Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using the image of something looming in a dark room — present yet never quite touched — Ven Jampa Gendun opens this 43-minute session by building a felt, emotional sense of the very self that Buddhist reasoning aims to refute. He works through the first two of the Four Essentials for realizing emptiness of self: first, identifying the object of negation — the vivid, instinctive I that flares up when insulted or afraid — and second, committing to binary logic: if this self exists, it must be either the same as or different from the body-mind complex, with no third option. Practical exercises ground both steps — imagining a car crash to evoke the I vividly, then testing everyday objects to internalize one-or-many reasoning. A guided meditation closes the session, working through both essentials in sequence. Suited to practitioners following a structured course on the view of emptiness.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 3 PA 1989 09 08.mp3
UUID: b1871a6b-05a8-4d41-94b0-dd645795af56
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principal Aspects of the Path 1988-1990 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1989-09-08
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 43.5 minutes
Words: ~4,753
A feeling for what this self feels like. What it’s we’re developing a mental image of something. We’re developing a mental image of what a singular, unchanging, independent self looks like, feels like, senses like, you know, that we believe in very deeply. You know, type of singular self we’re looking at what I mean by singular. Unit.
An amorphous mass. You know, again, it’s an emotional response. Yeah. It’s kind of a vague feeling that we have. Like some you know, like something’s out there in that dark room.
In the darkness, there’s something looming. And if you were to put your hand out and that you would touch something, but you never quite put out your arm. Just feel it while it’s there, it’s there. It’s kind of feeling, you know, a type of sense, a type of self which is indivisible, a unit with no parts. You know, for example, the part of our self which relates to an adult is part of our self.
The part of our self which relates as a child is part of ourself. The part of ourself which relates as parent is part of ourselves. So we have many parts to ourselves. But there’s a feeling of a singular identity grasping to one image of ourselves. We get stuck with that one image of ourselves.
There’s loss of fluidity, openness. You know, the self which existed yesterday is part of ourself. The self, the part of our of oneself which is associated with the body is a is a part of ourself. The part of ourself which is associated with the mind, is a part of ourself. So ourself, it has a multiplicity.
It has many parts. It’s not an amorphous mass. It’s not a whole, a single unit, though we cling to that conception of self. There is a tendency to conceive of the self as single, as a single unit, You know, undiversified, homogenous whole. You know, we we sometimes we surprise ourselves.
Oh, I didn’t I didn’t think that was in me. Kind of this kind of mentality. We find that we become aware of some facet of ourselves which went unnoticed before. Because we’re holding on to a single whole conception of ourselves, that we aren’t made up of multiplicity of identities, each coming into play in various situations. One ego image of ourselves.
You know, when we say, I remember when I was a kid, you know, there’s a sense of the I of the kid and the I of the present as being single, The same. There’s this tendency to move in that thinking pattern. Resisting anything which would be a threat to that thinking pattern, and therefore a resistance to change, for example. So this unit, this mass of self, you know, feeling of self is sensed as separate. If one had no separate identity, you know, a sense of self contained unit.
We have this, you know, I’m this self contained unit over here. You have your unit, self contained units over there. If we didn’t have this sense, this feeling, you know, why would one worry about what happened to oneself any more than one would worry about what happened to others? Okay, again, the self is conceived of as being independent. It does not In this situation, the word independent means it does not rely on causes and conditions.
It is not continually conditioned by external, social, and material situations. It is not continually conditioned by internal, physical, and mental conditions. Mental states. A self which is independent of situations and experiences and actions, standing aside from all of these. Otherwise, there would be no way there would be no sense in saying, I did this, I have that.
I did this, and I have that. And when we think about what that means. You know, one had no independent existence, there would be no one to claim the actions. It seems as if the I, the self, is not independent of the actions. It is the agent of the actions.
It seems as if the I having things, there is something which has the thing. It’s not dependent upon it, possessing that object. You know, is I the doer whose existence does not rely on doing. There is I the haver which that I does not rely on possessing, having an object. So we’re we’re so emotionally involved and attached to this self that we take it for granted.
It’s unquestioned. This type of self, this basic model that we’re working from of who we conceive ourselves to be. But nothing within the whole stream of mental and physical phenomena that constitutes our experience of body and mind has the quality of an unchanging, singular, independent self. And it’s one’s persistent belief in such a type of self that makes it a continual stream of suffering. We’re going to analyze That first we’re going to look, get a feeling for that type of self, and then we’re going to look.
Upon analysis, we’re never going to be able to isolate any one thing, anything, which is that, that self. And it is our constant grasping, trying to hold on to foster, protect our constant preoccupation with such a type of self, which is the basis of all our suffering. So the technique that we’re using to investigate and finally overcome the belief in such a type of self is to generate these controlled, well formed contradictions. We’re going to see that, in fact, such a type of self could not exist. We’re going to use our reasoning and our own experience to see that such a type of self, in fact, does not exist at all.
And this method, you know, as we begin, is called the Four Essentials. The Essential of Ascertaining the Object of Negation, the first. The essential of ascertaining the pervasion, the essential of ascertaining the lack of oneness, and the essential of ascertaining the lack of difference.. And we started talking about the first one last week. Know, the object of negation ascertaining, getting a feeling for what that self, how we sense that self, how we experience that self, emotion.
The first essential is the most difficult and the most important, getting this feeling. And it requires a great deal of skill. You know, you can’t read about it. You have to actually experience it, try to feel it. We’re building up a mental image of something.
What we’re doing is bringing to awareness what is already there. Because we have this image, we have this model of a type of self, which we hold to be our actual self. You know, such a type of self has never existed at all, totally non existent. It is totally false. By rejecting it or denying it, by refuting it, therefore, you know, we are not destroying something that actually exists.
You know, rather we’re beginning to gain a deeper understanding. And despite our mistakes and beliefs that such an I never existed in the first place. Such a type of I appears to us. I, self, it appears to us. But, you know, as was we illustrated last week in connection with the snake and the rope, You know, use that analogy.
Although something may appear to our mind, that is not sufficient reason for its existence. Just because something appears to us is not a sufficient reason to say that it really exists. Where there was a rope, saw a snake. The snake appears to our mind that the snake does not exist at all. Simply something appearing to our mind is not reason enough to say that it in fact exists.
We have to be open up to the possibility that things can appear one way and exist another, that we can be mistaken. So the first essential is to identify this unchanging, singular, independent self. This I which appears to our mind. It’s appearing to our mind. Whenever we think of the I, whenever we emotionally respond to a situation, we are grasping to that I, that type of self.
We’re working with that model, that belief, that basic assumption. Probably, most likely, without awareness, unconsciously, preconsciously. So we have to begin to obtain a clear and vivid mental image of it. We’re trying to develop a feeling for what this eye looks like. When you, you know, we went through, we actually meditated last week.
When you first do such investigation, you shouldn’t think immediately that this eye in fact doesn’t exist. Instead, merely try to perceive it as clearly as possible. You’re just looking. You’re not investigating at this point, at the point of this first essential. They’re just trying to give to develop as clear an image of this self as possible.
Just watching. You know, there are two types of I’s, two types of selves. One has never really existed at all. That is this unchanging singular independent self. It has never existed, will never exist.
The other eye actually exists. That actual I is merely imputed by conception, by thought, merely designated, merely projected. It is a manner of speaking, a convenient reference. You know, when, for example, know, I was given when I became a monk, was given the name Jampa. Before that, Jampa didn’t exist.
Then my teacher gave me the name Jampa. Jampa became into existence. Jampa exists. That I, Jampa exists. Jampa is a handy reference.
There is no singular, unchanging, independent Jampa. Jampa is dependent. Jampa is constantly changing, has a multiplicity of identities. This I, this Jampa exists. This person exists.
You know, the stream of experiences, the physical and mental experiences are designated as being jampa. Nothing more than that. There’s no jampa in and of himself. There’s nothing behind that. There’s just these mental and physical experiences which we’re designating jampa, which my teacher called jampa.
There’s nothing behind jampa. There’s nothing more to be seen behind that. There’s nothing You know, there’s nobody behind here looking out. There’s no agent behind what’s going on. It’s just that jampa is a handy reference, a manner of speaking.
He exists. So in trying to identify this object of negation and trying to identify this singular, unchanging, independent self, we have to invoke this I as vividly as possible and try to hold it tightly, you know, the mind to think in those terms of this I to arise. You know, you can do this by imagining that you’re falling from an airplane, for example. We use this. Whether somebody’s calling you some harsh name and they’re calling you, really upsetting you, hurting you, you know remembering harsh words or just using your imagination.
When you do this the I which is the object of negation is going to arise. I’m afraid. I can’t stand you. This I which is afraid, which can’t stand will arise within your mind. It is the object of negation.
It is what we’re looking at. We’re trying to develop an understanding, feeling for what this eye looks like. We’re trying to develop a mental image, a picture of what this eye that can’t stand, this eye that is afraid. This is the object negation. We’re trying to come to an understanding of feeling for what it looks like.
It will arise very vividly, and you should just observe it the way it appears, the way it appears to your mind. How does it appear? Does it appear changing? For example, there’s some possible ways of Does it appear changing or unchanging? Does it appear to be a collection of parts, or does it appear to be an amorphous mass, some kind of vague, solid, undifferentiated stuff?
Does it appear to depend upon conditions, upon causes, or does it appear to be independent, permanent, unchanging, not existing in relationship to anything else, not dependent. Such an I that you are recognizing, that you’re looking at, at that time, is the object of negation. And you should try to perceive it as clearly as possible. I can’t stand you. I’m so afraid.
I’m worried. That I, what’s it referring to? Getting, you know, I’m so damn mad. I. And trying to evoke an emotional response and getting a feeling, a mental image of what that I looks like, beginning to just observe it, to get it as clear as possible, an idea, a feeling for what it is.
You know, when someone speaks harshly to you and you feel, you know, I’ve been insulted. How could you talk to me like that? It’s that I that you were thinking about at that moment. It’s this singular, unchanging, independent I which is insulted, which is insulted, which is saying, How could you speak to me like that? That I is there at that moment.
And this is what we want to look at, that we want to draw our attention to, to observe. This is an I that you’re thinking about. At that moment of being insulted, you perceive only this I. You think, He really spoke to me very badly. Subsequently you become angry.
So on such an occasion you don’t perceive the I as being merely imputed by thought. And we’re going to discuss this in the future, what it means to be merely imputed by thought. This is like a few rungs up the ladder. You’re not observing the jampa which was merely given that name, which my teacher named. When I say I, jampa, I’m holding to a different type of jampa, not the one that was merely imputed, not the one that was simply given a name which was imputed upon this stream of experiences of mental and physical phenomena.
At that moment I’m experiencing a singular, unchanging, independent I, self. In this emotional response there’s something which appears very vividly to me. So that’s the first essential, the essential of ascertaining the object of negation. Developing a mental image of this eye which arises as an emotional response. Beginning to develop a mental image of it, to identify it, to recognize it.
Then the second essential, the essential of ascertaining the pervasion. Sometimes this is called, rather than pervasion, entailment. Sometimes called concomitments. But anyway, it doesn’t matter. We understand what pervasion means.
We’ll explain that. What it amounts to is a commitment to binary logic. That is to say, the law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle, the law of excluded middle. In general, when someone is talking about an object, an object of knowledge, that means anything, You know, tables, chairs, people, cows, cars.
There is only two possible types of things being referred to. So, is talking about something. Whatever that object is, there can only be two possible types of the way we refer to that object. Either the person is talking about a single object, such as a man, a chair, an army, a single object, or a combination of two or more objects, such as salt and pepper, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, and a table and a chair. Either we’re talking about a single object or we’re talking about an object which is a combination of two or more objects.
Either we’re talking about something which is one or we’re talking about something which is many. So we’re getting this idea of what we mean by excluded middle. Now of all the possible countless objects in universe, they are all pervaded, all pervaded by or included within being one or many. If something exists, it must be either one or it must be many. There’s no other third possibility.
However much we look about us, anything that we look at, it’s either going to be one or it’s going to be many. These are the only two possible categories. Middle possibility. This is the law of excluded middle. It has to be one of the two.
There’s no If we say hot and cold, then there’s something which can be neither hot and cold. You know, we can have some lukewarm water, for example. Not all water has to be hot or cold. So those aren’t mutually contradictory. But one or many.
Everything must be either one or many. They must be either singular or plural. They must be either the same or different. One or many, singular, plural, one or different, same or different. So we have to go over and over in our mind and come, Yeah, checking up things.
Is this table one or many? It’s one. Is this piece of paper and this table? Is that one or many? There are many.
Is this piece of paper and this table the same or different? They’re different. Is this piece of paper and this piece of paper the same or different? Same. Everything is either going to be the same or different, no matter how much we may look.
Search out the various objects. They have to be either the same or different, one or many, singular or plural. There’s no third possibility. So now in particular, so that’s the general rule, in particular with regard to this object and negation, unchanging singular independent self. We’re going to examine whether this self, this type of self, is the same or different from the body mind complex, from the body mind combination.
When we think of the self, where does it appear to us? Where does it appear to us? It appears to us at the body and mind. When I can’t stand you arises, that I doesn’t appear, you know, in the next room. It appears as if it’s within the body and mind.
This is the place where we see the I, the self, within this combination of body and mind. This is where we’re going to look for this I, this self, within this body and mind complex. And the way we’re going to look for it is to see whether it’s the same as the body and mind complex or whether it’s different than the body and mind complex. If something exists, it must be either the same or different. You know, we’re going to come to this definite commitment, this conclusion.
You know, if we look thoroughly through the body and mind complex, we should be able to find that self, that I, if in fact exist, if it exists. If it exists, it must be either the same as the body and mind complex or it must be different than the body and mind complex. There’s no third possibility. Either the identified self, this identified self and the body and mind complex are one, or this self and the body mind complex are different. They have to be one of those two.
There’s no third possibility. If we cannot find the self as being either the same as the body and mind complex or being different than the body and mind complex, then itself cannot exist. It cannot exist at all. And if it’s not one of these two categories, then we have to accept it’s not there. It has to be either the same or different than the body and mind complex, this combination of body and mind.
If I’ve searched for the body and mind within the body and mind it’s not the same, I search it’s not different than the body and mind, then I have to accept, I’m forced to accept, this doesn’t exist. I thought it was there. I felt it was there. I responded emotionally as if it were there. But now because of my reasoning and my experience, I’m forced to conclude it’s not there and this belief that I’ve held is baseless.
If we cannot find it, if we cannot find this identified self in either of these two categories, then we have to accept it’s not there. We can’t allow ourselves a way out simply saying, for example, Well, it must be there in some other unpredictable fashion. You know, we haven’t really defined. We that, Well, I really didn’t look well enough, or I really didn’t cover all the possibilities. Kind of wishy washy, allowing a vague notions of doubt to arise.
If I would have looked more, if I would have had a better method of investigation, I would have found it. Then there’s no force in our conclusion. It has no power. It’s only when we commit it to reason and experience we say it must be either here or it must be there. It’s not here.
It’s not there. It must not be at all. That this investigation has any power, influence over the mind, able to overcome this habitual instinctive belief that we have in that it exists. If it exists, it must be A or it must be at B. It’s not at A, it’s not at B, it must not exist.
That’s the logic involved. That’s what we mean by the essential of ascertaining the pervasion. You might think, Well, maybe it’s a mixture. It’s the same and different. But the Self is the same and different as the body and mind.
There’s no there’s not any real possibility. If two things are not the same, how can they be both the same and different? If two things are not the same, how can they be both the same and different? You know, a mixture of cinnamon and sugar is not the same as sugar. A mixture of milk and water is not the same as milk.
So if the identified I exists at all, it must be either the same as the body mind complex or it must be different than the body mind complex. There’s no other way for it to exist. So this is essence of this second essential. Determining the only two ways in which this identified I can exist. Then in the remaining two essentials, we’re going to test each of these two possibilities in turn.
You know, to this end, one makes a decision by committing oneself to reason and experience. You know, by analyzing respectively whether that identified I is the same or different from the body and mind complex. And this is what these latter two of these four essentials does. We’re going to look to see first to identify the I, then we commit ourselves to the fact that this I must be either the same as the body and mind complex or different than the mind complex. Then we go on to investigate the body mind complex and see whether it’s the same, And then we go on to see whether it’s different.
And then we come to, you know, every depending upon the force of your investigation and your commitment to reason and experience, a very moving, powerful experience. What I thought was there in fact doesn’t exist. I’ve been fooled all along that my belief is baseless. So that’s how this is going. So this is the second of these four essentials.
We’ll continue the third and the fourth. So maybe we can yeah. Maybe we can answer answer questions. Do have any questions? When you were walking down this road and what was and you saw that snake, and there was this fear and this anger and this upset, and you’re really shaking, really upset, really nervous, tense, really suffering.
And then you look closer, closer, and closer. There’s snake there. Relief. This burden just kind of falls from your shoulder. I think, I don’t know, I’ve never experienced this.
Just guessing. Going swimming and you’re free. Sounds good? So maybe we can, would you like to stand up for a minute then we’ll meditate a little bit on what we’ve discussed. So, I mean, just I think it’s you shouldn’t become frustrated or dismayed and think that you’re, you know, fall into all these old patterns of the way you think of yourself in the sense that this is is not easy.
Know, it’s admittedly the most difficult coming to an understanding of what this I feels like, this sense of I, you know, in all the various possible situations and getting a mental image of it. So, you know, we’ll go through a meditation, but we have to begin somewhere. So we can begin with playing with the words there. Maybe the fact that you don’t get a sense, that maybe nothing’s there, you know. Don’t get frustrated.
Or if you do get frustrated, try to find out who it is that’s getting frustrated. What is the I that feels so frustrated? Anything, everything becomes easier as you become accustomed to it. So if you can sit comfortably, I’m just going to suggest a few things and you can play with these ideas as I suggest them. Just getting to know yourself a little bit better, just in a relaxed manner.
Just playing with some of these images, some of these ideas, observing, see what experiences might arise. You know, just begin with just softly saying to yourself, I, I, I, and watching what is there any what reaction? What takes place? What appears to you? You know, when you you say, I’m sitting on the cushion, what do you mean by that I?
How do you establish that you’re sitting on the cushion? What reason can you give for saying I am sitting on the cushion? When you say I am an Australian, what does that mean? What does that I refer to? What reason can you say?
You’re saying I am an Australian. What is it that’s Australian? What makes you an Australian? When you say I am a man or you say I am a woman, what do you base that statement? What does it mean to say I am a man, I am a woman?
What are you saying when you make that statement? What does that I refer to? If you say because I have male organs or I have female organs, who is the I that has these organs? I’m going to try to actually invoke an emotional experience. You can just imagine that you’re about to have a car accident or some great fear that you’ve the pain of a broken relationship or maybe some joyful experience when you just won a prize.
You know, try to evoke some really strong feeling of sense of self that I am going to die. I just won a prize. And try to relive that experience very vividly or just make one up. And don’t analyze just to develop the emotion more and more, the pain or the joy. And then try to get a sense how the eye appears, just using a part of your mind, like a spy watching, observing, don’t analyze it.
Looking, what does the eye look like? What is the eye that looks like they’re so afraid or they’re so happy? Keep remembering the situation again and again, making it grow again and again. What qualities does this eye have? It look like?
What’s it feel like? Does it feel solid? Does it feel changing? Does it feel transparent? Where does it appear to you?
In your body, in your head, in your mind? Now we’re going to take a look at sameness and difference and just analyze, investigate. Is a table, one or many? Is a table one or many? How about a table and a chair?
Are they one or many? Same or different? How about a dog and a dog? A dog and a dog. Are they the same or different?
A magazine and a book, are they the same or different? How about a cat on the one hand and a goat and a tree on the other? A cat on the one hand and a goat and a tree on the other. Are they the same or different? Just try to think, is there anything which is not either one or many, which is not either the same or different?
Let’s run through objects at random. Is there anything which is not same or different, one or many? And we dedicate the positive potential that we create. Through these merits, may I soon attain the enlightened state of Guru Buddha, and may I lead every migrating being without exception to that state. May the precious bodhicitta not yet born arise and grow.
May that born have no decline, but increase rather more.