Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 35-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun works through the classical sevenfold cart analysis — Madhyamaka philosophy’s most systematic method for establishing that objects have no existence from their own side. He begins by pinning down what “inherent existence” actually feels like: that bare sense of concreteness and findability, contrasted with the rope-and-snake example showing how phenomena arise solely through imputation by thought. He then proceeds through all nine stages of reasoning, establishing that a cart is neither identical to its parts, nor completely separate from them, nor nested within them, nor reducible to their mere collection or shape — exhausting every conceivable mode of objective existence until none survives scrutiny. The session closes with a striking passage on the emotional texture of this realization: first fear, then the sadness of leaving home for the last time, then sudden relief and joy. Suited to practitioners already familiar with Madhyamaka reasoning.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 12 3 PA 1990 11 16.mp3
UUID: bd921cb5-17ef-4b1d-ab95-37e35afe1d28
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principal Aspects of the Path 1988-1990 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1990-11-16
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 34.6 minutes
Words: ~4,285
First stage, the essential of ascertaining the object of negation, the object of being negated. So this is the same as the essential used in the technique of the four essentials, the hearer stage. But at this level, the object of negation is more subtle. This has always been the case. There’s been always a more and more subtle object which is going to be refuted or negated.
At the Hearer stage we were negating a type of self which was unchanging, singular, and independent. Here we are trying to negate the characteristic inherent existence and we are applying it to all phenomena not just the self. But just as at the hearer stage we are going to set up a target that we are aiming our arrow of reasoned analysis at. So in order to search for an inherently existing object it is necessary that first we know what we are looking for. Unless the object is ascertained, we cannot realize its nonexistence.
So without ascertaining what the imagined object appears like, that is the inherently existent object we cannot refute it. This is the most important to develop a sense of what an inherently existent object looks like. So we have to develop a sense of inherent existence by understanding its opposite, nominal existence. That is that phenomena are merely established through the power of thought. In other words, phenomena are merely imputed by conception.
And this is we’ve talked a lot about this. Phenomena are merely imputed by conception. This is like the hallmark of Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school. All phenomena are merely imputed by conception that they do not inherently exist. Merely imputed.
We have, you know, discussed how phenomena are brought into existence by means of the process of perception, perceptual process. On the basis of appearance, an object is labeled. On the basis of an appearance, something appears. And on that basis of that appearance, we label an object and bring it into existence. And we can get and we use we can get a scope of the the extent and understanding of the scope, the extent of this imputing process when we consider that, you know, this illustration of, you know, the, that a snake and a rope, there’s no difference in the process of designation between in a rope and a snake being imputed, designated upon a striped coiled length of hemp.
I gave the example of walking along and there’s a there’s a striped coiled length of hemp in the grass, and you can see a snake, and you become very afraid. The the not just from the point of view of the way the object is the way the the perceiving process is working. The way it’s being way the conceptual process is being operating. That conceiving of snake, there’s no snake there whatsoever. There’s nothing snaking there’s no snaking about that object whatsoever.
That way of that way of creating that object and the way of creating or seeing as a rope at that same place is no different. One is correct and one is mistaken. We’re not we’re not talking about that. But the the way in which the object is being designated, is being conceived, the way the perceiving process is operating exactly the same. One is a mistaken consciousness because a rope won’t bite you.
That’s all. But the way in which so it’s all coming some from the side that there’s a basis there. There’s an appearance, but what is being attributed to it, snake or rope, is coming from the side of the subject. No difference between a rope and a snake. The same perceptual process is operating.
That both the snake and the rope appear solely through the power of concept or thought. And also this this example of this is a newborn named John. Appears to our awareness in dependence upon the name John being given to this body and mind. A body and mind of a newborn child, in dependence upon it we we designate, we give the name, label John. in dependence upon that label John, John comes into existence.
in dependence upon that appearance, we label John and then John appears to us. It wasn’t John before we labeled it. There was nothing John that’s about the body and mind. John that John appeared to us solely through the force of concepts. Name.
in dependence upon a a particular appearance, we label John and John appears to us and has John has various characteristics. He looks like his father. So trying to get understand what we mean by imputed existence. Nominal this is what we call nominal existence. Existence by way of name.
The opposite of imputed existence or nominal existence is inherent existence. Objective existence, self defining existence, existence from its own side, existence from the side of the object, natural existence, self powered existence, these all mean very much the same thing. The object, you know, inherent existence, the word inherent, the object inheres in itself. The object is as if contained within itself. It’s not dependent upon other.
It’s contained it’s self contained. It defines itself. It establishes itself. It self self established. It exists through its own power.
It it it has a thingness quality about it. Cart-ness. Car-ness. So the target of our reasoning, which we’re setting out to destroy, is our this unembellished sense of things as being concrete and findable upon analysis. And this this idea of findability, that we have a sense that if we look, if we examine for an object amongst its parts where we see it, we would find it, that it’s findable upon analysis.
There’s a concreteness about the object and a sense of findability about the object. This is the this bare sense of that quality is inherent existence. This is setting up the target. This is the first essential ascertaining the object of negation, and just as in the four point analysis. The second of these nine stages is essential of ascertaining the pervasion exactly like the second stage of the four point analysis.
This again we’re making a commitment to binary logic to the law of excluded middle. Either A or not A. Simply stated, the way it’s going to work here is if an object inherently exists, it must exist in one of the following seven ways. Now these seven ways that we’re going to go through are the third and fourth essential to four point analysis. That if something wait.
The third and fourth point of the four point analysis was that if the self independently exists, it must be independently one with the aggregates or independently different than aggregates. Everything in the universe is either one or many, same or different, unitary or multiplicity. It must be one of these. So we make a commitment to this that these seven, these remaining seven points of analysis are such that if an inherently existent object exists, I should be able to find it in one way of existing in these seven, the remaining seven points. We’re going to look at a cart in relationship to its parts.
So the third and ninth stages of analysis are simply an elaboration, a way of more detailing third and fourth essentials. Know, it’s actually simply an elaboration of the four point essential. The four point analysis. But now the third and fourth have been rather than only two essentials they’ve been extended into more detail in this seven. But essentially the same.
The third through the ninth stages of analysis are elaboration of the third and fourth essentials in the technique of the hearers. Briefly, we are going to use the example of a cart. If the cart exists, inherently exists, it must be inherently the same or inherently different in the parts. That’s essentially what we’re trying to understand. If the cart inherently exists, if it exists objectively, want to use, it must be inherently one with its parts or it must be inherently different than its parts.
If it’s not inherently one with its parts or inherently different than its parts then it doesn’t inherently exist. There is no third possibility. If we search in the following seven ways and we do not find the object of our search, then we are forced to presume that the object simply does not exist. If it did exist, we would have found it to exist in one of the seven ways. So the the third essential, we’re going to begin to search for for an inherently existing cart in relationship to its parts.
By parts of a cart, things like wheels, axle, frame. The third stage is the essential of realizing that the phenomenon imputed is not the same as the basis of imputation. So what we’re establishing that the cart is not its parts. The cart is not its part. The pencil is not parts of the pencil.
In the case of the cart, the cart is the phenomenon which is being imputed. Imputed object. And the axle, the wheels, the frame are the basis of imputation. Upon these parts we designate label impute cart. These so these parts serve as stimulus as the stimulus necessary for thought for the thought cart to arise with respect to them and which is then projected upon them.
So this is why, so this is why the in dependence upon seeing an axle, a wheel, frame that stimulates our thought conception, thought process, our thought. And the thought arises in a mind cart and then we we project cart upon this part. We impute label upon this part, axle wheel, etcetera, and a cart and dependence upon that imputing, that cart comes into existence. So at this stage, we are we’re trying to analyze whether the cart and the axle wheels etc. Are naturally one.
Naturally one. That is they have to be exactly the same. Every characteristic of a cart has to be the characteristic of the part and every characteristic of the parts has to be exactly the same characteristic as the cart. Identical. Anything which defines the parts must be two are inseparably one, inseparably mixed.
This is what we’re going to analyze. And okay, then we look at the consequences. If that were the case, the two are inseparably one, completely completely identical, all all defining properties. What what consequences would that way of existing have logically? If the cart and the parts were naturally one, each part would have characteristics of cart.
Cart would be homogeneously spread throughout the entire all the parts with each part would have to have whatever character characteristic defined cart. What however we define cart, every part would have to have that same defining proper, that same same defining characteristic. There would have to be this cartiness. Yeah. This quality of cartiness kind of imbuing, spread like I use the word homogenous.
Completely penetrating every part would have to have this quality of cart because any quality of cart, each of the parts must have. Or if we say the reverse of that. Okay. If that were the case, if each part had a defining characteristic of cart, then we would because then absurdly there would be as many carts as there are parts. You would have to have as many carts as you have parts because every part has the same characteristics as cart.
And it you know? Whatever character whatever characteristic define cart, every part has the same characteristics. Therefore, there must be as many carts as there are parts. Or we go the reverse of that. On the other hand, because was only one cart, then there would be only one part.
Alright? Since whatever characteristic a cart has, for example, the characteristic of being one, the parts must have. So there can only be one part. Whatever whatever character whatever qualities card has, the parts must have. They’re identical.
So there’s only one cart that has that property of being only one. Therefore, there can only be one part. This is a cart made out of one part. This this is what if you get a feeling what that might this is what a sense of what that must be like. A cart having one part, then you’re getting a a sense of what an inherently existing cart appears like.
Also, if the cart and the parts were naturally the same, and if we search through the parts, we should find the cart because they’re the same. If I if I if I look through the parts because the cart and the parts are the same, if I look at the parts, I should be able to find the cart, but I don’t. When I when I searched through the pen, the pencil, I couldn’t find the pencil once I once I begin my examination, my investigation. Essential. The fourth the fourth stage, the essential of realizing that the phenomenon imputed is not inherently different from the basis of imputation.
So this is establishing that the car that the cart is not inherently different than the parts. The cart is not inherently different from the cart from the parts. The cart is not inherently different than the part. K? Now we may have a sense that the that the cart and its parts are inherently different.
In fact, we probably do it. Here, inherently different can be thought of to mean absolutely unrelatedly different. Absolutely unrelatedly different. The two things are inherently different. They have no relationship whatsoever.
Just like a pot and a pillar as if they have no relationship to one another. Totally unrelatedly different, inherently different. So if the cart and the parts were unrelatedly different, inherently different, you know, we you know, when we think about unrelatedly different, we do think in this way. For example, when we think of a color and shape, we can think of color. We think of color and shape as being unrelatedly different.
This is the way we we conceive of them. We we can we can conceive of color, blue, green, without a shape. And we can we can conceive of shapes, triangles, circles, squares without color. But in fact, this is the way that we can conceive of them as it unrelatedly different. But in fact, every color has a shape.
Every shape has a color. They’re one entity. In fact, they are one entity, color and shape. Whatever has a shape has a color. Whatever has a color has a shape, in fact.
But we can conceive of it. The way our mind can think about them is as if we can have colors without shapes, shapes without color. We can conceive of them as being unrelated and separate, different from one another. We can conceive we can think of them that in that way. But in fact, they’re one entity. So we can think of the parts of a car and a car as being separate, unrelatedly different.
But but in fact, they’re one entity. But we can think of them as being unrelatedly different and this is what we’re going to analyze here. To thought. To thought. To thought.
Cart and parts appear to be unrelated to the other. I can think of the, you know, the parts I can think of all the parts of the car, and I can think of the car. And they they did something appear to me to be different, unrelatedly different. If this were in fact so, if in fact they were unrelatedly different, inherently different, unrelatedly different, then the parts of the car could be damaged and the car left untouched because there’s no relationship between the parts of the car and the car. You could could could dent your front bumper, break the headlight, and the car wouldn’t wouldn’t be harmed at all because there’s no relationship between the parts and the car.
This is the this is the way this is a contradiction to our normal way of thinking. We have absurdity of his way of thinking. Also, if the cart and its parts were unrelated to the other, different. The cart and its parts were unrelated to the other, different. We should be able to we should be able to take away all the parts one by one.
We take the let’s think of a car. It’s got a steering wheel, the tires, the frame, the motor. We simply set them aside. Keep setting them aside, and we should be left over with the car. After we separated all the parts, then there should be a car left standing there.
There’s none. So though we can conceive that cars as being unrelated and different than its parts, then in fact not. If they were unrelated different, then we should be able to take the parts of it still be left with the car because there’s no relationship between car the car and its part. But in fact, that’s not the case. But we can see for things to exist that way, inherently different.
If things inherently different, then they must I should be able to find it as being different, but I don’t. The fifth stage is the essential of realizing that the phenomena imputed is not dependent upon its basis of the imputation. So these are all all these remaining are simply elaborations or different emphasis on these on these first two that we just covered. Establishing that the car is not inherently based upon its parts. The car is not inherently based upon its parts.
We have a sense and this is a possible another sense of the way we can conceive of the car and we have to become aware of the ways we may be conceiving of these objects. This is how we are attempting to gain a target to shoot at, to to get a conception of what inherently exist and appears like. We have we could have a sense that a car as if a car was nestled nestled in its parts. Now we’re trying to what is the relationship between car and its parts? We one conception is that the that the that the car is as if nestled somewhere amongst its parts.
And all these parts and then it’s somewhere in there. It’s like nestled there. A car. A car. This kind of sense.
So this is simply a branch of this fourth essential that the that being unrelatedly different. We’re gonna simply an emphasis on the parts being the inherent base of the car. That means there’s a sense that the car is somewhere contained within the park. But, you know, we’ve already refuted that. They would have to be still be unrelatedly different.
The sixth stage, the essential of realizing that the phenomena imputed is not the support upon which it is the basis of imputation. So this is establishing that the car is not inherently the base upon which it rests above the parts. This is the opposite of the one we just talked about. The parts are not contained within the car. We have a sense like we think the the the parts are contained within the car.
Like a forest which is covered by snow, completely covered with snow, enveloped with snow, that the that the that the trees, the forest is contained within the snow. We have a sense that the the parts of the car are contained within the car. If this were the case, again, the parts and the car would be different entities. Like like the forest and the snow are different entities. And the car and the parts would be different entities.
This is simply another branch of the fourth essential, unrelatedly different. But they have the emphasis on the the car not being inherent base of the parts. So the seventh stage. The essential of realizing that the phenomena imputed does not possess its basis of imputation. So the car does not inherently possess the part.
The cart does not inherently possess its parts. There are two ways that we can possess things, that we can think of possession. One is like like a shepherd and and his sheep. A shepherd possesses his sheep. Another way we can think of possession is a tree possessing its core.
And one, they’re different. So, I mean, essentially, we’re saying with the shepherd and sheep, they’re separate entities. And, this entity owns or possesses this entity. In the tree and its core, they’re the same entity. If if the car were a separate entity from its parts, then we’ve already this was already refuted.
It would be unrelated to the other. And if the if the car were one entity with its parts, inherently one entity, we refuted this at the third essential. So these these possibilities are refuted. The eighth stage, the essential of realizing that the phenomenon imputed is not the mere collection of its basis of the imputation. And this is what we demonstrated with the pencil.
This just the mere pile of the mere collection, mere the parts is not is not the pencil. The the car is not just a composite of its parts. The mere collection is just an unarranged collection of parts. If the car were just the mere collection of the parts, then we can have a pile of cars, a pile of parts, and that would be a car. We could get in and drive it around because the mere collection of parts is a car.
The collection of the parts is a car. But in fact, it’s not not just the mere collection of parts is a car. Because we refuted we refuted this at the third branch, at the third essential. But here we’re emphasizing the idea of collection. That the that the car and the parts are not the same entity.
Are not the are not the same inherent entity. Same entity. And then the last. The last. Last.
Essential. Ninth stage. Essential realizing that the phenomenon imputed is not the shape of its not the shape of its basis of imputation. So if the shape of the car were the car, if the shape of a car were a car, then a model of a car would be a car. Maybe just have a model made out of wood, painted nicely, and that would be a car because the shape of a car is a car.
So, you know, as we mentioned as was mentioned previously, if if the car inherently exists, it must exist in one of these seven ways. But but but all of these seven ways of possible ways of of existing have been refuted. Therefore, the cart does not inherently exist. And this is kind of the the conclusion that we might we come to after making this thorough analysis. So it’s important to spend some time in in the beginning becoming acquainted with these various reasons.
When when familiarity with this way of reasoning is is gained with a simple object like a cart and a car and its parts, one then applies this reasoning to the self in terms of the aggregates or or in terms of the self and the mind and body. And then one meditates on these essentials. And whatever is helpful in in getting rid of our modes of long conceptions. So so just one one last quotation. Emptiness is a very simple truth made complicated by attempts to elucidate it in words and concepts which can be pointed to only in direct experience.
We can only search for inherent existence until we are convinced that there is none anywhere to be found. This analysis is carried out relentlessly until one begins to be convinced intellectually that no inherent existence can be found. In the practice of mindfulness awareness meditation brings its intellectual understanding into the intuitive level, bringing the intellectual understanding of emptiness into intuition. The realization of emptiness may be sudden or it may gradually dawn on one. And before it dawns, such discovery may at first rouse fear and great anger, especially in the mind that finds its identity in the perception and analysis of the world in terms of things, a kind of mind that we take to be a special treasure of being human.
Beyond fear, this realization may bring with it feeling a quality of sadness and loneliness. It is as if you were standing on the top of a high ridge, the wind blowing rain in your face, and you hear a dog barking barking in the valley below. Again, it is as if you have just left home knowing you will never return. As you look back, your house disappears around the last corner. The thing world that is so familiar to you and has been your constant companion for so many years is slipping away.
And slipping away too is your self centered concern. Yet ironically, that very moment of intense sadness is felt as if one was suddenly relieved from an impossible burden. It is said to bring with it great joy, the joy of discovering the truth of non separateness or non duality. So let us rest in the nature of reality. I wanna dedicate the positive energy that we have created.
May I quickly become an awakened spiritual teacher and each and every sentient being to that enlightenment through these skillful actions. May the supreme jewel of the awakening heart that has not arisen arise and grow. May that which has arisen never diminish, but increase.