talk of unstructured content or an unconceptualized given or of substratum without properties is self defeating. For the talk imposes structure, conceptualizes, ascribes property. So Goodman continues: The many stuffs that worlds are made of are made along with the worlds.
But made from what? Not from nothing after all, but from other worlds. World making as we know it always starts from a world already on hand. The making is a remaking. The Buddhists would agree at every point with this passage, including the implication that the telos of the search is never ending since that search too is simply another version so long as it remains conceptual.
The Buddha simply asserts that when these insights are completely realized personally by direct experience or through practice of meditation, then there is a profound positive change in one’s relation to one’s world. And the world is what it is, free of all our distorting conceptions about it, our overlays, are elaborations that we are continually projecting upon it. The most fundamental of these overlays, these projections that we- these elaborations that we’re projecting on the world is inherent existence. The world is what it is because we are what we are. You know, we are what we think, and with our thoughts we make the world.
The mind is in its place and its way can make a heaven of hell a hell of heaven. The Buddha said that the three realms are merely mind, because mind is the forerunner of karma, and karma produces the world. And karma is simply the way that we the the the tendency to organize, interpret, and thereby experience our version of the world the way we do. The our way of thinking, our way of communicating, our way of acting, both collectively and individually, which determine the patterns of perception that we call our world. You know, we are involved in our world is arises out of our collective karma.
That is to say that we all have thought similarly in the past, that we all have communicated similarly in the past, that we all have acted similarly in the past. That is to say, we all have created similar karmas, with similar ways of organizing, interpreting, experiencing world. Therefore, we share in a similar world. Our this is our reality, which we have built up for ourselves. That is to say, similar patterns of perceptions, similar patterns of processing the data which our senses are continually stimulating us with.
You know, it’s like, you know, if you were to see a I don’t know. I’ve used this example. A Rorschach, inkblot. People see, you know, they try to make sense. The mind is trying to it’s just shapes and color, and the mind is trying tothe mind will instinctively try to organize it into recognizable, something which it can recognize, somethingif they can name it, they can control it.
It can’t simply take a position of simply letting it be and allowing it to coexist. So the mind is trying to find something familiar within thewhat is color and shape. And it’s going towhat we see, you know, some people may see a house, some people may see a doll. What we see is very much a reflection ofit is a product of our own mind, how it’s organizing that data. Wethere is data which we are organizing in terms of our common way of organizing.
Our common wayour common tendencies is to form similar patterns of perception. You know, it is as if we all saw the same thing in a Rorschach. We all saw a doll because we all have created the mental tendencies which organize that color and shape into seeing recognizing a doll. There’s nothing about that that that color and shape on that piece of paper which made it a doll. Nothing whatsoever.
But we that’s what we all see, and we agree upon that. It becomes a conventionality. That’s a dog there. And we’ll do it, you know, we say, oh, well, it’s a dog. Look at the ears on it.
Look at his tail. It’s got little eyes. It’s got you know, we begin to ascribe all the characteristics by which we identify dogs once we recognize what it is. Is Oops. It’s late.
That’s how I do this every Wednesday. Okay. So it it is it is our world because it is our co creation. It it is a social and individual construction, this version, our what we call our world. The world does not define itself.
It is empty of such a nature. We define it. And moreover, it is open to our collective and individual redefinition or recreation, reconstruction. You know, we can make this into a pure land. It’s open ended.
You know, it’s not this old and we have one of in tantra, one of the major obstacles that we are seeking to overcome is the appearance of ordinariness, the mundane. That, you know, that we see a world which is which has been disenchanted as it were, very plain and ordinary. We can we can we can re enchant the world. We can make it extraordinary that the world is open to our redefinition. When the mind is awakened to this reality, there occurs a fundamental transformation at the deepest level of our being, Both in our in terms of our being for oneself, experiences as spontaneous joy, which comes through from the freedom of from tyranny from the tyranny of all views.
We’re no longer weighted down by views. We understand that they are just views. They are not realities. You know, these these huge truths like a big moo cow standing out in the pasture with horns. They are truths are again simply imputed by conception.
It’s and the you know, we use that that metaphor about, you know, slowly leaving the bank out of the river and then going out into the water, holding on to a log. At this level of the Prasanga Madhyamaka school, we’re trying to let go of the log. We don’t need absolute. We don’t need absolute truths. We experience you know, if once this experience at at a bit once this experience at a very deep level of our being, then in terms of being for oneself, there’s the freedom from views, the absolutizing of views, the tyranny of one’s own views, the oppression the self oppression of views.
And in terms of being for others, this realization is expressed as spontaneous, compassionate participation in therapeutic world making. We begin to make over the world in a therapeutic version of the world such that people can find healing in this version that we’re creating for them in in conjunction with them, a pure land. So, you know, we’re we’re trying to understand emptiness. Emptiness is, you know, a lack, an absence of something that we fundamentally, conceive to be there. This what is is absent, what is lacked is inherent existence, self defining existence, objective existence, independent existence, you know, on and on, many different synonyms.
So emptiness but we can begin this is stating emptiness in in in in by means of a negation, the negation of objective existence or self defining existence. But if we were to state emptiness in a way in in a positive manner, it is the open open endedness of reality. The open the open endedness of reality to to to change and to redefinition as opposed to being static and fixed. So it’s, you know, it’s this it it is a lack of an imagined of a fantasized way of existing. Or which phenomena don’t possess, what things don’t possess.
So these these imagined fantasized ways of existing that we’re continually imposing, projecting upon phenomena, We call self defining existence, independent existence, intrinsic existence, objective existence. So phenomena are empty of these ways of existing. These imagined, fantasized, hallucinated ways of existing. So this this is just this is the ultimate nature of phenomena. Emptiness.
This empty emptiness of a fantasized way of existing. In Sanskrit, it’s called Śūnyatā. I’m I’m just gonna take a few more minutes. No. No.
I’m not. Let me just take about four minutes. Alright. I was hoping to get to I’m becoming slowly becoming aware that we there’s a time element involved. And I realized many of you have upon hearing this for the first time, it must sound terribly confusing.
So I sympathize with you. And it’s and it’s I mean, it confuses me. And I’ve heard it. But it’s necessary to hear it many, many, many times. So, I guess I’m just stimulating some thinking, giving you some ideas to begin to play around with in your own minds.
And then you can hopefully, can listen to authoritative teachings so that you, you know, that you can get your the confusion which I’m creating straightened out. Even though I usually take responsibility for the messes that I make. Okay. So, Śūnyatā. So I’m just gonna talk about three or four more minutes.
If I get to one place, I’d like to get to one place, it would be a good place to stop. It’s quite it’s quite okay. Well, we can’t get to it. It’s quite interesting, actually.