Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A mind-training prayer — “If it’s better for me to die, I pray for the blessing of death” — sets the tone as Ven Jampa Gendun argues that the eight worldly dharmas, the habitual drives toward comfort and away from pain, are the perimeter walls of a self-constructed prison. In this 90-minute session he moves from that motivational reset through a brief equal-compassion meditation on three categories of people (close, pleasant, and neutral), then turns to a systematic Madhyamaka analysis of emptiness. The heart of the talk is the first of four analytical essentials: identifying the inherently existent self that ignorance mistakes for real. Using a live pen-dismantling demonstration and the image of a child hunting a bedroom monster, he explains why you must clearly identify the object of negation before its non-findability can undermine your belief in it. Closes with a student Q&A. Best suited to practitioners already familiar with basic Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 21 HMA 1997 09 24.mp3
UUID: 0296a975-d9e2-4a17-87ed-a9782da5f608
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening 1996-1997 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1997-09-24
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 90.7 minutes
Words: ~13,020
That we make in our lives. There are others. You know, this is just, I think, a abbreviated categorization. You know, there’s the pursuit of security, the avoidance of insecurity, the pursuit of success, the avoidance of failure. You know, these are the rules of how to be a model prisoner within cyclic existence.
If your choices are driven by these eight principles, then you are a slave. You aren’t free. And moreover, you’re going to keep. You’re going to remain a slave. You know, these these eight patterns, these eight principles by which we determine our conduct, our choices are very much like the like the boundary walls, the perimeter of our prison that we’ve created for ourselves, that we’ve constructed for ourselves.
And they limit our freedom. They limit our choices. The we never take risk and we never take chances. We never are willing to involve ourselves in what might be a legitimate suffering if we’re constantly preoccupied with only pleasure and at all costs avoiding pain. There’s a common misunderstanding among all the human beings who have ever lived, who have ever been born on the earth, that the best way to live is to try to avoid pain and just try to get comfortable.
You can see this even in insects and animals and birds. All of us are the same. A much more interesting, kind, adventurous and joyful approach to life is to begin to develop our curiosity, not caring whether the object of our inquisitiveness is bitter or sweet. To lead a life that goes beyond pettiness and prejudice and always wanting to make sure that everything turns out on our own terms. To lead a more passionate, full and delightful life than that, we must realize that we can endure a lot of pain and pleasure for the sake of finding out who we are and what it is and what the what this world is.
How we tick and how we how the world ticks. How the whole thing just is. If we’re committed to comfort at any cost, as soon as we come up against the least edge of pain, we’re going to run. We’ll never know what’s beyond that particular barrier or that wall or that fearful thing. So these eight worldly dharmas or these these principles by which most of us live our lives become a tremendous limiting factor in our lives.
The unknown is never explored. We never go beyond outside of of the familiar, what we’ve what we’re accustomed to. And then we live in these prison cells in which we have a tremendous nostalgia for and all of the prison routine which we which has become so familiar to ourselves. And however miserable it might be, it’s at least it’s home. And we’re not willing to There’s no thought to liberate ourselves even though it might be dissatisfactory by its very nature.
So I think it’s good to acknowledge or to get in touch or to become aware of what our priorities actually are which are determining the way we live our life, which are determining most of our thinking and the choices that we make. And understanding them perhaps begin to intervene, to begin to not allow them to have as much control over yourself. Because where are those standards, those principles by which you’re making those choices taking you? You know, these are the operational principles of our life. Principles of our life.
And perhaps they aren’t working. You know, the compulsion to always be comfortable at all costs means that we aren’t willing to involve ourselves in the difficult, to take risks and chance, to involve ourselves in constructive, suffering which, you know, going beyond old patterns might necessarily involve. Perhaps necessarily involves. And so things remain pretty much the same. So you know the prior we have to this is what this initial adjustment of our motivation is all about to to to reprioritize the principles in which we’re going to we would like to lead our life.
You know there’s a prayer. It’s in the It comes from the genre or a category of Buddhist teachings which is called mind training. And it’s a prayer for growth. And it’s a prayer to whatever is going to help me on my spiritual journey, that’s what I want. Whether it’s pleasurable or painful, that’s what I want.
As long as it’s going to help me on my journey. Because that’s in the end that’s the only thing that we can really trust in. If it’s better for me to be ill, I pray for the blessing of illness. If it’s better for me to recover, I pray for the pray for the blessing of recovery. If it’s better for me to die, I pray for the blessing of death.
And so, you know, it’s a prayer for growth beyond all of ego’s patterns, with its preoccupations, with all of its hopes and fears. I pray for whatever will help me to grow, to become this happy, healthy, loving, sane human being that I’m struggling to become. That’s my that’s become a priority in my life. You know, think this is this is maybe the real beginning of spiritual life when one goes beyond these eight worldly dharmas as the priorities of your life and begin to look to other values, standards by which to determine what it is that you want and what you’re willing to pursue. So we call this we take as a priority Buddha.
We set that as a priority in our life. That means it’s it’s important to us and you’re willing to pursue that end. Even if it involves risk, insecurity, legitimate suffering, some kind of pain, displeasure, discomfort, which it will. You’re willing to do that because this is a priority in your life. It’s important to you.
So, you know, the inner focus becomes Buddha. I think this is important for us to have that sense of clarity about where it is we want to go. So we’re aware of pain, our attachment to pleasure. You know, so we begin to take control of our lives. We begin to kind of make a commitment.
And we try to we have to do something. If Buddha is a priority in our life, it’s not enough that it simply be a sincere wish. We have to actually make some kind of real choices and take some kind of action. We have to do something. And that is our practice, the means by which we actualize, that we live up to these priorities that we’ve set for ourselves.
That is the Dharma. Making a commitment to the spiritual community, those who are going to assist us and whom we assist in turn. And trying to raise the level of our motivation, the why behind it all, and including within the scope of our priorities others, you know, someone else besides our solitary self as the reason behind what it is that we’re doing. So the inner focus of our life becomes Buddha by which we seek to actualize by means of the Dharma within the spiritual context of within the social context of a spiritual community. And as best we can with in our own limited and halting fashion, the level of our motivation, the why behind this process, this commitment that we’re involving ourselves in to include an ever widening circle of others.
And even if only for one other person in my my meditation, our discussion here this evening, If I can just develop myself that much more, perhaps become a little more peaceful, little more have a little greater understanding about the nature of who I am, a little bit more clarity around the nature of my problems, and therefore be able to understand others that much more and be able to be of that much more benefit for them, then that’s worthwhile. You know, that’s a significant part of the spiritual path. It’s not insignificant. It’s not to be discounted or dismissed. Without those kinds of small steps, we’ll never get anywhere.
To the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Community, I go for refuge into awakening. Through the creative potential of my listening to the Dharma, may I achieve the state of a Buddha for the sake of all living beings. To the Buddha, the Dharma and the supreme community, I go for refuge until awakening. Through the creative potential of my listening to the Dharma, may I achieve the state of a Buddha for the sake of all living beings. To the Buddha, the Dharma and the Supreme Community, I go for refuge until awakening.
Through the creative potential of my listening to the Dharma, may I achieve the state of a Buddha for the sake of all living beings. Reverently, I pay homage with my body, speech and mind and present clouds of every type of offering, those actual and imagined. I disclose all my destructive acts accumulated since time without beginning and rejoice in the skillful actions of holy and ordinary beings. Please remain until cyclic existence has ended and turn the wheel of dharma for living beings. I dedicate the skillful actions of myself and others to the great awakening.
So in in adjusting our motivation developing our love and compassion, perhaps we can expand the object toward whom we’re trying to develop these attitudes, these feelings. See if we can work with these three types of individuals. Someone that you’re very close to, that you care a great deal about. Someone who is outside of that immediate circle of significant people in your life but still you have a good relationship with them. You find them as very attractive people, very pleasant people.
And then thirdly, someone who you feel indifference towards, just neutral. They’re neither particularly attractive nor unattractive. They have no particular significant relationship with them. So in a sense that there is these three categories of people, normally we would have different feelings for each each of them. But we’re going to try to take them as our object and in our imagination try to see if we can arouse these feelings of love and compassion directed toward these three categories of people taken together as a group.
Essentially they’re all exactly alike. From the point of view of wanting happiness and not wanting to suffer, there is no difference. From their side there is no difference whatsoever. We make discriminations on one basis or another But more closer to the reality of the situation is that they are equal. And so they are all equally deserving of our love and compassion.
Though we don’t normally operate that way, normally our our feelings of love and compassion are mixed with attachment or to some degree or other. But maybe we can begin to kind of like removing the the wheat from the the from the chaff. Like when you in India, when they throw it up in the wind and the wind blows the chaff away and you’re left with just the rice, for example. They keep the rice. And pretty soon, they’re just left with just rice.
All the the chaff has been blown away by the wind. Likewise, maybe we can be left with nothing but compassion and love for these people divorced of, you know, of the usual emotions of attachment or aversion or indifference that we that that they may be mixed with. With. And then we can just practice the nine round breathing meditation and then mindfulness of breathing for some time. So if you take a comfortable posture.
Lies in our misunderstanding of our own psychology. One of our false assumptions is that our experience is reliable. That most of the time the way we see things is the way they really are. We subscribe to a philosophic tradition without knowing that we are doing any such thing called naive realism, which says that our perceptions use in general a direct picture of the way things are. We are brought up to take our experiences for granted so that we feel that things are unpleasant or problematic, we then have to act to do something extra to try to get them right.
We try to use the computer program to correct its own faults. We are not inclined to inquire into how we came to construe the situation in that way or whether there might be alternative points of view we could adopt from which things might look completely different. Part of our common sense is to treat perception as unproblematic and therefore not much interest in itself. And obviously there are many different levels we can work with our problems on. For most, it’s a matter of seeing the problems external to themselves.
If I only had the right partner, if I only had the right job, enough money, the right house, the right car, some material possession in one way or another, if I was only more beautiful, if I only had a better education, another degree. I think then perhaps we become a little more sophisticated. Say, maybe I have to begin to change my attitudes. You know, if I were a little more loving, little less angry, or a little more tolerant, a little less impatient, maybe my life would go a little bit easier. Things would be less a little less problematic.
But it’s very rare, and I think this is one of the geniuses of the Buddha, that he took the the nature of our problem all the way down to the level of perception. And he said, take a let’s take a look at this. Even down to the notion of our take it for granted, notion of I, the self, or this world about us. Just at that at the most primal level, you know, don’t there’s no there’s no more basic level that we can go to than to the level of our own perception that somehow at the very initial interaction with the world, there’s already the seed of a problem. There’s already the the source of our suffering is already there.
And I I don’t think any of us would ever I mean, it really takes a real genius to see something that that’s that subtle and that hidden from you know, to take to you know, people talk about, these days, and one of the buzzwords is deconstructionism. You know, the To try to see through taken for granted truths. Well, the Buddha was the ultimate deconstructionist, wasn’t he? You know, this world about us which we hold has truly existed. He deconstructed and said it’s not.
So this is the level we’re trying to work at in awakening our minds. At the very level of perception, there’s something already mistaken at even in terms of the way things appear to us in our everyday taken for granted reality in the world we conceive of to be out there. There’s already the the seeds of our problem have been sown and which manifests in a problematic way of life in a dysfunctional approach to living and suffering. So we’ve been working with this. We’re working at the level of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school.
Of the methods that we’re going to actually use in analyzing and coming to an understanding. And, you know, it’s not a matter of coming to some profound, earth shaking, dramatic turning about in the very depth of your mind. It probably won’t happen. Or maybe I’m just projecting my own hang ups on you. Maybe it will happen for you.
It’s never happened for me. I think there is a gradual shift, almost imperceptible perhaps. But over time, there is a gradual accustoming one’s sense of I and the world and just that things aren’t quite as solid and out there as we once held them to be. And I think you become things become a little more fluid, a little more open. We become a little a little less fixed in our in our ideas and opinions.
The things are more open to interpretation and we have we make greater allowances for people having different perspectives and viewpoints on the same subject. And our understanding is that it’s just very much a point of view. That things out out air out aren’t out there fixed and solid in in existing in and of themselves, but are very much a a rising dependence upon labeling, interpretation. You know, this is to some sense, a very practical way, we’re talking about the world isn’t interpreted the way it is. And we each have general rules of interpretation which which bring about a common shared reality.
But within that common shared reality, we have our very unique and idiosyncratic interpretations which we have to make allowances for because there’s simply no objective world out there which we there’s no substratum by which we can measure. There’s no standard with we can compare right and wrong and true and truth and false. It’s only in certain contexts in in relative ways, nothing absolute. So then my I think your mind becomes a little more fluid and open, a little less this Velcro mind. And some of the the hooks get kind of worn down or something.
So we’re working with the method of analysis. Wisdom is an analytic consciousness. It’s, it tries to penetrate beneath the surface of things, to see things in a deeper, deeper way. And we have to we are trying to make use of a very methodical means of analysis, you know, really systematic. We’re trying to undercut, undermine a misconception.
You know, we conceptions are those are our thoughts, patterns of mind which make use of symbols and language and which make use of models. And some of these are characterized by distorting. They aren’t they don’t accurately depict reality. They don’t they’re not accurate representations of the world. If you base your life on those misrepresentations, those inaccurate representations of the world, Somehow there’s going to be your actions are going to be inappropriate.
There’s going to be some kind of discrepancy. There’ll be some kind of dissonance, some kind of conflict. Your your actions won’t quite fit right. This disagreement between our actions, the way that we view the world and the way the world is in its actual nature, is experienced as tension, as disharmony, ultimately as some level of suffering. We have no choice in the matter.
We have to The world is the way it is regardless of our ideals about it. And we can’t make up a world. I guess we could try. I mean, some people do. That’s what we call psychosis, don’t they?
But it’s not a very satisfying, perhaps, way of life. And at best, even that is only temporary escape. It’s not a it’s not a real solution to the problem of suffering. It’s kind of a a a mistaken attempt. But people do it because they for probably good reasons nonetheless.
But it’s perhaps misguided in terms of what it actually accomplishes. So this systematic procedure of how we’re going to perform this analysis to come into this understanding, to I try to undermine ignorance. We have to, begin so that it no longer has the degree of influence over our perceptual process, the way we think and view the world. It it no you know, it’s still going to affect us slightly, and then less and less and less. So we have to undercut it.
We have to bring it into question, and then begin to undermine it. It’s like undermining in a a perverse sense, undermining some kind of faith. They say, don’t undermine my faith in whatever by calling into question what it’s based upon. We’re trying to undermine ignorance by calling into question what it’s based upon, its object, what it believes to be true. So there’s a very systematic we’re going to work with this in a very systematic fashion.
It’s quite necessary. So this is called the four essentials or the four point analysis or sometimes the four keys. Whatever we call it, there’s four. There’s four points. The essential of determining the object of negation.
The essential of determining the pervasion. The essential of determining the lack of being one. And the essential of determining the lack of being different. So we’re to work these are the actual methods that we’re going to work with. You can’t the reason that this is instead of you make use of this method, you can’t go wrong.
There are lots of ways we can go wrong. Obviously, when we’re dealing with something as subtle as, you know, as mistakes at the very perceptual level, we can fall into all kinds we can go off on the tangents we which won’t be of any use to ourselves, which won’t help us to solve our problems. We won’t come to a correct understanding in the end of emptiness. Instead of making use of this method, it’s almost as if we’re foolproof. We’ll come to a correct understanding.
So the first of these four essentials, the essential of ascertaining the object negation. The object to be refuted. Object of negation, object to be refuted. Same meaning. To negate means to to do away with, to eliminate, to destroy, that kind of that kind of sense about it.
This is the most difficult and the most important. If you get this one right and and and it’s a matter of developing a sense of it over time, developing a composite, a picture, picture, a model of what the object of negation is in your mind over time, playing with the idea, working with it, thinking about it, reflecting upon it. Then the rest is easy. The rest of the three points are just a matter of a process of following through reasoning and analysis and observation. We have to know what it is we’re looking for.
We have to be we have to It’s at this stage that we get a clear picture of the way that inherently existent self or I appears. We we’re we’re saying that due to the that that there appears an inherently existent self. And we’re gonna use lots of words to try to get at what this means because at this point, it probably doesn’t mean much for us. Inherently existent self or intrinsically existent self or self defining self or objectively existent self or self existing from its own side. All of these different terms, we have to try to get a sense of what they’re getting at.
What is that develop a mental image, a picture for ourselves. The way that this such a self would appear. The the the inherently existent self or I. Self and I synonymous. No different in in in our usage here.
It does not exist, but its appearance does. We have a mental image of it. Just like, you know, when there was a rope in the grass and we saw a snake. The snake doesn’t exist but the appearance of the snake exists. We have a mental image of a snake which is appearing to us.
The appearance of the snake exists. The snake doesn’t exist but the appearance of the snake exists. Likewise, the inherent existent I, the objectively existent I, the independently existent I does not exist. If it existed, we can’t negate it. We can’t do away with it because it exists.
But its appearance exists. Its appearance exists. And moreover, ignorance accepts that appearance as being true. It appears and ignorance says, ah, yes, and that’s the way it exists. And we so we have to begin to undermine.
We have a new cat here in Buddha House as you’re hearing. We have so ignorance is is like the snake. Wow. Must be sound like they’re fighting over their territory. That arises out of this strong sense of grasping for a truly existent self of cats and mine, my territory.
You’re in my territory. Get out of my territory. We, you know, it’s just like when the snake appears and we think and we accede to that appearance as if it’s not just an appearance, we think it’s a real snake. It’s not just an appearance. We don’t think, oh, there’s the appearance of a snake.
We think snake, as if that were true, that appearance were in fact a snake. And but we have to begin to and there’s a belief that holds that and from that belief we we generate fear, generate aversion. We have to but we what we would do is begin analysis and begin to undermine that belief that though it’s still appearing to ourselves, we begin to understand, well, maybe it’s not really a snake after all. Maybe it just looks like a snake. You know, we begin to introduce some kind of doubt as to the as to the validity of that appearance.
That’s what we’re beginning to do. Even just that doubt is tremendously powerful. So we’re trying to undermine a belief in a particular type of self. The first thing that in gaining this, in this process of undermining ignorance, the first thing and the most important thing is to find out what how does this I appear? What does it look like?
Like? What image is is arising in my mind? What model am I using? You know, I said, cognitive minds are model builders. It’s quite it’s quite useful to think about the eye in terms of representation of the I.
But but we can but this this gives us a chance to to make predictions, to to talk and to communicate, to manipulate, to to gain some kind of control using models and representations of the world, to think about the world. But here we’re using a model which is has some kind of which is a model, number one. And moreover, it is has a characteristic which is mistaken, which the in fact, the actual eye does not possess. That is to say, for example, independent existence or inherent existence. And that simple little flaw introduces an element which eventuates in cyclic existence, in suffering.
So the first step is to gain a picture of what the I looks like to ignorance, the inherently existent eye. So one of the keys to understanding emptiness and here by emptiness I mean an absence, a lack of. We should always ask when we hear the word empty, empty of what? That’s what the word means. It doesn’t mean nothingness.
It means lacking something. What what is lacking? What is absent? A lack of an independently existent way of existing, of an inherent way of existing, of true existence. All of these various terms.
The term in selflessness, the less, same meaning, absence, lack of, emptiness less, same idea. There is a lack or an absence of a particular type of self, an independently existent self, a self which exists independent of mind and body, for example. Independent of its causes and conditions. independent of the perceptual process, language, labeling, conceptuality. Independent of all that.
That there is a lack of that. That there is an absence of that, such a type of self. That’s what we mean by selflessness, the quality of an absence of such a type of self, which we want to understand. So one of the keys to understanding emptiness is unfindability upon analysis. Unfindability means you don’t find it when you look for it.
You know it’s if we’re really going search for something the prerequisite is we have to know what it is that we’re looking for. The clearer we know what we’re looking for the greater our conviction in its non existence when we don’t find it. We’re not gonna find what we’re looking for but we this simply that is not gonna undermine ignorance. We have to there is something that ignorance is holding to exist. We have to find out what that something looks like.
We’re going to search for it and then when we don’t find it we’re going to begin to undermine ignorance’s grasping to it as existing. Wisdom will begin to undermine the conviction in its existence, that belief that this type of I exists. Because we know what we’re looking for, we look for it, we don’t find it, how can we in the same manner to hold that it does exist when we keep invalidating that belief continually again and again? We begin to wear down the ignorance’s power, its ability to maintain itself. If this works for any type of consciousness.
Consciousness arise dependent upon their object. If we negate their object, we negate the consciousness. If we negate the object of ignorance, if we establish that it doesn’t exist, we negate the consciousness which is grasping to that object. It only arises in dependence upon that object or its belief in the existence of that object. If we can demonstrate that that object in fact doesn’t exist, then we negate its existence and its belief in that existence and we negate the consciousness might be.
Here, ignorance. The way that we eliminate ignorance from the mind is by negating the object to which it’s grasping to, it’s holding to. Therefore, we have to be able to if we’re going to negate that object, have to know what it looks like very clearly, very accurately. There’s a there’s a verse from Śāntideva’s book, the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, Bodhicaryāvatāra, where he says without contacting the imagined existence, its non existence is not apprehended. Without contacting the imagined existence, we imagine, we hallucinate if you like something to exist without knowing what that imagined existence is or that hallucinated existence is, its non existence is never understood.
I mean, this is know, what what it is the imagined existence, we imagine something like like we imagine a snake exists. Without knowing what it what it is that you’re imagining to exist, then we’re never going to understand its nonexistence. So if we don’t clearly and this is we have to emphasize this because this is the most important point and the most difficult point. If we don’t clearly identify the self or the I, then analysis cannot proceed for the reason that there is either no actual object being searched for or just going through the motions and that kind of looking around, maybe something will catch your eye along the way. Or because we have such a vague and blurry image of it that its non findability does not possess the strength of conviction to overcome our deeply ingrained belief in its existence.
We have to come to we have to think, I know what I’m looking for. I know where if it exists, where it must be. We we go through extremely detailed methodic methodological, methodical search. We don’t find it. That’s The force of that non finding has tremendous power.
I know what I was looking for. I looked in the right place. If it exists, I I should have found it. I didn’t find it. It doesn’t exist.
You know, the mind becomes convinced through the procedure, through the methodology. Some kind of a new position begins to dawn. It has, you know, this this understand this unfinability has some force on the mind, begins to undermine ignorance. So we are trying to bring to conscious awareness a presently unconsciously held model or mental image of a type of self which most of us most of our thinking and emotional life is based upon and which moreover is the cause of all of our suffering. You know, as I said, we are model builders.
I I say for example, I’m speaking to you. I’m going, you know, today I went to the city. I’m I’m using models of an I. That’s not necessarily problematic. That’s useful.
But it can become problematic when we begin if if the characteristics of that I, that image, that model I’m making use of, that representation has some kind of flaw, has the flaw in this case of being held to inherently exist or truly exist, to independently exist. Whenever there’s a strong sense of I, what an emotional I arises, there will arise a strong sense of mind. And out of this this sense of I and mind arises not I, not an other. And there will arise conflict. There will arise attachment and aversion, in dependence upon this strongly held sense of I, emotional I.
We we have to understand that, just like in the you know, I talked about mental maps that you know, by which we can understand the world. We make use of these mental maps, these models. And I talked about how but the map is not the territory. But moreover, some maps some maps do not refer to anything in reality. You know, like, Tolkien’s world.
You know, all all of his the books that he wrote, about the Lord of the Rings, for example, with all these detailed maps about the world, that particular world. That world, you know, is that world doesn’t refer to those maps don’t refer to anything in reality. And quite likewise, some of the maps we make are quite useful. They refer to the real world. And we can navigate our life.
We can understand how to get along with the world very well using those maps because they’re an accurate reflection of the world. Other maps are mistaken in some fashion. They don’t refer they refer to they mistake they refer to in mistaken ways to the world and therefore we act inappropriately if we base our interaction in dependence upon them or in some cases they don’t have any reference in reality at all. So we’re going to we’re trying to set a target for ourselves and we’re going to shoot the arrow of our our reason analysis. So the analysis is only effective to whatever degree we are able to identify within our own experience this appearance, this model that is created out of a network of wrong beliefs.
We have a model we have correct models of self. We have mis we have, wrong models of self. Okay. By that I mean we’re not trying to identify what we call the empirical or the conventionally existent self. You know, the everyday self, the everyday I.
Sometimes it’s happy, sometimes it’s unhappy, that wakes up in the morning, struggles off to work or gets gets busy around the house, goes through its daily activities, play, you know, fixes dinner, eats, plays with the kids, watches a bit of television, goes to bed tired. You know, that eye is not a problem. May it might seem that way but, that’s that’s the empirically existent I, the conventionally existent I. You know, I’m speaking to you, you’re writing notes, you know, you’re listening to me, maybe you’re not. But anyway, that I, the I that eats and watches television and does all these various activities, is not the problem.
And moreover, this I cannot be negated. That self cannot be negated because it exists. So we’re not trying to to exist to negate or refute or destroy something that exists. We can’t do that. What what appears to exist and in reality does exist will upon analysis become more apparent, will become more and more obvious to ourselves.
This is like the nature of truth. The closer you approach it the more obvious, the more apparent it becomes to yourself. On the other hand that that which appears to exist but in reality doesn’t, when you analyze it, when you approach it closer and closer, it becomes less and less apparent, less and less obvious until it disappears altogether. Just like in the case of the rope and the snake. There’s a snake appearing to you.
If you analyze, if you inspect the object which appears to be to you to be a snake, it’ll become less and less apparent that it is a snake, more and more obvious that it isn’t a snake until it disappears altogether and you see through that appearance and you see it’s in fact a rope. So in the essential, this first essential of ascertaining the the or determining the object of negation, we’re trying to identify an I or a self which we wrongly presume to exist, which the emotional I, which all of our emotional life is built is built around, is based upon one way or another. And then we’re going to proceed to negate or refute it. Just as in the case we we can refute 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 ignorance is baseless. It is grasping at a non existent, which which it believes to exist. So in in coming to an understanding, I did so we’re trying to identify what is this object.
You know, 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 know, I’m I’m the best thing that ever came to Emily and 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 of this interrelationship, this relationship with and 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 a a sense of the inherently existent eye, it’s helpful to understand what is the opposite of an inherently existent eye. And that would be the opposite of inherent existence is nominal existence.
Or there’s a lot of different words we can use. 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 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 we discussed this. We get a simple example, you know, 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 there. It’s what shall we call him? Say it’s a him word. What should 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. Pick that is the basis in that 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 whatever level you want to to analyze it. There is something appears to the mind. That’s the basis of designation. And 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, 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 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 give you a sense, there’s no difference from the point of view of the process of labeling, and just from the process from the 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 and 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 this so the just as the newly born baby appears to our awareness in the dependence upon 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 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 about 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 the rope is out there, doesn’t it? On the base. It’s just not appearing. It’s not being labeled for 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, you know, 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 merely 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 it’s it’s 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 is somehow is self existent from its own side, that it exists under its own power, that it’s it’s self 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 a 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 at 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 truths in our everyday life. But this is even it is even more so. You know, how do how does the pin appear to ourselves? And then 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 pen. That’s the way That’s kind of the sense the way it is appearing to me. That’s my sense and that’s what I’ve learned.
That’s what I’ve been told. I think that’s the way it is though. And it it’s sort of it’s out there. It’s a an entity which is cast, it has a sort of solidity about it. It has a sort, it’s very substantial.
It it I’m not 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 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 pin. 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 is none of the parts parts are 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 Very It’s almost magical. When we begin to take these parts and we put them together in specific configuration, what happens? As if by magic, a pin appears to our mind.
I think that’s neat. Would you like to see that again? It’s just slow motion. So what happened? Something something When it When there’s an appearance, it stimulates it stimulates a labeling process.
Something appears to 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 is 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, 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 pen? 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, that’s not the hand. You know, is the BAM 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? And But we we we have a sense. We all know what a hand is, don’t we? We Now, if you show me a hand, I I know what I know what it is.
I I can tell a hand when I see it. We have that kind of sense. We can. But we but when we keep 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, I I 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 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 who see what is it that how does this self, this I appear? So in order to we want to get an a sense of what what is the inherently existent eye. You know, the inherently existent pin is the is you know, can you the inherently existent pin is the pen 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 exist 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 it exists it exists that way from its own side, independent of causes condition, independent of parts. You know, it’s it’s as if, you know, I have a sense that I could find that pin if I look for it amongst its parts. I have a sense I 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 or 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 designate of designation of the hand is a hand. The basis of designation is not the phenomena designated. in dependence upon the parts of a pin put together in a 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 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 this this in a certain configuration appeared to me, I I I labeled pin.
In basis of these fingers, hand, palm appearing to me, I labeled hand. In the bay in the on the basis of the body and mind appearing to me, I labeled self, I labeled I. But inherently existent I appears that as if the basicness 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, 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 isn’t a case of a rope.
I can I can label snake? Snake snake appears. 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, eye. And moreover, now you hold that that eye 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 that just the difference in basis of designation. That I being projected that that 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. And 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 a projection.
Same thing. But now it’s just being projected on your body and mind. But we don’t think that’s so absurd, but it’s just as absurd. It’s just as much a hallucination. So it’s, you know, 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 it’s I’m not projecting it. It’s you know, that’s what we mean by inherently existent eye, substantially existent eye. An eye existing from its own side. That’s what we mean.
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 we this is the kind of eye that we want to identify. So I I I 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 then we must Then we analyze how the eye is being apprehended.
How does it appear to us? So we have to activate a very strong sense of eye, 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 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, 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 essential 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 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, you know.
We So we just And then we observe the I. How does the I appear? This I 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 certain errors may occur. You know, some people they they generate a sense of a 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 it how is the self experienced. But at that time at the time when you actually begin to analyze Mhmm. The sort of darkness, that kind of blankness appears to their mind.
So this is this only happens to some people. It’s not, you know, nothing is going happen to you and it’s neither good nor bad. It just This is 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’s it’s it this this also is the result of a sudden concentration of the mind, you know. You’re you’re trying 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 the subjective aspect. Now, when you’re thinking, wow, I’m so happy. I I did so well on that test. Well, I could Someday I’m gonna be famous.
That And so you you’re allowing that emotion to build up with that 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? Well, how does it appear? So at that point, one has to be very subtle in applying the this the focus. If if if if for in this case, where there’s a sense of tautness in the body.
This this sudden concentration of the mind in its effort to investigate, it causes What we’ll do is we’ll constrict our muscles. We’ll we’ll we’ll we’ll Even perhaps unknowingly, and probably unknowingly, we’ll we’ll strain our our physical self in some way, just a little squeezing. And this will disturb the circulation of the wind energies in your body. And 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, you 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 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 like locate the self and analyze what to look what does it appear, nothing at all appear is experienced.
So this is the 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 again 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 it. This this is the first of the four essentials. This essential determining the object in 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 where the problem is like, you know, what 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 starts screaming. And you go in your room, what’s what’s what’s what’s What’s wrong? Oh, there’s a monster under the bed. There’s a monster in my room.
There’s a 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 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 non definability undermines your con 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 absence of 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 non findability is going to help undermine our belief in the existence of the monster eye. And it’s it’s driving our lives.
Maybe I’ll I’ll just oh, maybe let’s let’s take a we don’t I I can go on. I wanna take some time because I mean, I I realize we we quite often discuss it in our discussion groups. There’s 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 object to refute it.
Is there any in terms of what’s been said, anybody have any questions? Yeah. Brings John’s brain into existence, brings John’s nose into existence, brings John’s eyes into existence? John didn’t exist, there wouldn’t there wouldn’t be such a thing as John’s brain, would there? John’s nose.
No. But then the the brain itself encounters a thing through through the brain. Yeah. Yeah. The brain itself.
But 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. Yeah. Self self defining. It defines itself. And that’s for the pen and how to get the object of negation?
Yeah. Yeah. In many ways, yeah. It’s it’s the the the pen on the basis. It’s like we label it’s like the pen on the pen.
And that the pin already exists and we 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, the neck stretch out of the wax. Yeah. Just like when you see this when you’re 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 labeling a snake. Yeah. You negated that and negated the fact that the snake is not there, you’ve determined that, no, I I I just perceptualize the snake. I’ve been able to realize it’s not a snake.
It’s a rope. Well, the the 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 hem.
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 is 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 know, this just shows how things are dependent 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 this real simple example. We’re searching for an inherently existent pin. That’s the We are searching for the object of negation.
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 respect, they will what I’m trying to understand is if I if I conceptualize the pen and I wanna then negate that, then I can turn around and say, well, there’s the pen top. Now I know that that’s pen top. That’s the pen case.
That’s the pen. That’s the ink. Eventually, I come down to emptiness to nothingness. Don’t I? You’ve you’ve you’ve negated that all the way.
Yeah. Yeah. If If you analyze it right out. So we’re no. You could it’s just an infinite it would be an infinite process.
You’d never come to an end. No. You would always there’d always be something further that you could analyze down. You wouldn’t be able to analyze down to No. Because you you wouldn’t come to emptiness because emptiness is the is emptiness of the object of negation, and you’re not looking for the object of negation.
You’re looking for the pin. So this this is the important point. You know, just just looking for the pin, we’re going to find it. We won’t find the in a 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 basic 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. 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 well, 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-findability of the inherently existent pin is is will give me insight into emptiness. The non-findability of the pen will not give me will not lead to will not directly lead to 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 that 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 behind John’s aggressive eye or is that the the the true cause or the true eye behind that. Is that what you’re trying to conceptualize in that? So how So so what I’m saying is that if if you’re saying that you’re labelled in 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 for 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 it’s useful and 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 an understanding of emptiness. Emptiness is the non existence of a particular type of eye, an inherently existing eye a truly existing I. Unless we’re looking for that truly existing eye, 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 conventional existing eye, the the empirically existing eye, the eye which is merely labeled to the mind and body of the five aggregates. That’s not what we’re that’s not the eye we’re looking for.
We’re looking for the eye 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 I, conventionally existent I, but the I as it is being held by ignorance. And this is becomes most apparent in emotional situations. That’s why we try to generate emotional emotional situations so we can identify that eye which is being grasped 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 conventional existing I. 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.