Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The snake-and-rope image frames this 37-minute session: as we search for the snake at the rope where it appeared, we must look for the self where it arises — within the body-mind complex. Ven Jampa Gendun drives through two decisive tests. Can the self be identical with the body-mind? If so, there would be as many I’s as bodily parts, possessive language like “my body” would be incoherent, and realising selflessness would cause the body to vanish. Can it be entirely separate? Then removing the aggregates should leave the self behind — like taking a cow and dog from a pen and finding the cat. Neither holds. The session closes with the motivational payoff: clinging to a solid, independent self is the root of all suffering, which disperses like mist at sunrise once its non-existence is seen directly.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 3 PA 1990 09 28.mp3
UUID: aba94329-69f2-4c48-a259-49cb464908f4
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principal Aspects of the Path 1988-1990 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1990-09-28
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 37.0 minutes
Words: ~4,564
Find a self in the first essential. Now we’re going to see if that self exists. It must be either the same as the body mind complex or different than the body mind complex. No third possibility. It must be either identical with the body mind complex or different than the body mind complex.
No third possibility. I’m sure of that because I’ve looked at every object I could think of and they’re either the same different. So if the self exists, it must now where do we experience the self? Where do when we when we when we have this notion of when it appears in these emotional responses, where do we experience it? Somewhere over here in this general area.
We don’t I don’t experience myself in the office at this particular moment. I experience myself here somewhere, you know, on on this throne. I’m not quite sure exactly where it is, but I know it’s somewhere in this area. It’s not it’s not outside at this moment. I had a sense it’s not outside.
If it was outside, I’d probably feel cold. It’s over here somewhere. So that’s where I’m going to look. I’m going to look where I experience it. It’s somewhere in the body, combination of body and mind, somewhere within here.
So if that’s self, what is the relationship between that place I’m going to look at? You know, it’s like the snake and the rope. We look. Where do where does that snake appear? It appears at the rope.
So when we analyze to see if there’s a snake there, that’s where we look at the place where we see it to see if it’s really there. We don’t look somewhere else because then we’ll never be we will never become convinced that it doesn’t exist because we haven’t felt that we’ve looked at the right place. We have to look at a place where if it exists it must be because that’s where it appears. That’s where it’s experienced. The place that it’s experienced, that appears to us, is somewhere in the combination of body and mind.
That’s where we’re going to look for it. It must be either the same as the body and mind or different than the body and mind. No no third possibility. But, you know, some some some Einstein might argue, well, maybe it’s both. It’s same and different.
It’s a mixture of same and different, something like that. This is not really a it’s not a real possibility. If two things are not the same, then how can they be both the same and different? If two things are not the same, then how can they be be both same and different? For example, you know, you have a mixture of cinnamon and sugar.
You have a mixture of cinnamon sugar. It’s different than sugar. A mixture of cinnamon and sugar is not the same as sugar. A mixture of milk and water is not the same as milk. It’s different than milk.
Yeah. It’s not the same. It’s different. So it can’t be both the same and different if it’s not the same. Cinnamon is not the same as cinnamon and sugar.
Milk is not the same as milk and water. It’s different. Okay. Isn’t that a third possibility? And this brings us to the third essential, the essential of ascertaining the lack of oneness.
Other word for oneness, sameness, identity, exactly alike. When we say identity, when we say same, it means they aren’t different. For two things to be the same, they must not eve there must not be an atom of difference. It’s just not that they’re similar. It’s that they’re the same.
Identical. One. So we identify this I, this self, in the first in the first essential. So we know what we’re looking for, hopefully. You You like, you’re going out shopping, and you know exactly what you’re going to buy.
You’re not window shopping. And we know where we’re going to look, where we experienced it. That is somewhere within the in this body mind area. So we’re going to analyze whether that observed eye and the body and mind are one that is identical, exactly, the same in all ways. So we begin to carry out this analysis in a in a initially in a coarse manner, and then we refine this method of analysis.
So if the eye is the same as the body and mind, then immediate certain problems are going to arise, certain consequences which would contradict our experience. That is, consequences result if the eye is one with the body and mind, which are not in a correspondence with our experience. Okay. For a start, if the I is the same same thing, this I that we identified. Yeah?
We’re talking about the I that we identified in the first essential, not the not the conventionally existent I. We cannot we cannot refute the conventionally existent I. The I that gives talks, the I that listens to talks, I that eats, teaches, that does all these various things. Goes to the bathroom. This I exists.
This I has no problem to anybody. It cannot be refuted. It exists. But the I that we identified in the in the which is an arises in emotional response, which we identified in the very first essential, this I which appears to exist unchanging, independent, singular. This I.
This is what we’re looking for. Is it the same as the body and the mind? If the eye is the same as the body and mind, then there would have to be at least two eyes. One for the material component and one for the mental component. We’d have to have a mental eye and a physical eye.
In fact, you know, we would have to have as many eyes as there are discernible parts of our body and mind. All the various different parts, all our organs, all our limbs, which would each be an eye. Our legs, our blood, whatever, hands. These would have to be distinct eyes. But when we talk when when we talk in this way, of these various a very many eyes or just two eyes, it goes against our conception about ourselves and does not accord with our experience.
You know, we experience the eye as being singular, a unit, a whole. Something over here, some kind of amorphous mass. Sometimes it’s described There’s a sense of mass about it, about the eye when we in this, you know, when he says, I can’t stand you. It sounds you know, this is the what how does the eye appear when he’s I’m so I can’t stand your guts. I, that I.
You know, it’s how how does that I appear? What does it mean? What does it refer to? It appears it doesn’t have any parts. It appears very angry, doesn’t it?
It appears it doesn’t have any parts. It’s just kind of a mass, a solid thing over here which can’t do which is very upset. It appears to be singular. It doesn’t we don’t have a sense, I can’t stand you. It doesn’t appear that there are many I’s, parts.
And since it appears singular, then for that I to exist, then the body and mind would have to be singular, would have to be one. They couldn’t be parts. They couldn’t be differentiated. It would have to be body and mind would have to be identical because this is the way we experience the I, as singular, one solid mass without parts. So if that I that we experienced and the body and mind were exactly the same, then the body and mind would have to be one mass, partless, one single substance with no parts.
If the body and mind were one, the same, then it would make no sense to talk about my body because the body and the I are the same. It would make no sense to talk about my mind because the body because the I and the mind are the same. Exactly. You know, the the the owner and the object own must be able to be differentiated. They cannot be the same.
If if there is an owner and an object which is being possessed or owned by that, they must be different or it makes no sense. If the body and mind were the same as the I, then it makes no sense to talk about my body, my mind, because they’re the same. The owner and the own would be the same. They must they have then in order for it to make sense, they must be distinct. Again, if the body and the mind were the same, then the the way the mode of existence of the body and mind would have to be exactly the mode of existence of the eye.
As the body grew, the eye would grow. If if you had if the the body had an arm amputated, then you would lose part of your eye. Part of your eye would be amputated. But also, we have a sense that this I is unchanging, but the mind is constantly changing. And this I couldn’t change.
Also, if one were meditating on selflessness and had a realization of selflessness, then the body and mind would disappear. This this this what you would realize the nonexistent that this I itself. And if it was the same as the body and mind identical, then there would be no there would be body and mind would have to disappear. You know, you might think, well, okay, the eye is just one of these. It’s just it’s it’s not it’s it’s it’s one of the body or mind.
If the if the eye were the same as the body, then the eye would be material. And this con this contradicts our experience. We experience the eye as being immaterial, nonphysical, shapeless, colorless. If eye and the body were the same, then the eye would have a shape. It would be solid.
It would be material. It would be made up of flesh. And this is not the way we experience the eye. Also, we have a sense that the eye this eye does not depend upon causes and conditions. But it but the body depends upon causes and conditions.
Sometimes the body is well. Sometimes it’s sick. De depending upon the cause the the balance of the elements within the body. But that’s not the way we experience the eye. It’s as if it exists independently.
The eye would would not experience what the body is experiencing. The body could be sick, but the eye could remain well. Again, if the I were one with the mind, then it would make it would be make no sense to say, I am happy. I am angry. It it would be wrong.
It wouldn’t it wouldn’t not even make no sense. It would be wrong because the I could not be separated from the happiness. The I could not be separated from the anger. You know? The I could not possess mental states because the I and the mental states are the same.
You know, we couldn’t say I am thinking because the thinking and the I are the same. There’s no one’s a part which is doing the action of thinking. The thinking itself is the I. Again, it’s the I and the the and mind were one identical, then we could have no conscious memories. There would be no I concept experiencing.
You know, in order to for example, If I am the mind, then there would would be no continuity of an I from my childhood up to the present time. It would only be this I which existed at this present moment. That there one could have all I could say, I could not say that I went to the store yesterday. I went to the store yesterday. All I could say would be, I have a memory of going to the store yesterday.
I have a memory of going to the store yesterday. If I am only the mind, just these thought states, mental states. If then there is no I which went to the store yesterday. There’s no sense of something which stands apart from the mental state which went to the store. There was only a memory of having gone to the store.
I have a memory of going to the store yesterday. We could not say I went to the store yesterday. So in this way, we can form many begin to form. You know, we’re approaching it from a very rough in a very rough way, but it’s beginning to form some con kinds of contradictions. We could go into a great more detail or we could go into the five aggregates, which is a way of dividing up the body mind complex in more detailed fashion and begin to contradict our notion of this I.
From that point of view. Is the I, this sense of I, is it one? Is it identical with the five aggregates? And go through each of the five aggregates and see that this is an impossibility. Also, you know, try we’re having identified this eye, trying to locate it.
You know, look actually looking for it, going at moving through your body like you do in the Vipassana. And according to, for example, Goenka. And then slowly beginning at the tip of this hair and experientially moving through all the various parts of, you know, your tongue, nose, throat, and down your arm. And then and then examining your mind, going through your mind, the various states of mind. None of them are I.
None of them are singular, independent, unchanging self. Seeing within your own experience, trying to locate, looking within the body and mind. You know, watching directly. Trying to locate the eye within the body and mind with your own experience. Then there’s the the fourth essential, the essential of the ascertaining the lack of difference.
So we must determine whether the self exists separately from the body and mind complex. If it exists, it must be one or different than the body mind complex. We’ve looked to see if it’s one and we it’s not one. It’s not the same. It’s not identical with the body mind complex.
Therefore, if it exists, it must be different than the body mind complex. It must be separate. It must be many with the body body mind complex. The self must be completely different than the body mind complex or the five aggregates. So if this were the case, then we if the self which we identified is different than the five aggregates, than the body mind complex, then we should be able to set aside, set to one side the body and mind and have left over an I, the self, which we which we identified in the first essential, if they’re separate.
I you know, for example, if you have a cow, a dog, and a cat cow, a dog, and a cat in a pen, and you take out the cow and the dog, then you have to be you’re left over with a cat, hopefully. It hasn’t run away. You’re left over with a cat. If if the I, the self which was ascertained in the first essential, is separate from the body and mind, then if I take out, if I remove the body and mind, I should be left over with that I, with the self, if in fact it exists. So performing this actual investigation, going through, the body and then setting it aside.
You know, looking taking taking your arm, looking at the arm. No. Not the it’s not the, you know, the bicep. It’s not the tricep. It’s not the elbow.
Going through the leg, abdomen, and then going through the mind. It’s not feelings, pleasant feelings, unpleasant feelings, neutral feelings. They’re not perceptions. This is good. This is bad.
This is tall. This is short. It’s not thought constructions. It’s not consciousness. Eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness.
It’s not mental consciousness. Set each of those aside. I set the body and mind aside now, looking. There should be something left over. I’ve separated out the body and mind.
There should if the body and mind are different than the self, I’ve separated out the body and mind. There should be remaining the self looking to see whether that that self is left over. Again, and this is, you know, looking at it from this way of investigating. Another way to to look at it would be if the body and mind complex were different than the eye, the self, if they’re completely separate, then there would the experiences of the body and mind would not occur to the self. The body could become sick, the eye of the self would remain well.
The the the the mind could have experience of happiness, and the eye would remain neutral. There’s no relationship between the I on the one hand and the body and mind on the other. They’re independent of one another. There’s two ways that the that the eye, the self, and the five aggregates can appear. One way is that the eye, the self, is in the same way as the same analogous relationship of a herder, a shepherd, and a sheep.
That is to say, the self is the controller of the five aggregates, or the controller of the body and mind. Is separate from and controls the body and mind. This is one way this I can appear, the self can appear. Another way is that the I, the self, and the aggregates, or the body and mind, are the same entity. But still, the self controls the five aggregates.
An analogy is, as in the case of sales people and a head salesman. The head the sales people and the head salesman are all sales people. But the head salesman is in charge. So sometimes the eye appears to be separate from the five aggregates, and sometimes it appears to be mixed in with the five aggregates. Two different possibilities that you have to investigate.
So when we’re trying to isolate the self, it’s necessary to look both within the aggregates, the body and mind, or within the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, thought constructions and consciousness and look outside of those to see if there’s an I appearing outside of them or is there an I appearing mixed in with them. The eye is very shifty. So just a quick review of these four essentials. So the first point of analysis is identifying the object of negation. At the hearer’s level, this is a singular, unchanging, independent self.
The second point is acquiring certainty as to that if the self exists, it must be either the same or different than the body mind complex or aggregates, or however you want. The aggregates is just a more detailed way of detailed presentation of the body and mind. Must be gaining certainty that if the self exists which I have identified, it must be either the same or different than the body and mind. Possibility. The third point: determining whether the self is identical with the body and mind.
And the fourth: identifying, ascertaining whether this self is different than the body and mind. Our instinctive emotional attachment or clinging to a vague notion of a concrete, solid, unchanging self is the source of all our suffering. From the idea of such a self arises mine, and others. In dependence upon conception of self, mine and other arises. In dependence upon the conception of mine and other, then all of the various afflictive emotions arise, attachment, aversion, jealousy, pride, etcetera.
And therefore, in dependence upon these afflictive emotions, we engage in unskillful actions. As a result of these unskillful actions, we experience dissatisfaction, suffering. Therefore, all suffering arises out of this misconception as the nature of self. Just as in a dream, once we see that the person in the dream is not really one’s self, any suffering which one may have felt as a result of that of that on account of being burnt or run over in the course of a dream immediately dissolve, disappears. One no longer identifies with the I figure of the dream and therefore no longer identifies with the experience of that figure.
All of the suffering that we experience is caused by grasping at a self, at a singular, unchanging, independently existing self. As we cease to identify with such a type of self, then all of the suffering which has arisen and depends upon that begins to fade. Like like, the mist with the rising of the sun. It begins to disperse. It becomes more transparent.
Once we see directly for ourselves that such a type of self has never existed, then all of the suffering which was result of that misconception ceases. Then the mind rests peacefully in this empty space, you know, with perfect confidence and assurance. You know, through med through meditating in this manner, all all our subtle doubts are kind of worn out about the nature of the self, and the mind can rest naturally in selflessness. We no longer have to keep recreating a reference. We no longer have to keep substantiating our existence and we can rest in that that peace.
So this is the so that’s the level of the hearers. First of these four levels of understanding, approaching the ultimate understanding, dependent origination. And then next term, we’ll take up the stage of the mind only school. Could one think of the why I I mean, this and we have a common sense notion of I, don’t we? You just you just ask a question.
I ask a question. You don’t think of that what is being what the I is as being a relationship to experience is asking the question. I ate I ate my lunch. That’s not your common sense. That’s not the way you comment within common sense and conceive of the I, is it?
I when you say I, I don’t I don’t have a sense that relationship to experience ate lunch. I ate lunch. Yeah. Yeah. But logically thinking that my experience was of eating eating lunch, then I had that experience or my mind body complex had that experience was relating to that experience of eating.
So it would be incorrect to thinking that the I could be that relating experience. The I is a human being, isn’t it? Is it? Is the I I mean, in in in our case, is the I human being? Yeah.
It’s sensitive to it. So it’s not simply word relating, is it relating a human being? I think, you know, you have a have a you have a representation, a mental image of yourself in in the context of which you relate with situations. You refer back to your all your your personality more or less. But you are I, but are you your personality?
Your personality is not a human being, isn’t it? Oh, yeah. I don’t know. Always I mean, we’re talking about the conventional existing I right now. And just coming back to the various concrete fact that I am talking with you, and I might not quite know what’s talking to you.
You know? That’s what did you say? Oh, some Zen master. I can’t remember. It’s a nice is it that’s talking to me or something like this?
I I don’t have any idea. You know? I I know I’m talking to you, but exactly who it is that’s talking to you is a little bit you know, it’s very difficult to Well, you know, this four point analysis, we don’t have to identify the conventionally existent I. We’re trying to identify the I which arises as an emotional response. A singular, solid, unchanging, independent I.
Sometimes, Tsongkhapa is criticized for putting a great deal of emphasis on his explanation of a conventional I. The understanding of the conventional I is extremely difficult. But but, you know, this conventional I of who’s talking to you right now. It’s So in coming to it, we don’t have to I mean, it’s useful to think about what is the nature of my I analytically, logically. But when we’re talking about the con this conventional existent eye, it’s useful.
But sticking to this technique of this four point analysis, we don’t have to go into the nature of the conventionally existent I. We want to know what was most important is identify the I which appears to us in emotional responses. And these two are these are two different types of I’s. If almost always, when you when you when you’re upset, I’m worried. That I is the I which is to be refuted.
If you just if you say I’m going to the store, very neutral statement. That I is the conventionally existent I. And be there being able to differentiate this. Usually, we’re well, of course, you know, it depends on what if there’s any effective quality about what we’re doing, any sort of emotional quality, it’s almost always referring to this the I which is to be refuted. This general statement, am sitting here.
I am beautiful. There’s a different sense. But it’s so subtle that we have to go to extremes to make it appear very, I am beautiful. I am an American. To the to the they’re amusing two very different conceptions of I in those two statements.
I am American is very logical. It’s a very legalistic statement. I have a passport, etcetera. I am beautiful. This is in there’s some kind of almost assuredly emotional quality, which is the the I’m I’m conceiving of a type of I, which is probably the I of it which is to be refuted.
American president seemed to say I’m an American for emotional. I am. That’s true. He wasn’t thinking of it legalistically. He was thinking stars and stripes forever, I think.
Yeah. Something like that. That’s right. Or I’m I’m an Aussie. Watch out.
Yeah. Because I because I I my I yeah. Whatever the, you know, the the I is labeled, imputed onto the five aggregates, and there’s a feeling of displeasure. And therefore, because whatever the five aggregates are experiencing, because the eye is dependent upon those, we can say I am I am experiencing that. I am I am because I feel we don’t say, I am I am feeling pain.
We say, I am well, I guess we say, I am feeling pain. I’m in pain. I’m yeah. Whatever the whatever is happening to the body and mind, we say I. Because my body is on the cushion, I say I am on the cushion.
If I if my mind is tired, I say I am tired. But then so that’s quite that’s a conventionally existent I, imputedly existent. But we think of an I which is not imputedly existent, which is substantially existent. Dedicate more positive potential.