Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 42-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun opens by addressing a pointed objection: if the root of saṃsāra is unconscious self-grasping, can intellectual analysis ever reach it? His answer is yes — repeated reasoned meditation gradually penetrates subconscious habit-patterns, replacing erroneous conceptions with valid ones. He then works through the “reasoning of the lack of being one or many”: since everything has parts, nothing is a truly existent unity; and since truly existent units don’t exist, truly existent multiples cannot either, exhausting every possible mode of existence. A book under investigation, an apple pie sliced into eight pieces, and the cataract analogy all illustrate the same point — genuine analysis finds no ultimate object, confirming emptiness. The session closes with the observation that this wisdom, joined with the awakening heart, has the power to remove all obstructions to omniscience. Suited to students already following the Madhyamaka curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 3 PA 1990 10 26.mp3
UUID: f8251af6-6749-42b2-ad9b-d4111e65ce01
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principal Aspects of the Path 1988-1990 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1990-10-26
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 42.4 minutes
Words: ~5,370
Analysis facilitates assists in the direct experience of the actual situation of the actual of the real nature of the object. And if it were not possible to have valid conceptions, valid conceptual cognition, then it would not be possible to eradicate ignorance which is a mistaken and erroneous conception. That is, replace erroneous conceptions with valid conceptions. And valid conceptions assist in overcoming invalid conceptions which obstruct direct perception of reality. So, the point which is being made here is that the and this is very true within the great vehicle Buddhism.
That reason analysis plays a tremendous, is a tremendous, significant, has a tremendous significant place in the transformation of consciousness. As opposed to some other traditions which see the thought process, philosophical analysis as simply adding confusion to our lives. Especially within Tibetan tradition. Tibetan tradition places tremendous emphasis on philosophical analysis as a means to assist. Ultimately want to have direct perception.
We want to experience the reality directly without beyond our concepts, beyond our views, our beliefs, our ideas. But this is we are brought to that stage through a reasoned analysis, through the understanding of the philosophical issues surrounding intellectual analysis. That is to say, it is our mistaken conceptions which prevent us from directly experiencing the way things are. And we can remove. We can weaken those mistaken conceptions by correct conceptions.
And correct conceptions come about through ideas, beliefs. The philosophical analysis of the self along with the lines sketched below as a simulated transcendent insight cannot be dispensed with in any practice of either Sutric or Tantric Buddhism. We should take special note that this location of the Middle Way, Philosophic Analysis on the Path of Meditation on Ultimate Reality reveals philosophy as an essential tool of self transformation rather than a useless academic endeavor. Here’s some contemporary objection. Here’s some contemporary objection that since the instinctual unconscious self habits.
So this vocabulary is a little bit strange but what he’s getting at, the point he’s making is useful I think. The instinctual unconscious self habits are the root of saṃsāra. Self habits grasping itself. Unconscious grasping itself are the roots of saṃsāra. How does the philosophical inquiry that removes intellectual conscious self notions such as those of the philosophers eradicate them?
How do we how are we to eradicate unconscious grasping itself by simply coming to an intellectual removing intellectual misunderstandings about the nature of itself? Is it like just pouring oil on water where the oil just kind of floats on top and doesn’t mix with the mind? Does any of our philosophical analysis or intellectual investigation really penetrate to the unconscious workings of the mind, our thinking, our thought process, the way our mind is actually operating on a deeper level. Tsongkhapa answers that unconscious self habits also hold things to exist as if real in themselves and not merely established on the strength of conventions. Thus, although such mental habits do not hold their objects through analysis of the meaning of conventions, as do intellectual mental habits.
If the object thus held were to exist in fact, it would have to be discovered by the analytic cognition that analyze the manner of existence of the reference. This is a bit difficult. Anyway, thus philosophical analysis exposes the patterns of objective existence unconsciously presupposed by unconscious self habits Having exposed it refutes its applicability to reality. The meditative sustained application of this criticism to the subconscious habits is thus the path of overcoming them. That is to say by again and again consciously applying these reasoned analysis in meditation penetrates down to the subconscious level in which these habit processes are operating.
It’s not simply a matter of pouring oil on water. So, the ultimate goal is to destroy ignorance that conceives of true existence. These conceptions of true existence will continue to exist until they are destroyed by a reasoning consciousness. How are we going to go about developing a method to develop a reasoning consciousness which is able to destroy these conceptions? There are many reasonings.
So we’re at the Autonomy stage and they’re going to set forth many ways of reasoning which are able to refute true existence. That is to say form beliefs, the belief in non-true existence which has the ability, the power to overcome our belief in true existence. It’s able to destroy the belief in true existence. You know, for example, some of the types of reasons which are set forth.
They’re called by way of names. They’re called, for example, diamond slivers, refutation of production by way of the four alternatives, refutation of the production of existent and nonexistent. These are different types of reasonings which are employed to negate the conception of true existence. But among the various types of reasonings, the one which is most emphasized is that of the reasoning of the lack of being one or many. The lack of being one or many.
The reasoning of the lack of one or many. We’re going to look at that very briefly here as a means to refute true existence. The reason of the lack of one or many. That is to say that objects are neither truly existently one nor are they truly existently many. Or another way to say that is that objects are neither truly existently existent unitaries, units, nor are they truly existent multiplicities.
You know, if an object exists, it must be either one or many. There is no third way for an object to exist. These two categories of one and many exhaust all possible existence in the universe. Anything which exists in the universe must necessarily be one or many either a unit or a multiplicity. No other possible way for an object to exist.
And if an object truly exists, then it must be either truly existent. It must be truly existent one or it must be a truly existent many. A truly existent unit or truly existent multiplicity. It must be one of those two if it truly exists. So this is the same commitment to binary logic that we made in terms of ascertaining the pervasion in the Four Essentials when we said that in the ascertaining the pervasion that if the self exists the way it appears, it must be one with the body and mind or it must be different.
It must be one or many. It’s the same idea. The law of excluded middle. It must be one or the other if it exists. So, if we can prove that no object exists as either truly existently one or truly existently many, then we have proven that nothing exists, that nothing truly exists.
We’ve covered every possibility. If we can prove that there is nothing which is truly existent, one, and there is nothing which is a truly existent, many, then nothing truly exists because there’s no other possibility. Due to ignorance products appear to be truly established. So due to the influence of ignorance objects appear to us to be truly established. But, in fact, are empty of being established in that way, in the way they appear.
This nature of emptiness is illustrated by cataracts. Faults with the eye, with the cornea. Cataracts of the eye. If a phenomena were ultimately established, then the phenomena itself would have to be its own final mode of being, its own essence. So, we’re going discuss what that sentence means.
If this were the case, then a reasoning consciousness searching for the mode of being of that phenomena would have to find the phenomena itself at the conclusion of its analysis. Now, we’re talking about getting into the area of how our analytic process works when we search, when we investigate an object. If we were to investigate this book, if the book were its own mode of being, if it truly existed, then upon analysis, I should be able to find a book. Upon ultimate analysis, not superficial analysis. If somebody says, Where’s the book?
I say, It’s on the table. I found the book. But that’s not an ultimate analysis. That’s not an ultimate investigation. I want to find its ultimate mode of being.
We’re going to get into this. We do make this analysis, trying to find, is the book its ultimate mode of being? Is that the final mode of being, the final character of this object? Is it book? Or is it something does it have a is that more of a superficial way it exists and has a deeper way of being, which is not book.
So, into the idea of analysis, investigating the nature of the object. However, a consciousness which analyzes with reasoning, such as the lack of being one or many, finds that phenomena under investigation is not ultimately one or many and therefore is not ultimately established. The reasoning consciousness finds that the mode of being of the phenomena rather than being the phenomena itself is its very lack of ultimate establishment. Its emptiness of being established in the way in which it appears. Now we get the analogy to help us understand what has just been said.
This is similar to the case of a person with cataracts who sees falling hair. I don’t know if this is true or not but as far as the Indian Tibetan traditions, are some cases of people who have cataracts. This causes them to see hair in front of their eyes falling all the time. Pieces of hair falling. It appears to them due to the cataracts.
If the falling hair actually existed, they would have to be seen even more clearly by persons with good vision. Now, it’s the nature of falsities that upon analysis they disappear. The object is not to be found. It’s the nature of truth that upon analysis they become more evident, more obvious. So, if these cataracts, these falling hairs, if they actually existed, then upon analyzing and looking at them with more and more clear vision, should be if they actually existed, they should become more and more obvious to us.
The fact that such a person does not see falling hair, that is, say, a person with good vision, indicates that they do not exist. Similarly, if phenomena were ultimately established as they appear to an ignorant consciousness, that ultimate establishment should have to be ascertained by analytic consciousness, specifically investigating ultimate establishment. The fact that a consciousness, after searching for ultimate establishment does not find it, indicates that the phenomena are empty of ultimate establishment. So, want to know what is the you know, I to investigate. I’m going to analyze.
What is the ultimate way in which this book exists? Is the book its final mode of being? Is it, Is it truly existent? It appears that this book is out there very solid, real, independent of my mind. But, is that the way it actually, in fact, is?
And, I’m going to perform it. I’m going to investigate. To be truly existent means that an object’s mode of appearance is established at its mode of being. We’ve gone over this. To be truly existent, the way it appears must be the same as the way it exists.
The object must exist in the way that it appears. Objects appear as if they were positive by the force of appearing to a non diff objects do not appear objects appear as if they were not posited by the force of appearing to a non defective awareness. This book appears to I conceive of this book. This book appears to my mental consciousness to not depend upon my awareness. Not that its existence is independent to my awareness.
That’s the way it appears to me. So I want to know if that’s the way it actually exists. This book appears to my mental consciousness that it arises, that it’s positive not by the force of appearing to a non defective awareness. That is, it doesn’t have to appear to an awareness in order for it to exist. It appears to my mental consciousness as if it exists independent of awareness.
Simply, if objects appear as if they are not imputed by conception, Objects appear to us as if they were not posited by our conception, as if they existed in and of themselves independent being designated, independent of being constructed, organized. And then we have like sense data and we organize it into an object which we recognize. The perceptual perceptual process. They don’t appear that way. They appear as if they aren’t dependent upon our mind.
They do not depend upon as if they not depend upon being conceived as such. When the mind conceives of an object, is when the mind conceives of an object, it is conceived of as a whole, a unit. At that time, the mind is unable to conceive of the parts of the object. When the mind conceives of the parts of an object, the mind is unable to conceive of the whole object. This is an obstruction that we have in our present conceiving thought process, the way it’s operating.
Whenever I conceive if I have a whole, the book, I cannot conceive the parts of the book. If I analyze and I break up the whole and I begin to recognize its parts, conceive of its parts, then I’m not able to hold on to the whole. I have to either be aware of the whole or the parts. I cannot be aware of them simultaneously. To analyze means to break up.
To break up means we have to lose recognition of the whole. So I cannot begin to see parts unless I lose the whole. I cannot see the whole and the part simultaneously. This is the way our thought thinking process is operating. Now what significance does this amazing fact have?
So when we break up an object, analyzing it, we’re unable to maintain the conception of both the whole and the parts of that at the same time. It is not that the whole and the parts do not exist simultaneously. It’s just that we are not able to conceive of them simultaneously. We have to forego conceiving of one in order to conceive of the other. Another way of saying this is that we cannot designate the whole and the parts at the same time.
We cannot organize the whole and organize parts of that whole simultaneously at the same time. If we impute the whole, we cannot impute the parts. When I think, when I conceive of the body, my body, I cannot conceive simultaneously the parts of the body. That part, when I conceive of the body, is a unit, a solid whole. I cannot conceive at that moment of the arms, the legs, the head, the trunk, etcetera of that body simultaneously.
I cannot conceive the whole and the parts simultaneously. If I begin to analyze, then I lose the whole. I look at the arms, I look at the legs, I look at the head. And while I’m looking at those individual parts, I cannot conceive, maintain a conception of the whole simultaneously. I can only I have to go for one or the other, the parts of the whole.
If we impute the whole, we cannot impute the parts. And if we impute the parts, we cannot impute the whole. Now what does that mean? Whole and parts appear to be different entities with the whole being one thing and the parts another. Okay?
So, we have begin to recognize that we are very unaware of our and especially out of our perceptual process, the way in which we are organizing our reality, the way things appear into us, way we conceive of things. We are extremely unaware. And when we conceive of wholes and parts, my body and the parts of my body, even the aggregation of the parts, my legs, my arms, my head, my trunk, that pile of parts, and the whole, my body, we conceive of those as being two separate entities. That’s the way our conceptual process is operating. When I conceive, when I think body, it’s a very much different entity when I conceive of parts of body, even if I include all the parts of the body.
There’s a different image that arises in my mind. If there’s a different image, there’s a different entity. We do this all the time. Jampa, monk, American monk, male. I have different images.
And I can see that these are very different, very separate. But in fact, they’re the same entity, aren’t they? But I conceive of them as being separate entities. They have the same, they’re the same entity, but I conceive of them as being different entities. When I think of the whole of the body, I have one image in my mind and all the emotions and all the feelings, the beliefs surrounding that.
This whole complex is a mental image. And when I think of the parts of the body, even all the parts of the body, I have emotions, beliefs, views, feelings, all the mental image surrounding that. And these are quite different. The whole and the parts are conceived of as different entities. Whole and part appear to be different entities with the whole being one thing and the parts another.
Whereas in terms of their mode of subsistence, in fact, the body and the collection of the parts in the body, same thing. But I conceive of them differently. But in fact, the way they actually exist, same thing. Whole and part are the same entity. The collection of the parts and the whole.
You know, if you have an apple pie and you slice it up in eight pieces, and when I conceive of eight pieces of pie and I conceive of pie, something a different image appears to my mind. I conceive of it differently, as if they were two different things, with the same object, same entity. I’ve just cut this piece of pie into eight parts. But due to that analysis, the cutting up, I have a different way of conceiving of it. And I no longer conceive of those eight pieces of pie as being as synonymous, equal, as whole.
There’s a different mental image. Different it appears that when I think of them, it’s as if they’re two different entities but they’re the same entity. If whole and part were different entities in fact, in addition to appearing different so, if whole and part were different entities in fact, if they really if the eight pieces of apple pie in the pie dish and the whole apple pie were in fact different entities. In addition to appearing to be different entities, then the whole and the parts would not exist because whole and part are designated in terms of each other. If the whole and the part were different entities, then the whole and the part could not exist.
Like a car the parts of a car are designated in relationship to a car. These are parts of a car because the whole is a car. If the whole wasn’t a car, there wouldn’t be parts of a car. It could be if the whole was a tractor, there would be parts of a tractor. It could be the same part.
It could be a spark plug. Take a spark plug, I put it into a tractor, it’s a part of a tractor. It’s designated in terms of the whole. The part is designated. If I take that same spark plug and I put it into a jeep, it’s a part of a jeep.
It’s designated in relationship to the whole. Now, if these were different entities, then it wouldn’t be designated in relationship to the whole. It wouldn’t exist. It has to be it’s only designated in relationship to the whole. And the whole and the part would not exist because the whole and the part are designated in terms of each other.
A car is built out of parts of a car. If whole and parts appear to be the same entity, in addition to being the same entity in fact, whole and part would also not exist because they would be indistinguishable. Whole and part. The parts of an apple pie and an apple pie are in fact the same entity. If they appear to be the same entity then they would not exist because we would not be able to distinguish between parts of an apple pie and an apple pie, whole apple pie.
The parts in the whole because they are the same entity and they would appear the same entity. So apple pie sliced up in eight pieces and an apple pie would be there’d be no difference between the two. They’re the same, both in appearance and the way they exist. Therefore, whole and part must appear to be different entities, but must abide as the same entity. So, to our conception, whole and part appear differently.
They appear as two different things. But, in fact, they are the same entity. In other words, the way the whole and the parts appear and the way they exist do not agree. Whatever appears one way and exists another is false and cannot be truly established. To be truly established means that an object’s mode of appearance is established as its mode of being.
The object must exist the way it appears. So, the crux of the reasoning of the lack of being one or many is firstly that nothing truly exists as a truly existent one or unit. Nothing truly exists as a truly existent one or unit because everything has parts. There is nothing in the universe that does not have parts. Therefore, it cannot truly exist.
What does, okay, first of all, what does this, first show that everything in the universe has parts. Gross objects are composed of subtle particles which are in turn composed of more subtle particles which have directional parts. You know, this table is made of atoms. The atoms are made of subatomic particles. And, we can say that even scientists are trying to find the ultimate building block of the some sort of quark or something.
But even that has parts. It has the upper half, the lower half, the side nearest me, the side furthest away from me, the northern side, southern side, eastern side. It has directional parts. It has the we can keep this there’s nothing which does not have parts. There’s no ultimate building block.
We can continually keep dividing, analyzing, breaking it up further and further without end. Consciousness has parts because it has later and former moments. That is, it has temporal parts. There’s a beginning of a mind moment, middle of a mind moment, an end of a mind moment, beginning of the beginning of the mind moment, etcetera. We can keep analyzing, breaking up into parts, temporal parts.
Even permanent objects such as unconditioned space. This space which the universe exists within. The simply the non obstruction to move it. This table, I, everything exists within space. This space is not conditioned.
It’s not a product. Even that has parts. There’s a space in the northern direction, space in the southern direction, space in this room. There’s a space in the house next door. It has many parts.
Everything in the universe has part. Truly, if something were truly one or truly unitary means to be partless. Wholes appear to be partless. Wholes appear to us to be partless, but they do not exist that way. They are false appearances.
Truly existent wholes do not exist. Nothing is truly existent. Nothing is a truly existent one or unitary. There is nothing which is one or unitary that ultimately exists. Things appear to us to be whole.
You know, what what okay. See if we try to it and try to get at what they’re saying here, is they’re saying that I’m not in any way designating that object. That object truly exists out there. It’s not dependent upon my mind, my imputation, my designation, my conceptions, my terms, my names that I give the object, my organizing it. It truly exists out there, independent of my mind.
Now, if it, in fact, existed that way, now what happens when if it’s not if can explain this clearly? I analyze remember what I said? When I analyze to analyze means to break up into parts. That’s what it means to investigate. I analyze this book.
It’s made of plastic. It’s made up. It’s got ten pages. Each page has such and such. I break it up into its constituent parts.
That’s what we mean by analyze, to break up into parts. Now, if I wanted to analyze for the ultimate nature of that book, then if that book is not dependent upon my being designated, what happens when I analyze? In fact, when I analyze, I can no longer impute the whole. Therefore, the whole is lost. I can never impute means simply to conceive.
To when I analyze, I cannot impute, keep imputing the whole while I’m analyzing, looking at the parts. I don’t have that ability. But if that whole is not dependent upon my imputing it, then I should still find that whole when I analyze because it’s not dependent upon me imputing it. If that hole, if that book is not dependent upon me imputing it, then when I go to analyze, because it’s not dependent upon me imputing it, I should be able to find it. But in fact the reason I don’t find it is because it’s dependent upon me imputing it and I cannot maintain conceiving the book when I’m looking at its parts.
I have to forego conceiving the whole when I’m looking at parts. If the whole didn’t depend upon my conception, then I should, when looking at it, investigating, I should be able to find it. That would be the final mode of being. The final mode of being would be the book. Because it’s not I cannot conceive of if the book is a whole, it appears to me to be a whole.
They’re saying if it truly exists. It appears to truly exist. I didn’t say, to my mental consciousness, it appears not to depend upon my mind organizing it. This data creating some kind of creating this object in conjunction with something coming from the other side. It’s saying it exists completely from the side of the object.
If it did exist that way, then there’s no reason why I shouldn’t be able to find it upon investigation because it’s not dependent upon my mind imputing it. I shouldn’t be able but I can’t. Why can’t I find it? Because it is dependent upon my mind, and when I investigate it, I can no longer conceive of the whole because I’m looking at the parts. If the whole thing depended upon my mind conceiving it, then when I looked at the parts, I should still be able to find the book because it exists independent of my mind.
Truly. That’s about the best I can do. Let’s see. So the pivotal point in establishing that truly existent unities do not exist is that everything has parts. Everything has parts, though they are conceived of not to have parts.
When conceive of things, when I think of my mother, I don’t conceive of her arms or legs. There’s some whole, some unit out there, my mom. And then when I think of my mom’s leg, can’t I know what I can say about my mom. I can’t maintain those two conceptions simultaneously. So I’m always conceiving in terms of units, unitaries, ones.
And that appearance as being a unit is mistaken. It’s false because it has parts. It appears partless. My mom appears partless. When I think of dog, I think of dog, appears dog appears partless.
This is some kind of unit, kind of whole mass. Dog. All of these things that I conceive appear as units but in fact they have parts. Therefore, they appear one way and exist another. They do not truly exist.
So, things do not truly exist- are not truly existent ones because they have part. That’s the first part of his reasoning of lack of one or many. Secondly, if existent unity does if does not exist, a truly existent multiplicity cannot exist because if one does not exist, many cannot exist. That is to say, a truly existent multiplicity would have to be made up, would have to be composed of many truly existent units. And if truly existent units don’t exist, then how can something which is made up of which has to be made up of those exist?
A truly existent multiplicity, a truly existent many something which is composed of many truly existently ones and constructed. If there are no truly existent ones, there cannot be any truly existent many. Therefore, once it can be shown that a truly existent unit unity does not exist, it is obvious that a truly existent multiplicity do not exist. So, you know, in refuting truly existently one and many is not to say that one and many don’t exist. They do exist.
They exist conventionally. They do not exist ultimately. One, you know, there’s one person over here. There’s many people over there. There’s no truly existent one over here.
No truly existent many over there. What does not exist is ultimately one or many. They do not ultimately exist. This conventionally. So, since it is shown that nothing is truly existently one because of having parts, and nothing is truly existently many because there is because truly existently one does not exist and the truly existently many would have to be composed about out of those many truly existently ones.
There and because all categories are exhausted, this exhausts all possible existences. If something exists, it must be either truly existent in one or truly existent in many. Then nothing truly exists. And the wisdom which thoroughly realizes this has the power to overcome the ignorance which misconceives the nature of reality. When this wisdom is conjoined with the awakening heart, it has then the power to remove all the obstructions to omniscience and one actualizes the fullness of human potential and one actualizes the fullness of human potential.
So, in the realization in this context, the wisdom understanding that nothing truly exists, the emptiness of true existence, when this is conjoined with the awakening heart, then this has the power, the potential to overcome the obstructions to omniscience, the knowledge obstructions, these particular type of distorted awareness which obstruct which hinder the simultaneous cognition of all phenomena. I’ll stop there. So, next week, we’ll take up the next stage. Maybe in a way, it’s a little bit easier. I don’t know.
Even though it’s the final thought of the Buddha on the nature of reality. The consequence stage, Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school stage. I maybe I it’s a lot to take in. Perhaps I have not felt like I’ve explained things very well. Anyway, I myself have have to have I’ve heard this many, many, many times.
So each time you hear it and maybe a little more, you understand a little bit more, a little bit more, and then maybe it begins to make a little bit of sense. And reading these quotes and teachings with all their difficult vocabulary is quite difficult that I would think to listen to. But I tried to explain them. Think it’s worthwhile. So we’ll stop there.
I will dedicate the positive energy created. May I quickly become an awakened spiritual teacher and lead each and every sentient being to enlightened realm through these skillful actions. May the supreme jewel of the awakening heart that has not arisen arise and grow and may that which has arisen never diminish but increase more and more.