Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Opening with the Mind Only school’s claim that subject and object are never truly separate—like dream-eye and dream-house arising from the same mind—Ven Jampa Gendun works through the third of the Three Principal Aspects of the Path: seeing deeply into the nature of reality. In this 45.5-minute session he traces the practitioner’s journey from naive realism through the hearer stage into the Mind Only position that no external world exists independently of mind. The central framework is the three natures: imaginary (concepts mistaken for real things), dependent (truly existent things arising from causes and conditions), and thoroughly established (emptiness—the absence of subject-object difference). Three sustained examples—a dream, a lion on a cinema screen, and two people naming a tree—make abstract distinctions concrete.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 03 3 PA 1990 10 12.mp3
UUID: 07c2a096-71d8-43ee-83c8-aa7d7a62b5f3
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principal Aspects of the Path 1988-1990 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1990-10-12
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.5 minutes
Words: ~5,456
Recommitting ourselves to the inner goal of our life. Being the actualization of Buddha within ourselves. Being a happy, healthy, sane human being. Committing ourselves to the methods, the means to achieve this in which is the Dharma. Committing ourselves to the social context in which it all arises.
The spiritual community of the Sangha. Raising the level of our motivation, understanding the nature of our situation and how it is shared by all others, that others are exactly like ourselves. All others want to be happy as they don’t want to suffer, and no difference whatsoever. Part of our problem is that we misconceive the nature of our situation and to think of ourselves in isolation from others. That somehow we can achieve security and peace in isolation from others without concerning ourselves with others.
Fact this is one of our mistaken notions which is causing a great deal of our problems is the fact that we seek happiness in isolation from others. That in fact our happiness is very much bound up with the happiness of others and developing the level of our motivation such that we’re trying to become develop ourselves, to become happy, healthy, loving human beings for the in order to benefit others to help them to do the same. I go for refuge until I’m enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the highest assembly. From the virtuous merit that I collect by practicing giving and other perfections, may I attain the state of a Buddha to be able to benefit all sentient beings. I go for refuge until I’m enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the highest assembly. From the virtuous merit that I collect by practicing giving and the other perfections, may I attain the state of a Buddha to be able to benefit all sentient beings.
I go for refuge until I’m enlightened to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the highest assembly. From the virtuous merit that I collect by practicing giving and the other perfections, may I attain the state of a Buddha to be able to benefit all sentient beings. So we’re looking at the trying to see the nature of reality, We’re moving through the progressive stages and seeing deeply into the nature of reality. The third of the three principal aspects of the path. The first being developing the determination to be free.
The second, opening our hearts to others. And the third, which we’re presently discussing and seeing deeply into the nature of reality. So we’re moving from initial stage of of a naive realist. That is to say someone who unquestionably accepts everything very much the way things appear. And there is a world out there which exists unquestioned there is a self within ourselves and the way of relating is all based upon this unquestioned accepting of appearances to be in fact the way things actually are.
But we begin the actual initial stage, the beginning stage of seeing deeply into the nature reality with the level of the hearer, the hearer stage. And so he sees that, he accepts that there’s a world out there which truly truly exists, which exists very much as it appears. But what he begins to question and what he begins to see is that there is no singular, unchanging, independent self. That is, using rough terminology, there’s no solid concrete self. The self is not solid and concrete.
That is not a substantially existent self, though it appears to. It appears to exist very solid and concrete, but it doesn’t exist that way. So the idea of falsity, it has been introduced into our view of reality, that things don’t necessarily exist the way they appear. They can appear one way and exist a very much different way. Due due to the mental factor of ignorance, the way things exist can be distorted.
Due to distorting factor of ignorance, appearances can be other than the way the object actually, in fact, exists. And due to the the veiling quality of ignorance, the obstructive quality of ignorance, we are unable to see, in fact, the way they do in themselves exist. The practitioner so this is at the hearer stage in terms of beginning to see that the self is not a self sufficient self. It’s not a singular, unchanging, independent self. At the hearer stage, the practitioner of mind only understands that the self is not substantially existent, that it is merely a convenient manner of speaking, a conventionality designated to the body and mind or the five aggregates.
But since he now knows that mere appearances cannot be trusted, now begins to question the world around him to see if, in fact, the world about him is true or false. He no longer simply can accept appearances because he has found at least one thing which is a falsity. That is the nature of the self as it appears under the influence of ignorance, this distorted appearance. So as we talked, as was mentioned last week, this stage is called mind only because it asserts that all phenomena are of the nature of mind or the same entity as mind. And as was mentioned, this is not to say chairs, houses, people are not mind.
They’re the same entity as mind. If tables, houses, and chairs were mind, then they would absurdly have to be knowers. Tables would be knowers of objects. Chairs would know objects and they don’t. Therefore they are not mind but they are the same entity as mind.
And perhaps we are going to try to make this clear what we mean by this. But we say they’re not substantially different to the mind. There is no object which exists externally to the mind. And we’re at the mind only particular stage in our development of the understanding of reality. And we have to keep this in mind that we’re at a particular stage.
This was not the final thought of the Buddha but it was a remedial presentation for a particular disciple to lead that individual into more subtle presentations of the nature of reality. So you know, trying to understand how things can be and then not separate from the entity of mind. Just as, for example, houses and cars in a dream are not separate from the mind. Then, you know, they appear to be. All the things all the things in the dream and also, you know, for example, a chair or a house.
The and there is there is you in the dream perceiving. There seems to be a perceiving consciousness, and external to this are houses, cars, etcetera. And these appearances seem to be external to the perceiving consciousness. But in fact, all of these appearances are merely the play of the mind. They’re the same substance of the mind.
You know, the dream eye consciousness and the dream and the house that appear to it are just manifestations of mind. They’re not separate from mind. Just appearances arising within the mind. The eye consciousness and the objects of the eye consciousness, for example, houses, chairs. But the houses and chairs appear to be external, but in fact they aren’t.
This is a false appearance. This appearance at the at the house, the chairs, etcetera, are external to the eye consciousness or that person perceiving them, you in this dream. So the dream consciousness, the dream eye consciousness, and the houses, chairs, etcetera are all the same substance. They’re all just like the play of mind. All just the the like the like the stirring of the waves on the surface of the ocean.
They’re never separate from the ocean, the waves. The perceiver and the perceived are not substantially different. That is to say they’re of the same substance, mind. And we mentioned why this is. Why do we use this terminology?
Because we said that the mind only school posits a mind basis of all, a neutral consciousness in which all the karmic seeds are deposited. And when these seeds are activated, they’re ripened. The ripening effect is just like a flower or a plant ripening. The ripening effect is that they’re arising of a simultaneous subject and object out of one seed, out of one substance. So this is why they’re termed substantially the same.
They’re not substantially different. They both arise simultaneously out of the same substance, both perceiving subject and the perceived object. The mind so the mind only school asserts that every sentient being has this mind basis of all, this neutral consciousness which acts as a repository for these karmic seeds. So when a seed is activated, it simultaneously produces the perceiving subject, and the perceived object. So the subject and the object are not substantially different because they both are produced from the same substance.
They’re not substantially different because they’re both produced by the same substance. Subjects and objects are are the play of the mind and result from the ripening of karmic seeds. If you if you can think of this well, yeah, well hopefully this maybe this explanation will help you to think of this well because it’s quite useful in in approaching the as I mentioned, the higher presentations. It’s the the mind only school is probably the most difficult school. It’s the most complicated school in a way of the various of the four schools of tenets of philosophic systems.
But it’s quite a useful way of overcoming our habitual grasping to an external world, our real world solid, that things are out there very much the way they appear. So at the hearer’s stage, the practitioner of mind only learned that the appearances cannot always be accepted. They cannot always be trusted. Appearances cannot always be trusted. That sometimes they are false and that an object can appear one way but in fact not exist the way it appears.
So the mind only practitioner begins to question the truth or falsity of the world around him, what’s out there. Questioning whether there is, in fact, an external world. There appears to us quite naturally, instinctively, an external world that this book, that this table is external to my mind. That’s the way it appears to me. But the mind only practitioner begins to question, isn’t is that in fact the case?
So he he begins in this examining process. He begins to distinguish three types of objects and these are called the three natures. And these are a very fundamental element in coming to understand the mind only school, the mind only stage. Begins to distinguish objects into those which are merely a fabrication of thought. These are called imaginary natures.
There are three natures. One type of object is objects which are completely fabrications of the mind, completely arising out of concepts, thought constructions. These are called imaginary natures. Then there are those which have a relative I’m going to go over these in different ways so I hope they become clear. Then there are those which have a relative existence.
They’re called dependent natures, sometimes called other power natures, just a different translation of the same term. Dependent natures, other powered natures. And then there is a third nature of objects which have an absolute existence, not a relative existence, but an absolute existence. And these are called thoroughly established natures. The mind only practitioner has divided objects into three categories: the imaginary objects which are completely constructed by the thought process, by the thinking process.
Then there there is a relatively existent, and this is called interdependent or dependent nature. Yeah. We’ll we’ll go through this again. And then there’s those objects which are have absolute existence. And these are thoroughly established nature.
Thoroughly established nature. So the first nature is imaginary or conceptual in the sense that our concept of concepts about the world are taken to be real and stands for and stand for real things. Know, there’s there’s one standard phrase. The the map is not the territory. That is to say, we we the imaginary here is referring to our our mistaken perception which conceives of our concepts about things, our terms which denote things to be the things themselves.
My conception of of table, I begin to see it as in fact a table. I use the term table. And I begin to and all the various associations I have with that term, I begin to associate as if actual tables were like that. So I begin to mistake the map with all these dots squares for the actual cities, which they just denote. So I’m mistaking my ideals about things for the things themselves.
That grasping, that holding that what is merely my concept about something as to be the the actual object is what we mean by an imaginary nature, an imaginary nature. Have concepts about the world and we take them to be real and stand for real things. And this leads to all our problems as far as the mind only school stand is concerned. So we’re gonna go back through by using different types of examples what we mean by imaginary because we If we’re going to understand mind only stage we have to understand what we mean by imaginary and how how it affects the way we relate with the world. Relating in the world in terms of our concepts about it and not in terms about how it exists in fact from its own right.
We we are relating with our view of the world, not the world. We hold our view of the world to be the world. And this is where all our mistaken inappropriate actions arise. And therefore all our suffering ensues from that. The second nature, dependent nature, is relative or other powered.
Another word, another translation for dependent nature is other powered in the sense that it has the quality of depending upon something other than itself for its existence. That is to say, these are products which depend upon causes and conditions. Tables, chairs, people, houses, these are all dependent natures. They they depend upon something other than themselves. They exist relative to something other than themselves.
They arise out of causes and conditions. They simply they have relative existence. They are conditioned real. They are the conditioned real. They are real in the sense that they truly exist.
Imaginaries falsely exist. They are not real. They’re held to be real, but they are not real. Therefore, they are said to be false. Chairs, houses, people truly exist.
Truly exist. But they they are conditioned real that is they depend upon conditions causes and conditions. And the third nature is thoroughly established or thoroughly established. It has the quality of being complete and without relative reference. So it’s the the thoroughly established does not exist in relationship to anything other itself.
It is complete within itself. This is how it’s getting this name. Perfectly existent. Thoroughly existent. Thoroughly established.
This is the unconditioned real. It is real. It truly exists but it is does not exist in relationship to other factors. And we’ll keep explaining expanding upon these ideas. So as I mentioned, these three natures are a very important element in the mind only stage.
So the Buddha said that every phenomena has three natures. Every phenomena has three natures. He called attention to an illusory element in our ordinary perception. This illusory element in the way that we see things is a bifurcation of subject and object into separate entities. And he called this bifurcation imaginary.
When I view the table there is an illusory element in my perceiving the table. That illusory element is that the subject that my eye consciousness, which is viewing the table, seeing the table, and table are different entities, that they are different substances, that the the table exists external to my eye consciousness. He said that holding the the table which exists external to the eye consciousness, perceiving the table is an imaginary. It does such a table in fact doesn’t exist. It’s purely a thought construction.
A table which exists external to my eye consciousness is purely a thought construction. A not only a thought, it is a it is a mistaken thought construction in that it it rises out of under the influence of ignorance, distorting quality of ignorance. So the word imaginary, so it’s it’s utterly unfounded and should be eradicated. So he used the Buddha used this term imaginary with respect to the this bifurcation into subject object. So subject and object as different entities subject and object as different entities are nonexistent imaginaries.
There are two types of imaginaries. Subject and object as different entities. Yes. Different substances are nonexistent imaginaries. They have there is no table which exists external to my eye consciousness perceiving the table.
That table does not exist. It appears to exist, but in fact does not exist. Externally existent table appears to exist, but in fact does not exist. That is a nonexistent imaginary. It is imaginary because it’s a thought construction completely.
And it is nonexistent thought imaginary because the the object imagined, in fact, does not exist. It it is is arises out of mistaken conceptions. So there’s different ways of putting this. There is there there subject and object as different entities are nonexistent imaginaries, as are objects that are established by way of their own character as basis names. This is a that without that the the name of objects appears to reside with the object Rather than my simply designating this table as table, it appears that there that the there is inherent quality about this object which makes it a table.
This inherent that the that the table has has its own character as a basis of the name table is a nonexistent imaginary. And also the the self sufficient self is a nonexistent imaginary. They are imaginaries because they they arise only out of belief. And we’re talking about our belief. Our belief conditioned perceptions.
All our perceptions are of our belief conditioned perceptions. Those objects which arise out of our belief conditioned perceptions are imaginaries. Within these there are types of imaginaries which in fact do not exist. There are types of imaginaries which in fact exist such as space, unconditioned space, such as nirvana, analytic cessation, type of permanent phenomena. Permanent phenomena exist, they’re imaginaries, and they exist out of They arise out of our belief about them.
We construct them. They are purely thought constructions but they are not being influenced by ignorance. They are correct thought constructions. Therefore, they’re existent imaginaries. I know this maybe sounds we’ll get this after it gets get this foundation down, then we’ll we’ll go through some easy examples to try to hopefully, to try to clarify this.
So a nonexistent imaginary arises out of mistaken beliefs. They falsely exist. They don’t truly exist. They falsely exist. They do not truly exist.
Now the objects that serve as the basis for misconceiving imaginaries are dependent natures. So the I misconceived imaginary. A nonexistent imaginary is, for example, an external table. Now the basis upon which I’m making that misconception is in fact a table. And the table is a dependent nature.
Imaginary natures and dependent natures. These are dependent phenomena or other powered phenomena. And they are produced in dependence upon causes and conditions. But they are though they truly exist, they are falsities. Why?
When we say something is false, we say that because the way it appears and the way it exists are not in tune with each other, are not concordant. If somebody says one thing and does another, we say they’re false, they’re lying. Likewise here, things appear one way but in fact exist another, we say that we say that’s false. If things appear one way and they exist that same way, we say they’re true. These dependent phenomena, they truly exist.
I mean, they they’re they do not arise out of mistaken beliefs. They arise they they arise out of causes and conditions, but they so they truly exist, but they’re still false in the sense that they appear to be they appear to us to be entities separate from our own mind. But they aren’t. And because they they the table exists, but it but it appears to exist external to my mind and it’s not. Therefore, it is a falsity.
But the table truly exists because it rises out of causes and conditions. It doesn’t rise out out of beliefs. It’s not an imaginary. It truly exists. So though though they’re we we say they’re they’re falsities, they truly exist.
Then the the nonexistence of such an imaginary nature in a dependent nature is a thoroughly established nature. Now what does all that mean? The nonexistence of an object which is a different entity from the mind are thoroughly established natures. And emptiness and we’re getting into this is the first time that we introduced the idea of emptiness. Emptiness is a type of type of it’s a type of an absence.
It’s a it’s a lacking. Each of the remaining schools is going to have a different object, a different what do we say, object of negation. That which is lacking, that which is absence, that which is nonexistent is going to more and more subtle as we go as we move up these higher progress through these higher stages. Now there is something which is absent, something which is nonexistent. That something is that which is nonexistent, that which is absent is the the difference in entity of subject and object.
Subject object appear to be different entities. My eye consciousness and and the table my eye consciousness perceiving the table, seeing the table, and the table appear to me to be different entities. Entities. The table appears to be external to my eye consciousness. But there is in fact that is nonexistent.
There is no table which is external to my eye consciousness. There is a a lack of difference of entity. There is a nonexistence of difference of entity between my eye consciousness and the table. That lack, that absence, that nonexistence is is an emptiness. The table is empty of being a different entity substance from my eye consciousness.
Let’s take before we take a dream as an example. So the the dream itself exists. It is it is it rises in dependence upon causes and conditions. When when the you know, sleep is a withdrawal of the sense consciousness and the mental consciousness. Here in mind only school, it’s a withdrawal of the six consciousnesses, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mental consciousness into the mind basis of all such that it no longer perceives any of those objects and it begins to manifest displays within itself just as when we go to sleep we no longer see, hearing, etcetera.
But we begin There are different impressions which have been left on the mind and these begin activated during the course of sleep. And out of these impressions, these activated impressions, dreams arise. It appears that people with visual images etcetera arise in a dream. So the dream exists. It is a dependent nature.
It arises out of cause and conditions. All the dream manifestations, the dream house, the dream person, the dream car, they all exist. Before one conceptualizes about conceptualizes about them, before one thinks this is a house, this is a table, this is a car, before one makes that conceptualization about them, all these dream images are dependent natures. And they truly exist. And the person in the dream imagines that, in the dream imagines that the objects within the dream are something separate from himself.
That all of the objects in the dream are somehow separate from the person in the dream. They are separate from one another. They have different They’re made of different substances. So all of the objects which are seen in this way are imaginary natures. They’re completely imaginary.
All of these objects which appear in a dream, houses, people, cars, they’re seen to be separate from one another. They’re seen to be separate from the person who you are in that dream seeing them. They to be external to you in the dream. And therefore, in fact, they don’t exist that way. They’re completely imaginary.
They’re just imaginary natures. The thoroughly established phenomenon is the nonexistence of this separateness of this of the person in the dream and the dream objects, these independent entities that appear. Another example of this is a make it easier perhaps is is a film. The the film of, say, a lion. The conceive the conception of a real no.
We’re showing it we’re showing a movie of on a screen of a lion. The conception of a real lion, that real lion, the conceived real lion, the real lion is completely imaginary. It it doesn’t truly exist. It’s completely a product of one’s conception, the real lion that appears there to to a to a misconception. The real lion which is being which appears is an imaginary nature.
Completely fabricated by concept thought. Doesn’t exist. The mere appearance of the lion, that is to say, the form of the light, you know, the lights being shown on the screen, The form which that light takes in the image of a lion, that’s the dependent nature. That’s just the light, the play, the the light play upon the the surface of the screen forming an image of a lion. That’s a dependent nature that arises out of causes and conditions.
The the emptiness of that appearance of being a real lion is a thoroughly established nature. The the emptiness of that mere appearance, that in fact it is only an appearance of a lion, it’s not a real lion, It’s the thoroughly established nature of that object. That’s another example. Let me just go back through that. We’re showing a movie on the screen and we’re we’re showing an image of a lion.
Now through conception, one may one may mistakenly conceive that there’s a real lion. That real lion does not exist. That is a completely imaginary object. That is what we call imaginary nature. It doesn’t truly exist.
It doesn’t exist at all. It’s falsity. It falsity exists. It exists through mistaken beliefs, concepts. The light which is actually being played upon the screen, which forms that image of a lion, that exists.
It truly exists. It’s a dependent nature. The that the within that mere appearance of this this image being played with this light on the screen, the absence of being a real lion, this lack of being a real lion is a thoroughly established nature. Let’s let’s look at these three natures in relation to a particular situation. Two human organisms sit in a field.
In the distance is a tree. One says to the other, I see a tree. The situation is a product of cause and effect. The two humans arrived in the field as a result of the intercourse of their parents and their whole life history up to that moment. Likewise, the tree is there as a result of the entire web of prior and immediate causes.
The ability of the organism to perceive and to use language is also a product of cause and effect. All of this is relative dependent nature. So there’s, you know, there’s two people sitting in the field, there’s a tree in the distance, and one person says I see a tree. This whole situation, language, people there, the tree, all have arisen as a result of causes and conditions, effects, and this is all this is dependent nature. But when one person says to the other tree, he is using a symbol which applies not just to that particular tree in front of him but to all trees.
And he is using this symbol to convey meaning to someone else. So, you know, the we we These images and these concepts and these terms are generalities. They’re divorced of any They’re at through through a subtraction process. A cat, I know this is a cat whether it’s three legs or it’s a cat. It could have three legs, two legs.
It could be a cat without a tail. It could be a bald cat. It could be a dead cat. So I have a that that that generality of cat can be applied to infinite number of specific cats. The generality of cat does has no, detailed nature about it.
It is it rises out of eliminating non cat. Everything which is not cat, I I I can I can put on this thing? I call it cat. It’s like a box that we’ve made. And everything, all types of these different shapes and sizes and colors of cats we can put in there.
We can call them all cats. But it’s but here cat is simply not non cat. This is how we develop as as children in our understanding of language. You know, we we point at we see something moving and we and mother says dog. And so we associate that sound dog with whatever was significant in our visual field.
And the next time a cat may walk along, you say dog. The mother said no, not dog. I’ll eliminate that. And next time you see a horse and it’s Maybe you didn’t know what she was associating that word dog with and you point to the table and say dog. No, not dog.
So you begin to narrow down what that term dog is going to apply applies to a specific type of object. And you arrive at this what type of object you can correctly apply it to out of a process of elimination. Mother says no this not a dog, that is not a dog, that is not a dog. You can begin to apply that to any specific dog because it’s simply a generality. It doesn’t have any details in about it.
It arrives out of eliminating everything which is not dog. Trees are not dogs. Cats are not dogs. Horses are not dogs. If I eliminate all of those and what’s left over, I’m gonna I’m gonna put on the object and call it dog.
Let’s see. The word tree begins to so then the word tree begins to be taken as the real thing. So there’s a step here. We begin we use the word dog and we begin to mistake the map for the territory. We begin to make this error in thinking that what my conception of dog and all that goes with that is in fact a real living, breathing, sentient being, dog.
Then the word tree begins to be taken as the real thing. We lose touch with the connections of the actual tree to its environment. A dog, my conception of dog, isn’t a real living being which is owned by a particular owner, which lives in a particular house, which eats a particular type of dog food, you know, which is house trained or not house trained. It doesn’t have any particularities whatsoever. It’s completely exist in isolation with a with a heavy line drawn around it.
It’s not a living, breathing being. Like a tree is, you know, we think of tree but we don’t think of any particular tree. There’s a tree in the backyard. There there’s a house next door. When we think in this way, not we nothing a particular specific tree that’s growing in a certain place with certain types of leaves, the bark chipped off here, with the heart cut in bark there, the trunk there, doesn’t appear to us.
A generalization of tree appears to us. We lose the connectedness with specific living, in this case, living real objects with all their uniqueness. Then we begin to think in generalities. And we begin to mistake these generalities and all the associations we have around these with the objects themselves. We lose touch with the connection of the actual tree and its environment.
Its roots go deep into the earth and draw sustenance from it. The branch is half dead and decaying where it touches the earth, blending imperceptibly with the earth. The leaves have exchanged gases with the atmosphere and received sunlight from it, a seed which a moment ago was part of the tree is now lying on the ground. And I’ll