Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using a disassembled pen as a live demonstration, Ven Jampa Gendun shows how objects exist only through labeling — there is no pin independent of the mind, just as a rope becomes a snake through mistaken designation. This 45-minute talk focuses on the first of four analytical essentials: identifying the object of negation. He explains nominal versus inherent existence, then gives step-by-step meditation instructions for generating strong emotion in order to catch the “I” as ignorance grasps it — vivid, self-instituting, appearing from its own side. A story about reassuring a frightened child illustrates why we must search for the inherently existent I specifically: its non-findability, not the mere non-findability of the self, is what opens into emptiness. Suited to practitioners already engaged with analytical meditation on selflessness.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 12 HMA 1997 10 24.mp3
UUID: bbfda612-eb42-472a-88c2-6121bd379fbf
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening 1996-1997 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1997-10-24
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.3 minutes
Words: ~6,729
The snake, even though it’s appearing to ourselves, I I can begin to refute that, in fact, it is merely an appearance. There’s not really a snake there. I can proceed in various methods of analysis to come to begin to undermine my belief in its existence. We we that that that belief is baseless. The the the the the ignorance is baseless.
Baseless. It is grasping at a nonexistent, which it which it believes to exist. So in in coming to an understanding, I did so we’re trying to identify what is this object. When I get angry, I I can’t you know, just whenever we experience strong emotion, a type of I will arise to ourselves. A model will of an I will arise for ourselves.
I I can’t stand you. I’m you. I’m I’m the best thing that ever came to anything, I just won the lotto. I’m tired of all this. You know, I can’t.
Anyway, what this is what we’re trying to identify. You know, we what does it appear? How does it look to us? I can’t stand you. That I, that that part of the of this interrelationship, this relationship with you know, of what’s going on for yourself, the subjective aspect of the experience from this side.
What does that I look like? So in in gaining a sense of what it that I, how it appears, it’s helpful to let us say, in gaining a a a sense of the inherently existent I, it’s helpful to understand what is the opposite of an inherently existent I, and that would be you know, the opposite inherent existence is nominal existence. Or there’s a lot of different words we can use, and hopefully, we’ll be able to come to an understanding of what they mean. Nominal existence or imputed existence. That is to say an I which is established merely through the power of terms and conceptuality.
When we say nominally existent, we mean existent by means of name. It exists through the power of naming and the concepts and the concepts and the conceptuality which makes use of names. That’s what we mean by nominally existent or imputedly existent. This means that in the perceptual process, the coming to know on the basis of appearance of an object is labeled using language, using and conceptuality. The the eye is established in dependence upon language and conceptuality.
It is being labeled. It comes into existence through the very perceptual process itself. So the process of labeling occurs like this. So the terms labeling, imputing, designating, they’re all synonymous. The process of labeling occurs like this, and the basis is given the name.
The basis to be given the name exists out there. From our side comes this concept that applies the name and the name itself. We come out then with something labeled, and it’s nothing more than this. So that’s all there is. So, you know, we do discussed this we a simple example, you know, of of a newly born baby.
You know, there’s there’s a, you know, there’s a mind and body. Maybe you don’t think of it like that, but there’s a mind and body. It’s what shall we call him? Say it’s a him or what shall we call it? Let’s call it John.
So by means of thinking, for example, let’s call him John, and thereby applying that name to this particular mind and body, John comes into existence. Without this process of labeling, John does not exist. You might say a baby exists, but baby also is dependent upon that same process of labeling. So is the mind. So is the body, you know, at whatever level we want to come down to.
So the basis of designation in this simple example is a mind and body. That’s the basis of designation. It appears to the mind. That is the basis of designation. The mind then thinks, John.
That thinking in terms of that basis of designation is what we mean by imputing, labeling the name John. in dependence upon that basis of designation and being labeled John, John comes into existence. The baby comes into existence. The the the mind of the baby comes into existence. The body of the baby comes into existence.
Whatever. The the legs, the arms, and we can whatever level you want to to analyze it. There is something appears to the mind. That’s the basis of designation. in dependence upon that, the mind labels, designates, applies a name, bringing about the object into existence.
This applies to all phenomena whatsoever. So, you know, we can okay. Now, you know, this isn’t a matter of philosophy. You know, we’re actually we’re trying to describe what is automatically going on for you every moment of your experience. You know?
And we can get it we can get we can begin to gain a sense of this when we of this labeling process. You know, when I say labeling, I don’t mean this this monologue that’s going on in your head, these words that run around in your head all the time. It’s going on at a level that we’re not even aware. To get give you to get to give you a sense, there’s no difference from the point of view of the process of labeling, and just from the process from from from this point of view only, from the point of view of the process of labeling, the process of being designated in a snake and a rope being labeled to a coil of woven hemp. There’s a coil of woven hemp.
Yeah? There’s no difference in in from the point of view of the labeling process between calling it a rope and calling it a snake. They they involve the same process. Both of them both a snake and a rope appear solely through the power of of terms and conceptuality, through language and conceptuality. Both that rope appear and the snake appear solely only merely by the force of language conceptuality.
There’s no more there’s no more anything about that object being a rope than there is about it being a snake from its own side. The basis of designation is not a rope. The basis of designation is not a snake either. So just as the newly born baby appears to our awareness in dependence on being named John, and by the by the by being applying this name to a mind and body. So, you know, when we see when when we when we look in the grass and a snake appears to us, that’s a labeling.
That’s designating snake. It’s a mistaken labeling, isn’t it? That’s what we that’s a mistaken consciousness. But nonetheless, it’s we’re still it appears. No.
So we’re not talking projecting something. The it it appears to be a snake. We don’t have we don’t have a sense, oh, I’m just thinking it’s a snake. It appears to be a snake. And moreover, it appears to be a snake from its own side, as if our mind didn’t have anything to do with it.
That same process of labeling occurs in the course of labeling rope. You know, you have this woven coil of hemp. It looks like it looked like the hemp is out it looks like the rope is out there, doesn’t it, on the base? It’s just not appearing. It’s not being labeled from my by my mind, by by means of language and conceptuality and terms and names.
But it’s the same process as if I were seeing it appeared to be a snake. It appears that way. It appears that way due to the force of labeling process. So the opposite meaning to nominal or imputed existence is inherent existence. So and this is what we mean by nominal existence, existence by way of name, imputed existence, existence by way of being imputed, by being labeled, that everything exists really imputedly.
This table only imputedly exists. It only nominally exists. It only exists by way of terms and conceptuality. It does not exist intrinsically, truly, in its own right. The opposite of imputed existence or nominal existence is what there are many different words that we use, words like objective existence or self defining existence or natural existence or intrinsic existence or inherent existence or existence from its own side or independent existence.
So these terms are all attempts at getting at the same notion that the object itself defines what it is. We don’t define it. It defines what it is. That that is not being imputed by mind, which perceives it, that the that the object establishes its own identity. We don’t establish the identity of it.
It it its its identity is independent of our thinking about what it is. And it is, you know, when it is by the force of that identity appearing to our that we recognize it. That’s the notion that we have, that the object somehow is self existent from its own side, that it exists under its own power, that it’s it’s what we call self instituting, that it it doesn’t depend upon causes and conditions, for example, that that, you know, it it doesn’t depend upon its parts, It doesn’t doesn’t depend upon the labeling process. It somehow inheres in itself, that it it there’s a sense it would be findable amongst its parts if we if we analyze, if we look for it. So all of this are trying to point to this way of existing that we are fabricating, that we are hallucinating.
Let me I I I like to give you know, this is just a just to give you a notion of what we’re trying to get at here, you know. Okay. You know, just nothing up my sleeves. Okay. Oh, you’ve seen this before.
Don’t look. So so, you know, if if it’s difficult the difficult part is, again, to to identify the object of negation. You know, how to identify because it’s just it’s it’s such a taken for granted truth, it’s hard to recognize. It’s hard to take to recognize taken for granted truth in our everyday life, but this is even this is even more so. You know, how how does the pin appear to ourselves?
And gaining a sense of it appears to be out there. I mean, it it appears to be at a distance and cut off from my mind. You know, it’s out there and it kind of just this image kind of casts itself on my mind, and my mind is like a mirror, and my mind just kind of reflects what’s out there. It’s it’s in no way involved in the in the creation of that pin. That’s the way that’s kind of the sense the way it is appearing to me.
That’s my sense. I mean, that’s what I’ve learned. That’s what I’ve been told. I think that’s the way it is, though. And it’s sort of it’s out there.
Ice it’s a a a entity which is cast it’s it’s a has a sort of solidity about it. It has a sort of it’s it’s very substantial. It it I’m I’m not defining what it is. It has its nature, its own nature. Okay.
Let’s let’s look at that. I don’t know if any of this makes any sense to you, but let’s look at you know, we begin to analyze. I mean, I think everybody would agree that’s a pin, but then we begin to analyze some of its parts. You know, is that the pin? I think we know that’s not the pin.
Okay? No. Not no. That’s not the pin. Okay.
Is that the pin? No. That’s not the pin. Now oh, good. There’s a little thing there.
Is that the pin? No. That’s not the pen. Now I’m not going to take this apart. If I were to take that little tip-off, is that the pen?
No. That’s not the pen. Is the plastic tube the pen? No. That’s not the pen.
Is the ink there. Is that the pen? No. That’s not the pen. What happened to the pen?
We had a pen there for a moment. And none of the parts of the pen. None of the parts of the pen. How about the collection of the part, the mere collection of the parts? Is that a pen?
No. That’s not a pen. Now but the strength a very it’s almost magical. When we begin to take these parts and we put them together in a specific configuration, what happens? As if by magic, a pen appears to our mind.
I think that’s neat. Would like would you like to see that again? Just in slow motion. So what happened? Something something when it when there’s an appearance, it it stimulates it stimulates a a labeling process.
Something appears to the consciousness. It stimulates a labeling process. We think pin. It has to be in a particular configuration. The parts, you know, there’s a certain prerequisite which is necessary for it to appear to ourselves when it then it stimulates pin.
It and we label pin, and pin comes into existence. It wasn’t a pin before. There was no pin there. It’s only when it when it serves as a basis of designation that it’s able to stimulate the thought pin, the labeling process pin, and pin appears to us at that point. It didn’t you know, and we could well, if some but some people argue, well, pin, you know, you know but what is a pin?
You know? And it’s very difficult. And how what what causes it to be a basis of designation as a pin? You know, what causes this to be a the the basis of designation as a hand? You know, I could go through, and this is the hand, not the hand, that’s not the hand, that’s not the hand, that’s not the hand, you know, is the palm the hand, or is the back of the hand?
You know, what’s the what’s the function? Well, how about is it a paralyzed hand, is it a hand? You know, how about a leper with no fingers, is that a hand? But we have a sense, we all know what a hand is, don’t we? We you know, if you show me a hand, I I know what I know what it is.
I can tell a hand when I see it. We have that kind of sense. We can, but we but when we become become very precise as to what what constitutes a hand, things become a little bit fuzzy around the edges. Though I know what a hand looks like, don’t press me too far about what exactly is a hand. You know, is a mechanical hand a hand, you know, all the all the various possibilities.
So so we get we begin to get a sense. Well, what is what constitutes the basis of designating a hand? We we have sort of a a tacit agreement, some kind of convention that we all, you know, we all shake our heads, we all know what a hand is. Right? Okay.
Let’s not talk about too much about it. This is this is accepted at that level. That’s what we mean by a conventional reality. That’s all we mean by conventional reality. When certain things appear to ourselves, they are proper basis for designating particular phenomena.
When certain basis appear, we can we can we can properly designate hand. And we are, you know, and a hand appears, and we all we all know what a hand is. Right? The same holds true for a pin. So that that that’s this is what we mean by when we talk about reality being a social construct in in in that way.
Now something appears to our mind. We designate, we label. So we now want to begin to gain a sense of what it is we’re calling the emotional I, the emotional self. We are we’re actually going to see what is it that how does this self, this I appear? So in order to we want to get a sense of what is the inherently existent I.
You know, the inherently existent pen is the is you know, can can you the inherently existent pin is the pin which isn’t dependent upon my be my imputing it, yeah, upon being labeled. It it it it it defines what it is. Just like inherently just a hand defines what it is. It’s not dependent on being being called a hand or labeled a hand. It’s not a matter of conventions or social construct.
It exists it exists that way from its own side, independent of causes and conditions, independent of parts. You know, it’s it’s as if, you know, I have a sense that I could find that pen if I look for it amongst its parts. I have a sense there’s a hand there that I could it’s findable if I searched its parts. That’s that’s the sense. So we’re trying to build up a sense of what inherent existence looks like, what does it feel like, you know, what is what do we mean by the notion of true existence intrinsic existence?
That somehow the the the what what you know, I talked about the basis of designation. Inherent existence, holding inherent existence says that the basis of designation is a hand, that the basis of designation of the hand is a hand. The basis of designation is not the phenomenon designated. in dependence upon the parts of a pin put together in this very special fashion, we label pin. None of those parts are a pin.
The basis of designating pin is not a pin. The basis of designating I is not an I. The best the base of designating the self is not a self. The base of designating the self is the body and mind, for example. In dependence on body and mind, just like when this disc in a certain configuration appeared to me, I labeled pin.
In basis of these fingers, hand, palm appearing to me, I labeled hand. In on the basis of the body and mind appearing to me, I label self. I label I. But in inherently existent I, it appears that as if the basis of designation itself were the object. So we’re trying to identify how that inherently existent self looks.
Let let me give you another one because this is the most important part, so we have to get a sense of it. What you know, if you were if you were to, you know, we can we can we can we can label anything, anything. I can label this a house or a car. It doesn’t make it a car, but I can label it that. I can think this is this is in the case of a rope.
I can I can label snake? Snake snake appears. It doesn’t make it a snake. Just because I think of it as a snake doesn’t make it a snake. So if you were to if you were to label let’s say there was a pile of stones and you were to label that eye, your eye, you know, you you could do that.
I don’t know why you would. But and then moreover, you were to think that that eye which is appearing to you on the basis of those pile of stones was coming from its own side. Yeah? You’ve labeled you’ve designated onto a pile of stones I, and moreover, now you hold that that I is coming from its own side. You see, there’s there’s completely a hallucination involved.
There’s there’s nothing whatsoever about those stones which makes an eye. It’s completely a fabrication being projected by your own mind upon that pile of stones, isn’t it? But moreover, not only is it a fabric complete fabrication, but you you go on to exist, to believe that existing from its own side is not a fabric is not being projected from your mind. That existing from its own side is the same thing as the emotional I. There’s no difference.
It’s just the difference in basis of designation, that I being projected, that I existing independently, inherently existing I being projected onto a pile of stones or the body and mind, no difference. So we have to get a sense, what do I mean by inherent existence? It’s more maybe it’s more readily apparent when when we use this example of the pile of stones because you think, how in the world could you imagine that that eye is coming from its own side? You know, you that’s that’s you’re out of your mind. You know, even too many hallucinogenic drugs, obviously, you know, that that that there’s an eye over there coming from its own side.
It’s merely your projection. Same thing. But now it’s just being projected on your body and mind, and we don’t think that’s so absurd, but it’s just as absurd. It’s just as much a hallucination. So it’s in a playing with that idea of what that I, having a sense of I in terms of a pile of stones, That’s my I or that’s I, and it’s I’m not projecting it.
That’s what we mean by an inherently existent I, substantially existent I. An I existing from its own side, that’s what we mean. He but here, the basis of designation is the body and mind. But we don’t but the eye doesn’t appear to be designated. Just as that eye up in terms of those stones doesn’t appear to is held not to be designated.
So this is the kind of eye that we want to identify. So, you know, we just have to keep playing with this. This is the most important part, gaining a sense of feel for what that eye looks like. You know, yeah. So what we do is, first, you know, we begin by calming the mind.
Always a good idea. And then analyze how the I is being apprehended, how does it appear to us. So we have to activate a very strong sense of I, an emotional I as it were. So so we we we, you know, remember some great fear that we’ve had or that some you know, when you when you’re about to have an accident, for example, or some great pain, you know, maybe when you went to, you know, a broken relationship or some great joy, you know, you just you just finished exams, you know, and you did great on your exams or something, something really wonderful you feel very emotionally happy about. And you you we try to relive these emotional experiences in your imagination or through your memory very vividly.
And so and you don’t analyze them as to whether they’re good or bad, whether they’re right or wrong. You simply are are trying to induce a very a strong emotional experience in which you are a central part of the of the of what happens. So, you know, you just just feel the emotion, the fear, or the depression, or the joy. And then then we we we you know, there there arises a sense, I’m scared. You know, you’re about to have an accident.
I’m scared. You know, maybe the word doesn’t come to you, but that there is this there is the underlying thought of being scared. I’m scared. And somebody’s scared. I’m scared.
I’m depressed. I’m happy. Now I feel terrible. I’m so happy. I you know?
We so we just and then we observe the eye. How does the eye appear? This eye is the object negation, which we have to determine, which we have to identify. We have to identify as clearly as possible. So what this observing is being carried out by a part of our mind.
One part of our mind is observing another part of our mind. One part of our mind different than the one which is apprehending your pleasant experience or your unpleasant experience. It’s like a spy. So in the process so there are lots there are various faults, various errors, and it’s a very subtle process requiring a great deal of skill. You know, some people you know, in the process of observing an eye, certain certain errors may occur.
You know, some people, they they generate a sense of a of sense of I, you know, by means of some some emotions and feelings. And then they then they make effort to determine how the I appear, how the self appears, how is how is the self experienced. But at that time at time when you actually begin to analyze the sort of darkness, a kind of blankness appears to their mind. So, you know, this is a this only happens to some people. It’s not, you know, not necessarily gonna happen to you, and it’s neither good nor bad.
It just this is it it is a result of the sudden mental force which people apply when they attempt to explore in the the the nature of the eye. Other people, when they may experience some kind of tension, a kind of tautness within their bodies. So this is not the object of negation. It it’s it it this this also is the result of a sudden concentration of the mind. You know, you’re you’re try you’re you’re reliving some kind of emotional experience, and you just you just let it go for a while, and then you want to analyze this objective aspect.
Now when you’re thinking, wow, I’m so happy. I I did so well on that test. Wow. I could someday I’m gonna be famous. That and so you’re you’re allowing that emotion to build up with a very strong sense of I who’s involved in all of this, and then a little part of your mind begins to check out what does that I look like, or how does it appear.
So at that point, one has to be very subtle in applying the the focus. If if if if, for in this case, where there’s a sense of tautness in the body, this sudden concentration of the mind in its effort to investigate, causes what we’ll do is we’ll constrict our muscles. We’ll we’ll we’ll we’ll even perhaps unknowingly, probably unknowingly, we’ll we’ll strain our our our our physical self in some way, just a little squeezing. And this will disturb the the circulation of the wind energies in your body and in the channels. This may not happen to you, but it may.
In other in some other people, only the physical body appears to them. When they try to proceed with analysis, know, they think trying to check out what the eye looks like, the physical body appears to them. So this happens because the conventionally existent eye is closely related to the body. And so when one when we attempt some kind of fine analysis of the eye, only the body seems to appear to ourselves. In other cases, when when we attempt to to locate the self and analyze what to look what does it appear, nothing at all is experienced.
So this is a result of beginning the analysis a little bit too late. So we have to so the first thing that we want to do is begin by calming our mind and slowly generate a sense of I using thoughts, using feelings, using memory, emotions. Then with a very with the like kind of like the alertness of a spy, we very gently and very carefully become aware of the I, the subjective aspect of the experience. Who or what is thinking, feeling? You know, who’s feeling scared?
Who’s depressed? Who’s so happy? We’re using a part of our mind to observe another part of our mind. We end up we’re observing we’re using part of our mind to observe another part of our mind, which is maintaining or holding on to a sense of I. Part of our mind is holding on to a sense of I, and we’re using another part of our mind to observe that I.
How how does that I appear? You know, if then if a sense of I doesn’t arise, then then you simply calm the mind again, and you begin again in a very relaxed manner. You can generate a sense of I. I’m angry. I’m worried.
I can’t do this. I don’t know. Maybe everybody else in this room but me. I can’t do this. That I.
Observe that one. I know. Using the corner of your mind to observe it and try to get a sense of this this is the first of the four essentials. This essential of determining the object of negation. It’s the most important.
We have to gain a sense of what it is we’re going to look for. Without this, then the we won’t be able to proceed. You know, the problem one of the problem well, the problem is like, you know, if you if you had a little child who was in bed, you know, in in the middle of the night and and and starts screaming. And you go in your room, what’s what’s what’s what’s wrong? What’s wrong?
There’s a monster under the bed. There’s a monster in my room. There’s monster in my room. Yeah. It’s okay.
It’s okay. You know, here is the non monster. There’s nothing to worry about. Can can can you know, can you show you know, the baby thinks there’s a monster in the room. So the child thinks there’s a monster in the room.
You can’t you can’t show them directly the non monster, the absence of monster. Here’s the hearer’s the absence of monster. Go back to bed. What you have to do is you have to take the the child by the hand and you and you get maybe you get a torch or you turn on it. Look under the bed.
Monster under there? No. No monster. You got a closet monster in there? No.
No. No. Look look in the drawers and look under the bureau. And and that is to say and then finally, it dawns on the child that it hasn’t been able to find the monster. You can’t point to the non the absence of the monster directly.
What you do is you search for the monster, knowing what you’re looking for, and then its nonfindability undermines your belief that it’s there, and all the fear subsides. So we can’t we can’t as if present to the baby, the child, here’s the absolute monster, now go back to bed. We have to go through this this this this search and demonstrate to that mind of the child that it’s absence through through through the process of search. We can’t find it, therefore, it’s not there. So this is this so but, you know, the child has some idea of what it’s looking for.
We have to have a better idea of if if we’re going if this search and its nonfindability is going to help undermine our belief in the existence of the monster eye that’s that’s driving our lives. Maybe I I just oh, maybe let let’s take a We don’t I I You can go on. I wanna take some time because I I realize we we quite often discuss it in our discussion groups, but some people who, for one reason or another, aren’t able or choose not to stay. Just take a few minutes and and have some questions because this is a very important point and maybe we can clarify this very first point of this four point analysis, object determining the the object of negation or ref object to refute it. Does that in terms of what’s been said, anybody have any questions?
Brings John’s brain into existence, brings John’s nose into existence, brings John’s eyes into existence? Because they’re the possessions of If John didn’t exist, there wouldn’t there wouldn’t be such a thing as John’s brain, would they? John’s nose. Not that the brain itself can be through through the brain. Yeah.
Yeah. The brain itself. It wasn’t John’s brain. Yeah. But yeah.
So all of his characteristics of John are attributed after subsequent to being labeled John. They weren’t John’s characteristics. But anyway, Pip. That’s for the pin, that would be the object of negation? Yeah.
Yeah. There are many ways. Yeah. It’s it’s the the the pin on a a pin on the basis. It’s like we label it’s like the pin on the pin.
And then that the pin already exists and we and then we go we we label pin on but the pin already exists. The pin’s there already. So all, yeah, all of what we’ve been trying to it’s difficult, isn’t it? Yeah. So the neck goes underneath, like, beneath the threshold of the wax.
Yeah. Just like when you see this when you when you’re walking along and you see a snake. Yeah. And that’s that very scene is the labeling. It’s not as if there’s no there’s no there’s not two steps.
You see a snake, that’s the labeling of snake. Yeah. You negated that and negated the fact that the snake is not there, you’ve determined that if I I I conceptualize the snake, I’m allowed to realize it’s not a snake. It’s a rope.
You can then take it one step further and say, well, the rope is possibly not there too. Although we know it’s a rope, it’s actually the end and break it down further. Is that Well And and then you come to the strands of hemp. The same as when you broke the pen apart. Yeah.
What you’re doing is stripping away that conceptuality, aren’t you, basically? Yeah. It’s just a matter where you want to stop the analysis. I mean but in in this example of searching for a pen, isn’t it you you you you know, this just shows how things would depend upon labeling, that example. It will not it and that may be useful, but this it will not help you to gain an understanding of the emptiness directly.
What we what we aren’t just searching for the pin in a little simple example. We’re searching for an inherently existent pen. That’s the object we are searching for the object of negation. It’s the unfinability of the object of negation which gives you insight into emptiness, not the unfinability of the object itself. Well, I guess in in that process.
You’d never come to an end. There would be something further that you could analyze down. You wouldn’t get an end or a standard emptiness? No. Because you wouldn’t come to emptiness because emptiness is the object of negation, and you’re not looking for the object of negation.
You’re looking for the pin. So this is an important point. Just looking for the pin, we’re never going to find it. We won’t find the no matter what object we might take, we we won’t if we analyze its parts, we won’t the the basis of designation is not the thing itself. So if we analyze the basis of designation, we’re never gonna find the thing itself, and we can keep breaking it up, breaking it up infinitely.
But that won’t lead us to an understanding of emptiness. We have to identify the object of negation and then look for that. And its non findability is emptiness. But I’m I’m too right. It is an effect that you can’t find the object itself.
That will give you some feeling for imputed existence. Yeah. That how things are imputedly existing. But in this in this first in this first essential is we have to what we’re going to look for is not that I’m not interested. I’m not going to look for the pin.
I’m going to look for the inherently existent pin. The non finability of the inherently existent pin will give me insight into emptiness. The non finability of the pin will not directly lead an insight into emptiness. It it can give you some it can help it’s helpful for sure. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have done this.
Yeah. So I yeah. That but that’s a good point. But you know, so Yeah. I thought it was I try and relate that to our eye, then then basically, you would say, okay.
Well, then my name is my name is John, and you take John. And then you try to look for John, but John consists of a lot of eyes. You’ve got your aggressive eye, your loving eye, your compassionate eye. They make up John in in the in the broad sense of the term. So you are analyzing those anyway when you go into that.
So so, inherently, what you’re trying to find is what’s to conceptualize around that. So how So so what I’m saying is that if if you’re saying that you you’re labeling and imputing John, and then and then we analyze to to find that inherent John. Inherent John? Yes. Yeah.
Inherent John. Okay. Inherent John also is is disguised by the aggressive But Inherent John doesn’t exist. Okay. Alright.
Yeah. When you when you analyze the inherent John, you will you will you will find its nonexistence. And that’s the emptiness of inherent John. Yeah. When we and when we’re looking for the eye this is a very important point in that it doesn’t make any sense to look just for the eye, the self.
I mean I mean I mean, it’s useful. I mean, it’s but it’s not what we’re trying to do here. If you look for the eye, you won’t find it. That’s not going to directly lead to to an an understanding of emptiness. Emptiness is the is the the the nonexistence of a particular type of eye, an inherently existing I or a truly existing I.
Unless we’re looking for that truly existing I, we won’t find its nonexistence, and therefore we won’t understand emptiness. So we want there’s an there there is and moreover, so how does this eye appear to us? And this is the eye we’re looking for. Otherwise, a lot of this won’t make any sense. It’ll become clear as we go through the other essentials.
But we have to always keep that in mind. We’re not looking for the conventionally existing I, the the empirically existing I, the I which is merely labeled to the mind and body of the five aggregates. That’s not what we’re that’s not the I we’re looking for. We’re looking for the I as conceived of by ignorance, the which comes out is most apparent in strong emotions. That’s the I that we want to identify, and that’s the I we’re going to look for.
That is the I which is held held to truly exist by ignorance, not the conventionally existent I. So this will become hope this will become more apparent why it’s necessary to make this important distinction. We’re not looking for the empirically existent eye, conventionally existent eye, but the eye as it is being held by ignorance. And this becomes most apparent in emotional situations. That’s why we try to generate emotional situations so we can identify that I which is being grasped at by ignorance.
And then we’re going to look for that. We’re trying to undermine ignorance by negating its object. Unless we negate the object of ignorance, we’re not going to get rid of ignorance. So we have to know what ignorance is trying to hold on to. It’s not trying to hold on to the conventionally existing eye.
It’s trying to hold on to an inherently existing eye. That’s the eye we have to identify and refute and thereby rid ourselves of ignorance. Otherwise, we’ll be refuting the wrong object, and it won’t harm ignorance. Ignorance will be left