Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Opening with two vivid stories — a novel’s protagonist welcoming arrest to escape self-determination, and a woman who habitually handed autonomy to her partners — Ven Jampa Gendun frames taking refuge as a deeply personal reckoning: no one else can bear responsibility for our happiness. In this 43-minute commentary he then enters the hearer stage, the first of four progressive levels of understanding reality, where only the nature of the self is questioned while external phenomena go unchallenged. The central task he lays out is identifying the object of negation: pinpointing the emotionally held, unexamined model of a self that feels completely separate, unchangingly persistent, and autonomous. A Śāntideva quotation and a thief-in-the-room analogy show why we must vividly contact what we intend to refute before analysis can dissolve it. Pitched at practitioners following a systematic study of the Buddhist philosophical schools.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 3 PA 1989 06 02.mp3
UUID: 73081627-63ef-4592-8504-ffeb55c9934e
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principal Aspects of the Path 1988-1990 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1989-06-02
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 42.8 minutes
Words: ~5,442
Can we recite the verse of refuge? The other day, I finished a novel. And at the end of the novel, the main character had had just killed two people. And And that was you know, that’s right. And the other day, I read a novel.
And at the end of the novel, it was the main character who had just killed two people and had just driven down the highway on the wrong side of the road and ran up an embankment to and the car couldn’t move any longer. And he was he was going insane. And he knew the police were coming, and he was happy because he wanted to abdicate control of his life. He just wanted somebody to come and take care of him. He wanted to give over the power over over what he was tired of taking responsibility for himself, in other words.
And a few days ago, I was talking with a woman and she was saying how for a great part of her life in her male female relationships, in her relationships with men, she was always abdicating power to the to the man. She was giving that power, that control over her life to, you know, her mate. Responsibility. And, you know, I don’t think I don’t think we can, though we might like to, though it might be nice. In a way, have no choice, don’t we?
In the sense that the understanding of going for refuge, of recommitting ourselves to growth is acknowledging our responsibility ultimately for our own happiness. Beginning to understand that it’s only going to be through sanity, wisdom, love, compassion, that we’re going to be able to experience the happiness that we’re looking for. That though others, especially significant others and other things, can contribute to our well-being. In fact, it is our own attitudes which determine our well-being. And no one outside of ourselves can take the responsibility for that well-being because no one can take responsibility for our various attitudes.
And so we’re very much in a in a no choice situation. As I think I think Bohr or Anda, he once said, for a thinking person, there’s nothing else to be done but develop himself. Ultimately, we have to get around to the fact of growth, of committing ourselves to a path of growth, to committing ourselves to sanity, seeing things as they actually are, development of love, compassion, taking responsibility for our happiness. You know, one of the in the context of meditation, the abbot at the Zen monastery in Bodh Gaya once referred to meditation as a way we show compassion for ourselves. Shows that we care about ourselves, that we’re taking responsibility for ourselves, for our well-being.
So the idea of going for refuge seems to be acknowledging it’s my responsibility, my happiness, my suffering. All my various states of mind are my responsibility. And, know, acknowledging this responsibility and committing yourself to accepting that responsibility and making the best of situations. Committing yourself to Buddha and your own sanity, your own wisdom, the development of your own wisdom. Compassion, you know, all these positive states which contribute to our happiness.
The attitudes that we’re seeking to develop. You’re committing yourself to the methods of growth and the social context, the Sangha, spiritual community in which it takes place. So it seems as if going for refuge can be a deeply heartfelt acceptance one’s own responsibility in determining of one’s own happiness. Whether one is going to live a meaningful purposeful life, you know, actualizing our the potentials, developing self respect, self esteem, and all these self authenticating values that we’re seeking. You know, committing yourself to committing yourself to taking responsibility to yourself.
And as this verse goes on, you know, the development of the motivation, seeking to contribute to others in the same way, you know, seeking to take responsibility for others. You know, no one has you know, there’s a verse by the Buddha which says, the Buddhists do not wash away sins with water nor do they remove suffering with their hands nor do they transfer their realization from their own mind to the minds of others. But by the showing of the truth, all will be made free. You know, it would be it’s too bad that even the Buddhists cannot reach into our mind and soothe our mind and say everything is going to be okay. But they can contribute, especially through their various teachings, the methods for developing our own minds, to our own well-being.
That is to say, we can take responsibility. We have some capacity. We have some influence over the the lives of others and therefore the happiness of others. But ultimately, it’s each individual’s responsibility, the quality of their lives. No one else can do it for us.
Accepting the responsibility to provide the conditions, to assist others, to help others materially, psychologically, spiritually, to help them take the responsibility to implement the methods for their own happiness. So with such a type of motivation, you know, then I think listening to teachings, seeking to develop oneself is something very worthwhile. It’s think the the development of the motivation, the intention. We’re going to discuss the quality of intention, of deliberation, how much control do we in fact have over our lives. You know, we can begin to direct our minds in this particular direction.
Begin to commit ourselves to growth and to helping others to do the same. And this is all determined upon our motivation, you know, setting out in the direction we wish to reach. To the Buddha, Dharma, and the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened. Through the merit I create by practicing giving the other perfections, may I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. To the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened.
Through the merit I create by practicing and giving in the other perfections, may I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings. To the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, I go for refuge until I am enlightened. Through the merit I create by practicing giving any other perfections. May I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all being. So we’re discussing the seeing deeply into the nature of reality.
We’re discussing the the Hearer stage in the development of individual’s understanding of the nature of reality. And we’re going to pass through these four stages, hopefully. The hearer stage, the the mind only stage, the autonomy middle way school stage, and finally, the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school stage. This is the the the the systematic progression of an individual’s understanding with respect to the nature of reality. So here we’re at the we’re at the hearer stage.
And here we’re talking about, in particular, the understanding of the nature of the self of person. You know, the hearer stage is associated with the two of the four schools of Buddhism, Great Exposition Sūtra School, and Middle Way School. It’s associated with the first two, Great Exposition School and Sūtra School. It’s associated with the lesser vehicle, you know, of the two, lesser and greater vehicle. The hearer stage is associated with the lesser vehicle.
In the hearer stage, in these two schools, Great Exposition School and Sūtra School, they only bring into question the nature of the self, the nature of the eye, the nature of the ego, the nature of the person. They don’t bring into question those things other than persons, you know, tables, chairs, house, universe. Only the nature of the ego, the self. All other phenomena are accepted to exist the way they appear. And they ultimately exist.
They truly exist. There, for example, you know, matter, this table is composed of solid, indivisible concrete atoms, particles. Mind composed of discrete mind moments. And the whole universe is built up, structured out of these building blocks. And it’s all out there as it appears from its own side.
Each thing has its own inherent nature. By recognizing that inherent nature, I come to know that object. This table has an inherent nature. That’s the way I can recognize it as being a table. You know, the door, the building, all of these things have they truly exist as they appear.
They have inherent qualities. They exist from their own side. They’re not dependent upon my mind for their existence, for example. These go unquestioned. At this stage, the only aspect of reality that we’re bringing into question that we’re beginning to examine is the nature of the self, the nature of the eye.
So this is the rough beginning of questioning our total perception of the way things are. By calling calling into question the nature of the self, the nature of the eye, the nature of the person. By restructuring our model, that is say our conception of our self, we begin we begin to eliminate ignorance with respect to the self, with respect to the nature of the eye. You know, by by restructuring our mistaken models of the self, we eliminate ignorance. We eliminate the basis of the production of ego.
And therefore, can begin we can escape from the prison of ego in which we are existing. We can go beyond all suffering. We can cut the root of cyclic existence. We can cut the root of compulsive neurotic patterns of behavior. We can cut the root of all conflict.
And this here, we’re talking about ignorance with respect to the self person. We misunderstand who we are. And based upon this misunderstanding, we engage in actions. And these actions are inappropriate. They’re in conflict.
The nature of ego is conflict. The nature of cyclic existence is conflict. The transcendence of ego is non conflict or that is to say peace. So all our problems are simply extensions of this root error, misconception of the nature of the self, an erroneous model of the nature of the person, of the eye. So the first step in this restructuring our model, we have to begin to recognize the erroneous model which we’re working with, which we hold to, you know, with all our mind, that we believe in very deeply.
This is called, you know, technically identifying the object of negation in the theory of selflessness with respect to person. Identifying the object of negation. Identifying the object of negation, recognizing that which is to be refuted. That is to say recognizing our mistaken model which needs to be restructured. Coming to understand our misconception as to the nature of the self.
You know, we have a we have a model or conception of ourselves that is that is inaccurate. And emotional responses and actions based upon this inaccurate model are the sources of all our conflicts, all our disappointments, all our sorrows, our problems, dissatisfaction. So the nature of cyclic existence, that is to say, the nature of ego based existence. That is existence based upon a fundamental mistake with respect to who we are, this model of who we think we are, the self. So to go beyond ego is to go beyond this mistaken model of ourselves.
To go beyond ego is to go beyond conflict, and this is experience as peace. So, you know, we begin to ask the question, who am I? And in asking that question, we ask another question. How do I experience myself? Not what theories I have about myself, not what I think I am, but how do I naturally experience myself?
My eye, my ego. So, you know, what we’re going to be doing is giving ourselves some guidelines on what to look for and how we might be experiencing ourselves. Again, we’re trying to recognize. We have to bring to conscious awareness these erroneous models, misconceptions that we naturally possess about who we are, what this I is when I say I can’t stand you. There’s an I.
There’s something which we’re basing that emotional response upon. And we have to begin to develop a sense, a feeling, an experience of what that I must look like. We have to begin to recognize it, identify it within our experience. So we can begin with about hearing possible qualities it may have when we actually begin to experience it. We are given some pointers.
You know, it’s never been called into question. This I, this so. It’s as if our second nature. It has gone unquestioned up to this point. And up to this point, we’ve experienced only conflict, not peace.
So now we’re going to bring it into question. We begin to see that there is some even when you begin to superficially superficially call it into question, there are many paradoxes begin to rise. They become very ambiguous. We can’t quite begin to you know, we think about, I try to I try not to get angry. I didn’t want to do that.
We make statements like this all the time, which shows us some ambiguity as how we actually experience our I. And there’s an I which as if I can’t control my mind. There’s an I and then there’s a control over the mind. Sometimes we identify the I with the body. Sometimes we identify the I with the mind.
Sometimes it’s something apart from that body and mind. So we’re beginning to develop a picture, an image of what this eye might look like once we begin to look for it within our own experience, some guidelines, some features that it might have, some characteristics, This erroneous self. So this is only to assist us in gaining the experience of what it might look like to be able to identify. And we’re setting up a target. Know, we have to in order to, know, if you have a bow and arrow, you have to be able to identify the target.
And that’s what we’re setting up. We’re beginning to delineate some of its characteristics so that you’re going to be able to know what to look for, if in fact it does exist this way. As we go deeper and deeper into our own unconscious and bring to full conscious awareness, the various erroneous models that we have. You know, we’re going to begin to actually experience. We’re going we have to make contact this this object of negation, this type of mistaken model of our self.
If we’ve never really seen the object of negation, if we’ve never really seen the object that we’re looking for, we can never really refute it. We’re never really going to see that it’s based on some mistaken conceptions, and in reality, it doesn’t exist the way it appears. So there’s a there’s a quotation from a text by Śāntideva called Engaging in Bodhisattva Deeds, where he says, without contacting the imagined existent, its nonexistence is not apprehended. To determine that an object in fact doesn’t exist, we have to know what we’re looking for or never going to be sure. If we said there was a thief in this room, in order to recognize, we would have to know what that thief looked like.
We’d have to have a description. If we threw out one person out of the room, couldn’t be sure that we got rid of the thief or not, or if in fact there was a thief in this room at all because we don’t have a description of the thief. So we’re trying to build up an image of what this erroneous mistaken model of our self appears like. So, you know, last week we began to discuss in some of the features which we might experience, you know, with regard to the self. So first of it, the feature of the characteristic of separateness, complete separateness, unrelatedness.
There’s a there’s a sense, you know, and it’s not a we’re talking about something which is experienced, a sense, a feeling of a completely separate self, you know. I’m this, I’m not that. There’s a sense of occupying this space over here. We’re not saying that that you know, that, for example, I am not separate from this cushion. You know, we’re we’re not I am separate from this cushion.
You know, they’re separate. But we’re saying that when I emotionally respond or I say or make a statement about myself in the cushion, this statement about this emotional response about myself in the cushion is based upon a misconception about myself. And it’s based upon a sense of separateness from the cushion. We explain this a little bit more. And if we talk about we’re going to develop the understanding of two types of self.
We can say one, an illusory type of self and an empirical self, empirical self. That is a type of self which we can establish through obvious evidence, which we can establish through reasoning. Illusory self cannot be established at all. The reason that we call things illusions is, you know, what is an illusion? An illusion is something which appears one way, but in fact doesn’t exist that way.
It appears to exist, but in fact doesn’t exist. So we call it an illusion, like a mirage. You know, the desert driving along the road you see what appears to be water. It appears to be water but it’s not actually water. It’s only the appearance of water.
The appearance of water is not water. You can’t drink it. It’s illusory water. So we’re going to develop the idea, the distinction between an illusory self and an empirical self, a self which can be established through reasoning, which in fact does exist. You know, I I, conventionally exist.
I relatively exist. I exist. You know, I am here we’re talking about an I which is simply a a handy reference, a manner of speaking. You know, a way of referring to this being as opposed to that being over there. You know, when I say, I am sitting on this, I am sitting on the cushion, this is, you know, we can say this is empirically verifiable.
I can establish that. It’s true. Because my body is sitting on the cushion, I can say I am sitting on the cushion. That’s reason enough. And we can establish that my body is sitting on the cushion.
You can see me sitting on the cushion. And my body, why is it my body? It’s because or I is labeled to this particular body. It is designated to this particular body. We’ll talk about this more.
Because my body is sitting on the cushion, I say I am sitting on the cushion. I am sitting on the cushion. This can be established through reasoning. But when I make this statement, I am sitting on the cushion, it’s not being made out of a sense of the separateness or non separateness. There isn’t this context, this sense of I’m either separate or not separate from the cushion.
It’s simply the statement I am sitting on the cushion. This I actually exists. It sits on cushions, it gives talks, It eats. It investigates the nature of the self. It thinks about things, for example.
On the other hand, a sense of separateness is a feature of the misconceived self. A sense of separateness is a feature of the misconceived self. When, for example, I experience a feeling of pleasure sitting upon the cushion. When I’m sitting on the cushion, no problem. But when I develop a feeling of pleasure sitting upon the cushion.
I have a sense of separateness between myself and that pleasure. And a sense of separateness between the pleasure and the cushion which I associate that pleasure with. There’s something else extra added, isn’t there? As it one sees objects in the sense in the context of separateness, whether it’s pleasure or whether it’s things. I experience pleasure sitting on the cushion.
I and the pleasure are separate. I have this experience of them being separate. And cushion which that pleasure is associated with is being separate from myself. Therefore, in that case, is a tendency to seek to incorporate that pleasure within myself. Seeing as separate from myself, I want to make it a permanent part of myself.
And therefore, it’s necessary to make that cushion which the pleasure is associated with a permanent part of myself. And therefore, we develop attachment, trying to hold on to that cushion. Wanting to incorporate objects into one’s ego identity because we see them as separate from ourselves. When the, you know, we’ll say the the conventional eye, the empirical eye, when it experiences pleasure, it merely does that. There is no sense that the pleasure is an object separate from itself.
Therefore, when the conditions which support, which give rise to that pleasure cease, then another experience arises to replace it. There’s no seeing the separateness. There’s no context of seeing the pleasure outside of oneself, and therefore, there’s no clinging to it. Therefore, there’s no attachment. Simply one experience follows another one.
So the I, which we’re trying to recognize does not exist. You know, throughout this discussion, the I, the self that we’re going to be referring to is this illusory I. We don’t need to bring it, in a way. We will look at the nature of the empirical eye. But the eye which we’re trying to recognize, which we’re trying to identify is this misconceived eye.
This eye which is based upon mistaken models, misconceptions based upon ignorance with respect to the nature of the I, the self. This is what we’re trying to recognize. This I has in fact never existed and will never exist, though it appears to exist. Just as a mirage of water appears to be water, but in fact, is not water. There’s no water there, but appears to be there.
It could never you know, if you were thirsty, it could never quench your thirst no matter how far how many miles you tried to you drove to try to find it. It would be a complete frustration. You would never reach it. You could never quench your thirst. It doesn’t exist.
It appears to exist, and we unconsciously accept what is merely an appearance as real. We’re we’re a see to this appearance as being actual fact. So, you know, when we say something is appears to exist, but in fact doesn’t. This is what we call an illusion. You know, the sometimes it’s quite popular to call, you know, the world an illusion.
It’s all illusory. It’s all illusory. And and it doesn’t mean so much. You know? It’s not, you know, they call it a dream or something like that.
It’s an illusion from the point of view that the way it appears and the way it exists are not the same. It appears to be, in the case of the mirage of the water, appears to be water, but in fact is not water. So in our entire discussion of the nature of the self, we’re referring to this illusion. Not to the empirical self. We never have to bring it into question whether I exist.
I am talking to you, perhaps you’re listening to me, I’m sitting on this cushion. We can make state valid statements like that because, in fact, I do exist. Jampa does exist. There’s an American person named Jampa who does, in fact, exist. But when I say, I can’t stand you, this is the I that trying to examine.
What is this I all about? Is this the same I as the I when I say I’m sitting on the cushion? There seems to be some difference there. We have to begin to recognize, build up an image of what this I can’t stand you I is about. Or, I’m the most beautiful person in Adelaide, it’s all about.
This I. You can’t swallow. We puff up. Pride. We turn red from hatred. We’re referring to an I.
Now we’re we’re beginning on a on a superficial level, and we’re going to begin to go into it deeper and deeper. We’re referring at present to an I which appears separate, which has the features, characteristics, a complete separateness of unchanging persistence and of autonomy, controller. These are the qualities we’re beginning to look for, we’re going to try to recognize. Completely separate, unchanging persistence and autonomy. This is a solid concrete eye.
Something very like you could point to it. When I say, I can’t stand you, it’s something you have the sense that you could actually point to that eye which can’t do that standing. Which is really or when when you’re afraid, something that something which needs to be defended, which is under threat. There’s a very strong eye which arises at that moment, which needs to be protected. And we’re looking at this eye, this cell.
Another feature of the eye that we talked about and we’ve talked about is this persistence. You know, we’ve talked about the features that we named last week. The separateness, persistence, and autonomy. Separateness and persistence. You know the idea of something which continually unchanging entity which continues throughout our entire life.
Something which is this I which is running up, which is running like a thread throughout our entire life. I was born here, and then I was raised here, and I got married, and I had three kids. This I. Seems there’s a there’s a feeling, a notion, a sense that there’s this I which is unchanging, completely running throughout the entire life like a thread. And then the third feature that we mentioned last week was autonomy.
So this is the idea of the sense of a controller. That there’s somebody, there’s a central command post headquarters, which is running the operation, something like that. You know, we have the things are out of my control. We admit that, you know, like the sound of that heater is out of my control. You know, I’m not making that heater make that sound.
Or even within our own body, you know, you mentioned the example of, I don’t gurgle my stomach. That’s kind of out of my control. I don’t beat my heart. That’s kind of you know, it’s questionable. Some some people are said to be able to control their heartbeat, but but for most of it it’s automatic.
I don’t have control. So there are some areas where I say, well, have control. I don’t have control. Some areas where I begin to think I have control. For example, I think there are some things I think I do have control, at least some of the time.
Not all the time. I mean, some of the time. Though I must admit, I’m not sure about it all the time. For example, our thoughts, our actions, I control I’m responsible. I’m the author of my actions.
I’m the controller of my thoughts. So now we’re beginning to set up our target, an image of a type of self that we’re looking at. And we’re going to begin to examine whether or not such a type of self can exist throughout this entire process as we go deeper and deeper into the various models that we have about ourselves and the nature of reality, we’re going to set up a model, begin to see how we actually experience our self reality. We’re going to bring to conscious awareness these various models, try to clarify them, identify them, recognize them, and then begin to analyze and see how erroneous in fact they are. It becomes something like like a mist that evaporates upon the rising of the sun.
You know? Once we begin once we’re to set forth very clearly in front of our conscious awareness, recognize and identify these various layers of the self, this erroneous self, the erroneous nature of reality that we have, that we’ve developed these concepts, then we begin to turn our light of analytic wisdom into this dark area of these mistaken conceptions. And they begin to dissolve because they cannot the quality of falsity is that the closer that you approach to it, the more vague and indistinguishable it becomes until it finally disappears. The quality of truth is that the more one analyzes it, the closer one comes to it, the more obvious becomes, the more obvious it appears. So we never have to be afraid of analysis.
If something is in fact false, it will finally disappear upon analysis. If something is true, it will not only not disappear, it will not only not remain, it will become clear, become more obvious. How could I ever have overlooked that? It’s obvious. Or on the other hand, how could I ever believe in such a thing?
It’s obvious that it couldn’t have existed. It just disappears. Just like the mist and the rising of the morning sun. So we’re going to develop, recognize these various mistaken models, these conceptions that we that we we have naturally. These aren’t been these haven’t been specifically taught to us.
Animals have misconceptions of the nature of the self. And then we’re going to expose them to analysis, to our wisdom, to our rational thinking, to our reasoning. And they’re going to be unsupportable. We do this again and again and again. So let’s examine this first most rough type of features that we have of a particular model of the self.
A type of model of a self, a misconception of a self which is completely separate, is unchangingly persistent, and which is autonomous. So, you know, we I am different from you. You know, I have I have a history. I have a future, And I will things to be done. I feel things.
I I register. I act. You know, I have I’m doing all these various actions, activities. So, you we all take these attributes for granted. Unquestioned.
These are, like I said, our second nature. They’re so obvious that we’re never even brought into question the nature of the self. It’s actually quite for for many people, it’s quite silly to even question whether the self. In all of this, Again, When we apply logic, when we apply rational thinking, reasoning, then we can understand what type of self exists. And we can say, well, I don’t believe in that type of self.
I don’t believe myself to exist independently of my environment. I don’t believe myself to be unchanging, permanent. You don’t rationally. But we’re not talking about your rational level of operation, how your mind is operating on reasonable level, a logical level. We’re talking about how it’s operating on a very deep emotional level.
All of the objects of your afflictive emotions don’t exist. The object of your hatred doesn’t exist. The object of your attachment doesn’t exist, but you believe it does. On that emotional level, you you firmly conceive of these objects to exist the way they appear. When you begin rational analysis, you begin to understand that’s not the way we exist.
But we do not lead our life on the basis of rational analysis. We lead our life on the basis of emotion. So we have to begin to understand that we can have different levels of awareness, different cognitive loci, that we can believe one thing rationally and another thing quite opposite that on the emotional level. We can say, oh, I know I shouldn’t have do this, but it feels so good. You know, this this kind of thinking.
And we know we shouldn’t, but on an emotional level, the this priority of logic doesn’t mean anything. You know, it’s pleasure and pain which determine most of our behavior. Our lives are based on a part of emotional response. And here we’re talking about how we emotionally experience the I, the self, not how we rationally might conceive of it to be. In coming, we’re going to discuss what are called the four essentials, the way of actually going about and analyzing, meditating on the nature of the self.
The very first is what I have just said, identifying the object of refutation. This is the most difficult part. The rest is easy. Identifying the nature of the self as conceived of emotionally, experientially by ignorance. Not how we think it appears, but how when you say, I can’t stand you, you at that moment