Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this nearly two-hour session, Ven Jampa Gendun completes the sevenfold reasoning for emptiness of the person, working methodically through all seven positions examining how the I relates to body and mind. He frames the session with the rope-snake image — adjusting to snakes is valuable, but wisdom removes the basic misconception entirely — then guides a brief body relaxation and meditation before the analysis begins. Each position is illustrated concretely: a car and its parts, a lion living in a forest, a glass of liquid perceived as water by humans, nectar by celestial beings, and pus by hungry ghosts. He explains how things exist nominally — designated by thought onto a basis — and closes with a vivid account of what emptiness realization feels like: first loneliness and sadness, then sudden relief as the burden of defending an unfindable self lifts away. A lively student discussion follows. Suited to practitioners who have been following the series.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 37 3PA 2009 03 16.mp3
UUID: bfb6b379-2cdb-4824-900f-48d25179076f
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Three Principle Aspects of the Path 2008-2009 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 2009-03-16
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 115.9 minutes
Words: ~12,733
How is everybody? Good. Good. You alright? Thanks. Happy.
You look nice and pink. So we’ve got to realize the Three Principal Aspects of the Path in the next three weeks. So you going to have to try really hard. Concerted effort. So we begin by adjusting our motivation.
Know, we can work with our difficulties on various levels and I think it’s quite useful. Know, maybe a two-pronged approach, one at a remedial level, working with the, you know, challenging some of our dysfunctional patterns of mind, cultivating some of the more skillful states of mind. This can be done through all types of methods, not only exclusive to Buddhism, though I think Buddhism has a rather profound methods to do this, but also psychotherapy and so forth. But within that, we can simply become adjusted to a difficult situation and difficulties of the mind. There’s no fundamental resolution.
And it’s like, you know, this example of this mistaking the rope for a snake. You know, we can can work with the snake. We can learn how to live with snakes, how to even maybe even love snakes. Don’t know. But still, you know, and this will improve the quality of our lives and the way we relate with the people and situations about us.
At a more fundamental level, have to go beyond the basic misconception that there’s a snake there altogether. And that has to deal with the awakening of the mind. So we need, you know, the emphasis on the path is developing the cognitive aspect of our being, as well as the affective. We need to develop and integrating these two, developing wise hearts and loving minds in all the various ways that we do. And that’s what a Buddha represents, kind of the consummation of that process.
And so this becomes, you know, kind of orientating ourselves in that direction, a little more loving, a little kinder, more caring, but also a little bit wiser in how we relate with the things and people and situations about us, both in conventional terms but as well in deeper ultimate terms. That process being brought to consummation we call it Buddha. So we we orientating ourselves in that way. And we make use of the Dharma to as the as the tools, the strategies, the the way to actually bring that about, more than simply the truth of things. And this occurs within the social context.
Have a spiritual community of those who assist us in all the various ways, both emotionally, but as well as intellectually and rationally and so forth. And trying to raise the level of motivation, the why behind it, and the purpose for doing what we do, such that, you know, we have an ever widening vision of what a successful life might look like for ourselves. And in some way orientating ourselves, if only to begin to include someone else outside of our own egos in defining what makes your life worthwhile. So in terms of bodhicitta, the consummation of that orientation, then this wish that all other sentient beings, all others, find happiness, that they as well not suffer as ourselves. In order to do that, we have to.
And the more that we are, the more that we will have to give. So this becomes the intention behind whatever it is that we do. So with that intention, can the results will be that much more magnified. We’ll bring about that much more of what it is that we will solve our problems rather than simply perpetuating, complicating our lives perpetuating our problems, complicating our lives. I go for refuge until I’m awakened to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.
Through my practice of generosity and the other perfections, may I become a Buddha for the sake of all sentient beings. I go for refuge until I’m awakened to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Through my practice of generosity and the other perfections, may I become a Buddha for the sake of all sentient beings. I go for refuge until I’m awakened to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Through my practice of generosity and the other perfections, may I become a Buddha for the sake of all sentient beings.
There’s some if you’d like if you’re you’re welcome to as you wish, but to not but if you’d like to read along with it, there’s some prayer sheets there. But by all means, whatever you feel most comfortable in doing, do that. May all sentient beings have happiness and the causes of happiness. May all sentient beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering. May all sentient beings be inseparable from the joy that is without sorrow.
May all sentient beings abide in equanimity, free from attachment toward some and aversion toward others. Then the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra. Thus did I hear at one time the Bhagavan was dwelling on massive vultures mountain in Rajgirha together with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavan was absorbed in the concentration on the categories of phenomena called profound perception. Also at that time, the bodhisattva, Mahāsattva, Ārya Avalokiteśvara, looked upon the very practice of the profound perfection of wisdom and beheld those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature.
Then through the power of the Buddha, the Venerable Śāriputra said this to the Bodhisattva, Mahāsattva, Ārya Avalokiteśvara, How should any son of the lineage who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom? He said that the Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Ārya Avalokiteśvara said this to the venerable Śāriputra, any son of the lineage or daughter of the lineage who wishes to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom should look upon it like this, correctly and repeatedly beholding those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Form is empty. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is not other than form.
Form is also not other than emptiness. In the same way, feelings, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness are empty. Śāriputra, likewise, all phenomena are emptiness without characteristics, unproduced, unceased, stainless, not without stain, not deficient, not fulfilled. Śāriputra, therefore, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compositional factors, no consciousness, no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no eye element, and so on, up to and including no mind element, and no mental consciousness element. There is no ignorance and extinction of ignorance and so on up to and including no aging and death, and no extinction of aging and death.
Similarly, there is no suffering, origination, cessation, and path. There is no exalted wisdom and no attainment and also no non attainment. Śāriputra, therefore, because there is no attainment, Bodhisattvas rely on and dwell in the perfection of wisdom, the mind without obscuration and without fear. Having completely passed beyond, they reach the endpoint of nirvana. All the Buddhas who dwell in the three times also manifest the completely awakened to unsurpassable, perfect, complete enlightenment and reliance on the perfection of wisdom.
Therefore, the mantra of the perfection of wisdom, the mantra of great knowledge, the unsurpassed mantra, the mantra equal to the unequaled, the mantra that thoroughly pacifies all suffering should be known as the truth since it is not false. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is declared, tadyatha Om Gate Gate Pāragate Pārasamgate Bodhi Svāhā. Śāriputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahāsattva should train in the profound perfection of wisdom like that. Then the Bhagavan rose from that concentration and commended the Bodhisattva, Mahāsattva, Ārya Avalokiteśvara saying, Well said, well said, son of the lineage. It is like that.
It is like that. Once you practice the profound perfection of wisdom just as you’ve indicated, even the Tathagatas rejoice. The Bhagavan, having thus spoken, the Venerable Śāriputra, the Bodhisattva, Mahāsattva, Ārya Avalokiteśvara, those surrounding their entirety along with the world of gods, humans, asuras, and Gandharvas, were overjoyed and highly praised what had been spoken by the Bhagavan. So I’d like to take a break and we’d like to stretch for a moment. Then we’ll sit and meditate if you’d like to stand.
So we’re going to meditate on selflessness, let’s say the selflessness of a person, the I. Just asking ourselves a few simple questions and trying to arouse some curiosity, some questioning around what we normally take for granted. The I, the self. It goes unquestioned, and it is necessary to investigate the question, begin to work through our misconception around the nature of the I, what we call ignorance. So taking a comfortable, firm posture.
And we’ll begin with the process of relaxing the body. Just getting in touch with the body. So starting with the crown of the head, the scalp, bringing your awareness to the wrinkles, smoothing out of your brow. Feeling the pressure in and around your eyes diminishing. The muscles of the face softening, relaxing.
Your jaws relaxed. And bringing awareness to the back of your neck and perhaps gently turning your head to each side a few times. Very gently loosening, stretching the muscles of the back of the neck. Relaxing the muscles of the throat. And bringing your awareness to your upper back and shoulders and perhaps rotating your shoulders a few times.
Lifting them up towards your ears and just allowing them to drop comfortably to the sides. With that feeling some kind of weight or burden that you may have been carrying around on your back unknowingly, moving down and through your body into the ground. Bring your awareness all the way down to your hands. Your hands are soft and loose. Relaxing the lower arms.
And the upper arms. Your chest is at ease. Relaxing throughout the heart area. The lung. The central region of the back.
Stomach. And releasing the tension that we oftentimes hold in our stomach muscles, just allowing the belly to go soft. Relaxing throughout the abdominal cavity. And keeping your back straight, your trunk erect, relax your lower back muscles. Buttocks.
The upper legs, thighs. Your lower legs. And finally your feet soft, loose. And bringing your awareness to your body in general, just roughly scanning through the body from the top downward. And as you move through the body, noticing any tightnesses or tensions within the body, any areas of possible discomfort?
And breathing in through the nostrils and down through the throat into that area of tension. Just imagining as if you were breathing out from that area of tension upward and out. And as you do so, breathing into the tension and outward from the tension, the tension diminishes. Breathing in and down to any area tightness and as if breathing out from that area of tightness and upward and out. And as as as you do so, the tightness loosens.
Breathing in down to the tightness, the tension, wherever it might be in your body, and breathing out from those areas. Feeling the tightness and tension diminish. If there’s a some discomfort, some place in the body, without trying to avoid that area, without resisting or struggling against it, breathing into that area surrounding that discomfort like a mother cradling her her child with the kindness of your breath. And breathing out from that discomfort. And as you do so, softening, relaxing, accepting, allowing to be that area of discomfort.
Breathing into the areas of tension and tightness and discomfort, breathing out from those areas. The body becoming comfortable, relaxed, at ease. The feeling of physical well-being pervading the entire body. You can imagine it if you like. It’s a nice place to be in the body.
So there’s nowhere to go, nothing that needs to be done, no one to please. Just for a few moments, we can give ourselves a break from the busyness of being. Just be the body. Just staying with the experience of the entirety of the body. Experience of the entirety of the body, at ease, comfortable, relaxed, just being the body.
Staying with the experience of the body. I’m going do the simple breath exercise, breathing in comfortably, normally. But when you breathe out, extend the exhalation gently, forcing all the air out of the lungs. Again, breathing in comfortably normally, just allowing the lungs to feel naturally, but again, extending the exhalation. And then bring your mind to the breath.
This physical sensation associated with the natural breath, perhaps at the abdomen, perhaps at the upper lip, nostrils, wherever that sensation is most clear and obvious. It’s focusing on just that, sensation of the breath. Bring your bring your mind back to the breath. Now we’re going to investigate the I, the self. I’m just going to put a few simple questions to ourselves, just exploring, just a sense of curiosity, of interest.
When we say that I’m sitting on the chair, I’m sitting on the cushion, we feel pretty assured of that fact. But how can we prove it if we had to? What reasons establish the fact that I am, in fact, sitting on the cushion? I am sitting on the chair. What reason can we put forth establishing that?
Are you your body? Are you separate from your body? How about when you say something like, I’m happy. I’m happy. Are you the happiness?
Are you your mind? Are you your mind? I’m happy. How many I’s do you experience? You have a physical I when you say I am sick.
A mental eye when you say, I am happy. How many eyes do you actually experience? Do you experience one single eye or many eyes? Many selves. Many eyes, many selves?
If someone were to offer to exchange your present body for beautiful, healthy, youthful body, you could exchange your body. Would you accept? You could you could do a body transplant. Doesn’t that mean that there’s some nonbodily self that would be benefited from that exchange, from that transplant? If you got a new body, there’d be a nonbodily that would be benefited, wouldn’t there?
And we can ask the same thing of the mind. Somebody said, well, I’ll give you a a brand new mind, a Buddha mind, happy, joyful, loving, compassionate, wise, would you exchange your present mind? Does it mean that there’s a a non mental self that would be benefited from getting a new mind, a mind transplant? I got a new mind. Is there an eye separate from the body and mind?
Have you ever seen such an eye? What would it be like? And then bring your mind back to your breath. And get in touch with your body, perhaps the pressure of your buttocks on the cushion, on the chair, some sensation feeling within the body. Become aware of the sounds about about yourself.
And slowly become aware of your surroundings, taking your time. For those of you who have walked into the wrong place. We’re investigating the nature of the I, the self. We’re looking at the three, a text called the Three Principal Aspects of the Path. The first is the will to awaken and developing the determination to change, to be free.
And the second is the second is bodhicitta, essentially developing loving compassion, the way in which we’re bringing about these changes. And then finally, the awakened mind, is seeing deeply into the nature of reality. And this we’ve been going through this. We’ve been looking at this for quite some time. And we’re just about finished.
We’re trying to understand emptiness, develop the wisdom understanding emptiness. This was this particular sūtra that we chanted at the very beginning, the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra. It’s kind of the condensation of that wisdom. And it talks of, you know, form is emptiness, emptiness is form and so forth. Emptiness means an absence, a lack of a fantasized way of existing, a hallucinated way of existing.
And this way of existing has various use various terms to denote it, inherent existence, true existence, intrinsic existence, objective existence, existence from its own side, independent existence, so forth, all trying to get at the the same idea That there’s a with regard to the self of persons, there’s an I, an entity, at the core of our being, which is an independent entity, which doesn’t rely upon causes and conditions, which doesn’t rely upon parts, which doesn’t rely upon body, doesn’t rely upon mind, it doesn’t rely upon language or thought for its existence. And in the basis of this believing in such a self, which is ignorance, we go on to develop all the various afflictive emotions. We have some sense that we will in our meditation, we try to when we begin to question something that we have taken always for granted. We’ve we’ve believed in wholeheartedly that there’s some entity at the center of being which we identify as who in fact we are. And anything which is seen as a threat to that that eye, we develop hostility, anger, hatred.
Anything which is enhances that eye, we develop attachment, we grasping, craving, so forth. All the various afflictive emotions arise in dependence upon this misconception of ignorance. And therefore, we create various actions, create karma, and we we perpetuate our our way, our dissatisfactory way of being in this world. So we we want to get rid of ignorance. And the way we do that is developing wisdom, understanding, emptiness.
The ignorance is is grasping, hold trying to hold on to an independent self. Wisdom understands that the that the absence of just such a type of self, that no self no such types of self actually exists. So I exist. The person exists. But that I is dependent.
It’s dependent upon cause and conditions. It’s dependent upon its parts. It’s also dependent upon language. You know? This body and mind, using the term I, I apply it to this body and mind as I, Jampa, person.
I refer to that body and mind over there as you. But it all involves, you know, most essentially involves language and conceiving it as such. There’s nothing which exists independent of that process. So this is what we’re trying to come to an understanding. And the method of analysis that we’re making use of is called the the nine essentials.
And we’ve gone through this. We’re just we’re gonna finish going through this tonight. So for those who are newly joining us, this might be more confusing than normal. But try to bear with us as we go through it. So the nine essentials, this is the way this analysis, in dependence upon this analysis.
Wisdom is an analytic consciousness. It examines, it investigates. The way that it goes about this investigation is one method is these nine essentials, this particular method. And the outcome of this, we come up with we are forced into a new way of viewing an old object, the I, the self, or a car, whatever. We are looking at it in a way which acts as an antidote to ignorance, which misconceives the nature of the car or the eye itself.
So we’re going through this in a very methodical step by step process, not allowing for any vague the mind kind of the mind to slip out of of some alternative possibility, a way it could it wouldn’t have to confront. There’s a certain resistance to confronting selflessness, emptiness. So it requires kind of a foolproof method to work with. Ascertaining the object’s negation. What is This is explained using a car because a car is quite a simple object.
But we’re going to relate it to the I. Once we learn the format, we relate it to the I, the Self. What we really want to understand, at least, how the I is empty of inherent existence. I, Self. I, Self, person, these are synonymous.
They mean the same thing. This is worked out in terms of a car We’ve gone through and we’ve tried to gain a sense of what is the object negation. We work with various objects, letters, cars, money, and the way they look as if they were existed in and of themselves. That they define what they are. We don’t define them, that we are mere passive observers.
We want to do that with phenomena, phenomena, but most importantly with the I, the self. And this is most apparent. The object negation is most apparent when we develop an emotional experience. Know, I I can’t stand you. I hate you.
Or I I can’t live without you. That I now how does the I appear at that moment? It becomes very solid and concrete, and we want to be able to identify that. That is the ascertaining the object of negation. Why is it called negation?
It’s because there appears there is an appearance of such an I, but in fact, that I does not exist. And we’re going we’re going to refute the existence of that I. That is said, we’re going to negate it. There is the appearance of such an I, but it that is a false appearance. We go on to ascertain the pervasion. And we can, you know, we can work with the car, but we can also work with the self.
Do we any intelligent analysis of the I, the self, must involve the body and mind. So we’re going to relate that I with the body and mind. One more detailed way of categorizing body and mind is what is termed the five aggregates. These are simply categorizing the entirety of our experience into five categories. There’s form, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness.
This was mentioned in the Heart Sūtra when it said there was no form, feeling, no just so forth. So this is all that we experience can be included in these five categories. So it’s just a way of categorizing in more detail body and mind in order to say how does that I relate with the body and mind. Any intelligent analysis of the I necessarily involves its relationship to body and mind. Yeah.
In some way. So that’s the ascertaining the pervasion. If If the eye exists the way it appears, it must be either it must exist in one of these following seven ways. If it doesn’t exist in one of these seven following seven ways, it doesn’t exist at all. So we want to identify what it is that we’re looking for.
We we we have a clear, you know, we have a a a wanted poster. You know, we we try to get the sense of the appearance, a That I, what does it look like? And now we’re going to search for it. It must exist. If it exists, it it must exist either the same as or different than the five aggregates.
That is to it must exist as the same as or different than the body and mind. That’s the pervasion. We we have to come to that definite conclusion. There’s no third alternative that we haven’t thought of as yet. You know, it’s it’s a it’s a commitment to excluded the law of excluded middle or binary logic.
It is you know, it’s either a or not not a. If it’s a, it’s not not a. There’s there’s no third possibility between the two. Everything is either the same or is different. Everything is either one or many.
Everything is either a singularity or plurality. Everything is either one or identical or distinct. These are are dichotomies that cover all possibilities. And we have to come to a conclusion that that is the case because in our search we’re going to look at those two dichotomies. And we’re going to conclusion it neither exists as one nor many, identical or distinct, and therefore it doesn’t exist at all.
So we have to come to that certainty. So then we begin the process of sevenfold reasoning. And we’re using this simply as a format, but tonight we’ll relate it with the I, the self. Everybody okay? There’s no car which is inherently the same as its parts, and we we covered that before.
If two things are the same, and we’re talking about identically the same, there’s not the slightest difference, Exactly the same. Whatever characterizes one necessarily characterizes the other. Whatever characteristics one has, the other one has. Whatever the other one has, the other has. Exactly identical.
One. There’s no car which is inherently the same as its part. If the car were the same as its parts So there’s a sense, you know, there’s a sense that the car pervades its parts. It’s fused throughout its parts. It it’s homogeneously spread throughout its parts.
That’s the sense of the car when we look at it. If if if the car were the same as its parts, if every if every characteristic of the car was a characteristic of the parts, then every for example, the the characteristic of serving transportation, every part would have to be be defined as have a characteristic of being a means of transportation. The radio in your car would be a means of transportation. The wheels would be a means of transportation. The the engine would be a means of transportation.
There would be as many cars as there were parts because the car and its parts are identical. Anything which is characteristic of the car is a characteristic of its parts. So since the car a means of transportation, it’s parts. Every part would be a means of transportation. So there would be as many cars as there are parts.
But that that that’s absurd. Or we could go the other way. Because there’s only one car, there could only be one part. Because because every characteristic of car has a characteristic of the part. And one characteristic of car is there’s only one car.
Therefore, there should there has to be only one part. Okay. Let’s look at let’s bring that back to the self, the eye. If if the eye is inherently the same as the five aggregates of the body and mind. Then because we experience we only experience one eye, then we the body and mind this should because the eye is singular, if the eye is the same as the body and mind, then every eye, every part of the body and mind would be an eye.
There would be at least two eyes, a mental eye and a physical eye, or five eyes, each one for the five aggregates, or as many parts as there were, there would that many that many eyes. Or because the eye is one, the self is one, there could only be one part because every characteristic of the eye is a characteristic of the self, the body and mind, or the five aggregates. So we’re going through this a bit quick on that. But this is some this ground we’ve covered before. There is no eye which is inherently the same as the aggregate.
Okay? What do we mean by inherently the same? We mean undifferentiatable. We cannot distinguish the I from the body and mind. It’s like just as we cannot distinguish the car from the motor, the axle, the engine, the frame, that the I is diffused throughout, pervasive throughout the body and mind.
That they’re indifferentiatable. Therefore, the eye and and the body and mind are the same. If they’re the same, every characteristic of the eye would be a characteristic of the body and mind. Since the eye since there’s only one eye, there should only be the body and mind would be singular. But there are at least two.
There’s the there’s the there’s the physical and the mental. Or on the other hand, there should be at least two eyes, a mental eye and a physical eye. But that’s not the way we experience ourselves. You know, like when somebody knocks on the door, you sit you don’t sit there trying to figure out which eye should answer the door. Should my mental eye go answer the door or the physical eye answer the door?
If the body and mind is the I, it’s the same as the I, is the I, then what’s the sense of using the term I? We could just say body and mind. They’re the same thing. But they’re they’re but they so this we’re trying to use some logic, trying to take this to absurdity. Fourth essential: There’s no car which is inherently different than its parts.
Inherently different. Inherently different means unrelatedly different. Okay? And by unrelatedly different, we mean like a like a table and a chair. You know?
The the existence of one doesn’t necessitate the existence of the other. You can have a chair without a table. You can have a table without a chair. That’s what we mean by inherently different. They’re they’re unrelatedly different.
They’re different entities. So some so is the I an unrelated unrelatedly different to the body and mind, for example? You know, if if that were the case, then we could you know, what happens to the body and mind doesn’t necessarily happen to the eye. Or what happens to the eye doesn’t happen necessarily happen to the body and mind because they’re unrelatedly different, just like a table and a chair. You can smash the chair and the and the table remains.
Likewise, you could the the the body could get sick, but the eye could remain well. Or the the mind could become sad and the eye could remain happy because they’re unrelatedly different. You know, the one the characteristics of one are not related to the characteristics of the other. Or you could, you know, the sometimes it seems as if the body and the mind you could set aside the body and mind and that the eye would still remain. Yeah.
But it’s like just as we can, we can set aside a chair and the table remains. The I and the body and mind are unrelatedly different, then we should be able to set aside the I and the body and mind. You know, if I could dismember my body and set it as, you know, mentally, if I wanted to physically, try it mentally, and set each part aside, dismember, you know, work, take take apart my mind, set my mind apart aside, I should be left with a self, an I, sitting on this cushion. If the I and the body and mind were inherently different, unrelatedly different, I should be able to set aside the body and mind to one side, and there would be an I, a self, remaining seated on this cushion. Whatever.
So we have to we can investigate if that’s the case. If that’s the case, then we find it’s not. And then no matter how how refined our our analysis might be, it’s mentally dismembering the body, setting each part aside, mentally dismembering the mind, setting each part aside until we’ve exhausted anything which is body and mind, we set it aside, we will find that there’s nothing left on our cushion, which we would identify as an I, a self. These two reasons, the remaining five reasons are simply expansions of these first two. You know, the same and different.
They are a dichotomy. They cover all possible categories, all possibilities. But we work through the remaining five in order to assist their variations of the third and fourth simply as a way of drawing out the significance, you know, just different perspectives, different ways of approaching what is in fact the same dichotomy of being the same and different. These next two positions, the fifth and sixth, these are positions of dependence. There’s no car inherently depends upon its parts, and there’s no car upon which the parts inherently depend.
If this if two things depend, they necessarily are different. Okay? This has been covered in number four, but an expansion of number four. But it’s simply to help us to gain another perspective on what we can mean by difference. So we’re looking at we’re looking at the body and mind on one hand, the eye on the other, or we can say the car and its parts, the the axle, the motor, and so forth.
So we’re always relating two different things and seeing and seeing we’re investigating the way they exist, the nature of their relationship. What is the nature of the relationship between the eye on the one hand and the body and mind on the other? Here we’re we’re looking at a type of relationship which we call dependence. There is no I which is inherently dependent upon the aggregates or the body and mind. Like so in here, it’s like the and if we talk about aggregates, and it’s just a way of categorizing, breaking up the body and mind.
The body is the form aggregate, but we can break up the mind into feelings, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness. It’s like a forest. You know, like lots of trees. And within that tree is like a lion. So that lion depends upon that forest for a place to live, its abode.
So is the way in which the eye depends upon the aggregates or the body and mind? Or we can say the the car inherently depends upon its parts. Like, does the eye kinda live amongst the aggregates like a lion in a jungle? That kind of dependence. The eye depends upon the aggregates of the body and mind for for a residence, a place to live.
That were the case, then again, we could just like we could take the lion out from the forest. We could identify the the lion separate from the forest. Likewise, we should be able to take remove the self from the aggregates from the body and mind. We should be able to identify a self separate from the body and mind, separate from the aggregates. So we can we can do that in in investigation, just as I mentioned.
We can separate out the the components of the body, components of the mind. We should be left with that lion who’s abiding in that jungle. We’ve removed all the trees. Yeah? We should be able to separate and identify out something which we we would normally identify as an I, a self, but we can’t.
So this is so the I there is no I which inherently depends upon the body and mind or inherently depends upon the aggregates. But we can reverse that. Maybe the aggregates are dependent upon the eye or the body and mind depend upon the eye. So there is no eye upon which the aggregates inherently depend. So this this is like, you know, it’s this is like the the image which is used here is like a forest.
So these are the aggregates, like lots of trees, you know, feelings and discriminations, compositional factors and consciousness and form. And it’s covered in snow. So the snow pervades the forest but extends out further than the trees, the forest itself. It covers over the forest. It is is that the nature of the way in which the I and the and the body and mind or the way with the I and the aggregates relate?
We have this maybe there’s an I which kinda holds the whole thing together, holds my body and my thoughts and my feelings, discrimination, kinda maintains them into some kind of identifiable form. It’s keeping my whole my whole experience together. But if that were the case, again, they’re different, aren’t they? And just as, like, with the snow, if you if you chop down the trees, if you take the trees out and you’re left, you should be able you’re left with snow. And likewise, if we remove the body and mind, if we remove the various aggregates, forms, and then move remove the body, remove the feelings, remove the discriminations, remove the compositional factors of consciousness, eye consciousness, and so forth.
We set those aside. We should be left again with that eye, but we aren’t. There’s no eye which is separate. You know, it’s like some time you know, we don’t have a very you know, when we investigate, we don’t have a very consistent notion of what the eye is. We probably never examined it or investigated.
Sometimes it’s like the eye, it’s like the hand. Eye is like this, you know, where is the hand? Like the hand is just inside the parts, the fingers, and the palm. The back of the hand is just inside the hand. Or or sometimes it’s like it extends just a little bit further.
The hand is is holding the parts of the hand together. It holds, you know, holds the fingers in place and the and the palm in place. There’s an there’s a hand which kinda pervades that, but it extends just a little bit further. It’s holding it all together. Or maybe there’s a hand inside which which is kind of which is which is maintaining, which, you know, there’s some entity inside which maintain which we call hand, which is holding it all together.
It binds these parts together. And this is just a sense you know, I’m not saying this is the case, but there’s a sense of notion, a feeling that this is the way the hand relates with the fingers and palms and so forth. Likewise, this is the way we have a sense that there’s an I, which relates to the body and or car relates with all its various parts. These different way you know, these were just we to develop a sense of feeling of how these how the I relates to the body and mind or how a car relates to all its various parts. And then how the hand you know, we say a hand.
You know, where you know, when they get to question, well, where is that hand? You know, what do we call a hand? And this is a strange question in a way because, you know, if if if I don’t know if you if you if you ever seen a leper, a leper in India. You know? Sometimes they’re missing fingers.
You know? Yeah. You know? Yeah. How what does it take to have a hand?
And if if if you didn’t have any fingers, would would that be a hand if you didn’t have a thumb? You know? Is an artificial hand a hand? Is a hook a hand? You know, what are we you know, you’re getting an idea.
We we we all have a sense of what a hand is. We all have a sense of what an eye is. We all have a sense of what a car is. But when we begin to investigate it, it’s not as clear and precise as we might think it to be. It’s a little bit ethereal.
It’s like trying to grab hold of a rainbow. It’s not as solid as in concrete as it might appear to us to be. And this only becomes apparent the more we begin to investigate. What do we mean by a car? What is it how what is its relationship to its parts?
What do we mean by an eye? What is its relationship to its parts, its body and mind? What do we mean by hand? Its relationship with the fingers and the palm and the back of the hand and so forth. So we’re we’re investigating all these possible ways it could be relating.
There is no car which inherently possesses its parts. And so, again, relating this to the I, the self. There is no I which inherently possesses the body and mind. You know, We looked at that in our meditation, didn’t we? If you have a headache, there’s two ways that we can possess, two modes of possession.
When I have a headache, for example, I feel sure that I have a head. I have a head. Okay? Do I possess that head like a person possesses a dog or a watch? Or do I possess that head like a person possesses their body?
So there’s two ways that we can possess something. So we have to begin we have to analyze these both of these two ways of possessing. You know, the first type of possession, like, you know, like somebody owns a dog. They have a dog. They possess a dog.
Yeah. They’re the dog. This is the same as number four, inherently different. The dog and the possessor of that dog are different entities. So this you know, they’re unrelatedly different.
You know, the this would be like this would be like but sometimes we have the sense of an eye which possesses the body. And it’s like it’d be like if you had part if you had lots of different pieces of meat and you you took a marble and you put it in the middle of that piece of meat and you said, that marble possesses those piece of meat. Or you or you had body parts. Let’s say body parts, hand, legs, and so forth, head, and you drop the marble in there. You say, well, that that that that possesses the body parts.
Yeah. That would if if then we should if we took apart if we took away those body parts, that that leg and that arm and head, we should have a marble left over, which who is the who is the possessor of those body parts. We have a sense that there’s something in us, some solid entity. I mean, is might be I mean, this isn’t I mean, this is there is some Christian traditions which would in the at least in in the past, which have identified an entity within ourselves, call soul and so forth, which is which is in the essence of which is in fact who we are. This is our real soul, and this is the possessor of the body, possessor of the mind.
And it could actually be located. It could be found. Well, can you actually find it if you were to investigate? We we you know, when you when get angry, you know, we can almost we almost point to a place where we have it where we have we sense we have a self, an eye, a solid concrete eye at the at the core of our being. And when you say, I hate you.
I can’t stand you. You know? It’s it’s almost we have a sense as if there’s something there, some entity, which we are you know, we haven’t thought about it. We haven’t really considered it. We haven’t looked into it.
We just almost as if take it for granted that there’s some entity there, which is we identify as I, which is, you know, which which is the owner, which is the possessor, which is the ruler, which is the the controller of our body and mind. Know? When we we say things like, oh, I didn’t mean to say that. I lost I didn’t mean to say that. I lost control.
I changed my mind. I changed my mind. I my mind. There’s something other than the mind which does the changing changing, which is in control of the mind. I lost control.
Please forgive me. There’s something other than the mind which is which needs to be forgiven for losing control of the mind. Then we talk in these ways, and we actually, in many ways, we think in these ways. We feel in these ways. So there is there is an I which possesses the body and the mind, which is is like unrelated, just like an I which owns a dog, owner of a dog.
I own there’s an owner of the body and mind, a controller of the body and mind, who’s in charge of the body and mind, an agent behind, a thinker behind the thoughts, a feeler behind the feeling, a decider behind the decisions. There’s something running the show back there somewhere, in here. We’re not quite sure where. But there’s another way that we can possess, and that is and this is like where the I, the possessor and the possessed are undifferentiably one. Here, and before, they were unrelatedly different, but here they’re undifferentiably one.
You know? This is like saying, we say, we say this house has ten rooms or this building has twelve rooms. What we mean is, this is a twelve room or a ten roomed house. These ten rooms are equivalent to the house. You know, the word have is equivalent to being.
A house has ten rooms. The house has walls, a ceiling, and a foundation. But there’s no house other than the walls, ceilings, and foundations. They’re equivalent. But still we can say that they’re the same entity, the house and the walls, the ceiling, the roof, the foundation, are the same entity.
They’re equivalent. But we can still say that the house has a roof. The house has walls, has a foundation, has rooms. So what here have and what we actually mean is being. The house it is a ten roomed house and so forth.
Here, when we say the so this this this idea of possessing in terms of, you know, of of saying I possess head, I possess a body. You know, if they’re the same, how can the possessor and the possessed have to be different? Otherwise, it doesn’t make any sense. How can something which is the same two things must be different in order to be possessed. There must be a possessor, which is different than that which is possesses.
So they have to be different. So how can the eye be the same as the body and the mind? I hope this is sounding a bit abstract. Yeah. If you wanna stop me as we go along.
I’m just Lamrim-ing along here. Yeah. Eighth one. This is the one that we generally think is the case. We might always yeah.
The car there is no car which is the mere collection of its parts. And we can say there is no I, which is the mere collection of the body and mind, you know, or the five aggregates. So, you know, this this one we’ve looked at when we looked at the fact of, you know, what there’s a there’s a baby which is born. There’s a body and mind. And the people say, well, let’s let’s give it a name.
Let’s call it John. And so they use the term John, you know, and they they apply it to this body and mind, this baby, and they subsequently think of this child as John. So in dependence upon the term John, you know, the the name John, and the concepts, the thought which which thinks of that baby as John, John comes into existence. Yeah? So this is what we this is what we mean when we say that John is merely designated or labeled through language and thought.
Yeah? That which is labeled, that which is designated, must necessarily be different than the object which is labeled. You know, the the the you have a you have this square rectangular piece of wood with four legs. And dependent upon that, I I I designate the name table. That which is being the object which is being designated, labeled, is different than that with the basis of that designation.
The basis of the designation in this previous example was a baby. There’s a body and mind. And depends upon that body and mind of the baby, I give I give the name John. So that which is being designated designated is necessarily different than the object to which the basis of the designation. The collection of the aggregates or the body and mind, we can simply say, is the basis of designating I.
So, you know, there there is and depends upon this body and mind, I designate I. I label I. It depends upon that body and mind, I label you. Yeah. So the the basis of designation designation is not the object which is designated.
If let’s see. There’s there’s another point I wanna I wanna find. I wanna think. If when we when we when we this is, you know, perhaps only when we talk about I I take rebirth, I took rebirth. And what to take rebirth means to take a new body and mind.
If the I were the body and mind, then, you know, then if the if the collection of the parts, for example, the body and mind were the I, there would be no taker of rebirth because Because what it means to take rebirth is to assume a new body and mind. The I takes rebirth. It takes a new body and mind. So if the the body and mind cannot be the I because then the taker and the taken would be the same thing, and they must necessarily be different. That’s not the one I’m trying to think of.
Yeah. Maybe it’ll come to me. Maybe it’s So we’re we’re try you know, what is the the the opposite of inherent existence is nominal existence? And we’re we’re gonna talk about this more next week when we talk about dependent arising or imputed existence. Everything imputedly exists.
Everything nominally exists. It it it all depends. There is a basis of designation which appears to the mind, and on that basis, the mind thinks, uses language, labels the object. For example, on the basis of this rectangular piece of wood with four legs, that appears to my mind. That stimulates my mind to think with regard to a table.
So there’s a basis which appears, and dependence upon that appearance, my mind is stimulated to think with regard to that table. There’s a basis. Something appears out there. From my side from outside comes the basis. From from my side comes the label, and then out of that combination, the object comes into existence.
So that’s what we mean by imputedly existent, nominally existent, which is the opposite of existence. Inherent existence is existence from its own side. That is, without depending upon being designated, without being dependent upon being labeled or being thought of as such. I’m merely a passive observer. I’m not involved in in the creation of this object at all.
But just like in the case of John, you know, there’s nothing about the object which makes it John. There’s a baby there. And John John is a person. It’s it’s not just the words. It’s not a name.
He’s a person. But he’s dependent upon John’s existence. He’s dependent upon being thought of as John. There’s a mind and body. For one reason or another, the parents decide, let’s call that baby John.
So there’s something from the side of the out there, from the side of the object. There’s a baby, a mind and body. And from from our side comes a label, John. Out of that combination, the person John comes into existence. The collection the the eye is not the body and mind.
in dependence upon this body and mind, we label eye. We designate Jampa. We designate human being. We designate person. So, you know, the the the body and mind are not the I.
They are the basis for designating, for labeling the I. We do we you know, this is an interesting subject because if if and things were self defining, you know, like, we take take, you know, Mao Zedong, you know, the the Tibetans, and I guess many people would say would see him as a as an enemy, as a horrible person. Yeah. So his parent his his his mother probably thought he was a wonderful boy, a lovely boy. A mosquito would see him as a meal.
The parasites inside his intestines would see him as an entire universe in which to dwell. So they’re all different from his own side, you know, what what can we say? Is he any is he any of these? Or he’s not. It’s it just depends upon upon our the the perceptual process.
How, you know, what how we label that object, whether friend, whether enemy, whether meal, whether complete universe. It’s like well, the standard example which is used is a is a glass of liquid. And, you know, maybe we don’t believe in these other realms, but it’s just by way of example that to to a celestial being, this glass of liquid is seen seen as a glass of nectar, and it would be experienced as bliss. To a human being, it’s it’s seen as a glass of water. And would you know, if you were thirsty, it could be could refresh you.
It could it could be very pleasant. If you were drowning in it, it wouldn’t be very pleasant. I don’t know if you could drown in a glass of water, but anyway, to fish, it’s a oh, no. They say, oh, yeah. To fish, it’s a it’s a place to it’s a it’s a it’s a habitat, a place to live.
To a mosquito, it’s a place to to lay its eggs. To a hungry ghost, it’s a it would be it would it would be seen as pus and blood and would be revolting to drink. To a hell being, it would be seen as molten lead and would be extremely painful to drink. So, you know, what is it from its own side? It doesn’t exist from its own side.
It’s nothing from its nothing exists from its own side. There’s something there which stimulates us with regard to it, to think, to label in a particular way. What is it that causes us to label in that way? That’s our karma. Our predispositions within our own mind, which have been implanted there by our past actions, our past ways of thinking, speaking, and acting.
These traces, these latencies of our ways of of acting in the past predisposes us to to relate with these appearances and think of them in particular ways. You know? We we we each can be viewing the same object. You know? Even this what’s what appears we can all agree that this is a table, but you see it from your particular angle.
I see it. You know, we don’t see all the parts of the table. We we don’t and moreover, you see it from one particular angle. I see it from another particular angle. But we have a common fairly we agree.
It’s a table. We all call it an and we agree with that. But when it comes to more to other, you know, like people, you know, is that an enemy or is that a is that a friend? We see it from our particular angle, our from our particular perspective. That person that individual stimulates you to think enemy.
For for for me, perhaps, that very same person stimulates me to think friend. They’re both there’s something out there which appears to our mind, which which stimulates us to think with regard to a friend, enemy, stranger, whatever. So it’s nothing in and of itself. There’s all we can say is that there’s something which is a basis for imputation, and the basis of imputation is not the thing which is imputed. That glass of liquid is not molten lead.
It is not pus and blood. It is not water. It is not nectar. It is only so from a particular perspective. In and of itself, it’s none of those.
For a particular being, they were perceived as pus and blood. Another being will perceive that same basis as molten lead or nectar. In and of itself, it’s nothing. So they’re all labeling that same basis in different ways. So in and of it so the basis of designation is not the object labeled.
If it were, it it would have to be simultaneously of these various would have to be simultaneously pus and blood and molten lead and nectar. And those things are mutually exclusive of one another in in in material nature. How could it be the same? And if if they existed from their side, they can’t. So the the, you know, the the there is no car which is the mere collection of its parts.
You know, there’s no liquid which is if the collection of the parts were the car, then you could just have a pile of parts, and that would be a car. If yeah. So you’ve got all the parts. Why doesn’t why does it why if you just had a a mountain of parts, that that should be a car if the mere collection of parts was a car. But it’s not, isn’t it?
Why does we it’s only somebody says, well, it has to be assembled in a particular way. Oh, why? Because otherwise, it doesn’t stimulate the thought car with respect to it. Why if this building, if you just had a building, you know, the the materials materials of this building lay laying out on an open flat plane, you know, on the parking lot. You had you had, you know, roofing and, you know, all the the bricks and so forth just piled up and say, oh, look at that house over there.
Look at that building, Masonic Lodge. I don’t see any Masonic Lodge. But all the parts are there. The collection of parts is there. Yeah.
But then the collection of parts is not Masonic Lodge. Really, Really, the collection of parts is not Masonic Lodge. It’s only when it means it has been able to perform the function of Masonic Lodge that we that it’s able to be be properly designated as Masonic Lodge. Only when it stimulates us to think building Masonic Lodge with regard to just merely the parts is not sufficient. The parts of the car are not sufficient in it.
The basis okay. Finally. Finally. Yeah. That’s a hard one, but it’s a useful one to think about.
Yeah. Finally, there is there is no car which is the shape of its parts. Sometimes we think of a car as the shape of its parts. You know, but if if merely the car were the shape of its parts, then we could have, you know, we could have a plastic scale model of a car, and that would be a car because it’s the shape of a car. So, you know, merely the shape of the parts is not the car.
And likewise, if if if the eye if the eye were is the shape of the aggregates or the eye were the shape of the mind and body. Well, shape necessarily is is a is is physical. It it only applies to form. But but the eye, the parts of the of the eye are is not they are not all form. They’re not all physical.
There’s a mental. So how can really the shape of the of the aggregates, the mind and body, be the eye since the since the mind doesn’t have a shape, it doesn’t have a form? So the shape of the mind body and the shape of the aggregates is not the eye. Okay. So if what the point we’re trying to get at is we have a we’re trying we’re trying to, you know, like with regards to the eye, we try to get a sense of what we’re looking for.
The the first essential, identifying the the object of negation. What is it how do how does the eye normally appear to us? You know, just because something appeared to us doesn’t mean it exists. This is this is this is what we’ve got to begin to call into question, that the world we can’t simply take appearances for granted that the the world exists exactly as it appears. There’s no doubt that there are these appearances, like with regard to the the snake.
There’s an appearance of snake when in fact we’re mistaking a rope for a snake. There’s an appearance of snake. So we can lead our life on the basis of that appearance, and we can adjust our life to, you know, to snakes in the best ways we can. But here we’re trying to go beyond mere appearances and begin to question, is there anything which which corresponds to that appearance? Is that appearance true or false?
So we we we know we have to know where we’re going to perform an investigation. Well, what are we looking for when the investigation we’re we’re investigating the nature of a snake. Well, we gotta we have to know how that snake actually looks. Where you know, what and where to look for. Let’s ascertain the object of negation.
If we’re going to look for the eye, how does that eye look? What is it what are actually our feeling or sense of it. It’s not this is not easy to do. This is the most difficult part. And I begin really getting taking we’ve taken it so much for granted that we’ve never really looked at it.
And then we we ascertain the pervasion. We say, okay. Any intelligent exploration of the nature of the eye necessarily involves in the the mind and body. This is where it’s appearing in this vicinity over here where my where this mind and body is. If it if it you know, if I want to understand the nature of the eye, I have to I can understand that nature as it’s relating to the mind and body.
What is the relationship between the eye and the mind and body? If I want to understand that that eye, I’m going to understand it in terms of the mind and body. So ascertaining the pervasion. What are the two two there are only two two ways it can relate to the mind and body. It’s either the same as the mind and body or it’s different than the mind and body.
There’s no third possibility. The rest of the sevenfold reasoning is simply a process of unfolding that method of exploration. There’s no there is no I which is inherently the same as the the mind and body. There is no I which is inherently different than the mind and body. There is no I which inherently depends upon the mind and body.
There is no I which is which is the mind and which the mind and body depend upon. There is no I which inherently possesses the mind and body. There is no I which is the mere collection of the of the mind and body. There is no I which is the mere shape of the mind and body. When we go through it, we we we go through all of those reasons and investigate in greatest detail as we can.
We we come to a conclusion. You know, this we have to come to some conviction, some forceful conclusion. I know what I was looking for. I know and I I searched and I searched and I searched and I searched. I couldn’t find it.
There is no I which corresponds to the appearance just like there is no snake which corresponds to that appearance of the snake. There is an appearance of an of an inherently existent I, but that’s a false appearance. If it existed, it would have had to exist in one of these seven ways. I couldn’t find it. One of the keys to understanding emptiness or selflessness is unfindability.
I searched and I searched. I knew what I was looking for. I knew where to look. And I looked and I looked. I couldn’t find it.
What do you find? You don’t find nothing. You find an absence, a lack of something. You know, when you search for elephants in this room, you don’t find nothing. You find the absence of elephants, a lack of something that you thought perhaps was there.
When you search in these seven ways, you find the absence of an inherently existent eye. That is a wisdom consciousness, that understanding the nonexistence of an inherently existent I. This is an understanding selflessness of persons or emptiness of the person. This analysis is carried out relentlessly until one begins to be convinced intellectually that no inherent existence can be found. In the practice of mindful awareness, meditation brings this intellectual understanding into the intuitive level of realization.
It enters one’s process at the deepest level so that one perceives one’s world as projection of emptiness, no longer projecting inherent existence onto it. The realization of emptiness may be sudden or it may be gradually drawn out, 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. The mind that we take to be a special measure of being human. Beyond fear, this realization may bring with it a feeling or quality of sadness and loneliness.
It is if you were standing on top of a high ridge, the wind blowing rain in your face, and you hear a dog barking in a valley below. Again, it has 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 that 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 were suddenly relieved from an impossible burden. It is said to bring with it great joy, the joy of discovering the truth of non separation, of non duality. And this burden of the I, the self that we this struggle that we’re always involved in to maintain, confirm, or defend an I which has never existed, that burden is finally lifted from our shoulders. There’s a sense of relief. There’s a sensation.
And that is peace. Okay. So that’s the we went through that rather quickly, didn’t we? I hope it wasn’t too incoherent or too confusing. Any comment?
I sound really ignorant. That’s why I No. But why why why do you talk why do we talk about eye having mind and body? Why why is why is I and mind not synonymous? Why?
So why is why are not I and mind not you step body. Pardon? Why why are I and and mind not synonymous inhabiting body? I see. So is the body the body is not the eye.
Yeah. The body is just the inhabitant. Yeah. It is the resonance. So so when when you stub your toe, you don’t say I’m hurt.
Do you say I’m hurt? Why do you say I’m hurt when you stub your toe? Because the vessel in which you are experiences. So at that moment you’re identifying the body as the I. I stub my toe, my body is hurt, I’m hurt.
But if I have no perception of that stubbing of the toe, then it wouldn’t hurt. That’s true. If you if you were on an anesthetic, it wouldn’t people can Well, the thing is, you know, you’ve you’ve also got that that that weirdo moment. You sometimes, in a moment of aloneness, say, this is a magnificent edifice that I have created around myself, all these other people to make me not feel lonely. Because the only experience of self is your own self.
Well, could say that all of these external appearances, I you’re you’re you’re Well, it’s only one self, isn’t it? Is it perception. There’s only one self. They they they Is there an external do do do the other people there? That there are other there there are other objects or people or whatever.
Yeah. But in terms of self, there’s only one self. Only one self. So what is the nature of that self? What’s that’s the only experience that I have.
How do you experience that this self? Is it the experience that has it’s it’s physical? It’s in in in relation to the things that are around. The the the experience the experience itself is physical or or nonphysical? Physical and I’ve well Is it made of is do you experience the eye as matter or or not matter?
This is a question. I think the eye the eye experiences the physical through the through the senses of the body that inhabits. Yeah. But I I wondered how you actually experience the I. You you you all have we all have a sense I exist.
I I I am talking. I eat. I I am a person. How do but the question is how do we validate that experience? What what how do we actually experience how do we how do we experience the eye?
In what ways how is the eye experienced? Is the experience as physical or mental or something other than those two? How we experience the eye? Do we experience one eye or many eyes? Is there a crowd?
You know, sometimes I Well, I suppose yeah. I don’t I don’t know what that would be like to experience a crowd. A crowd. So you experience yourself as singular? I I experience self as singular.
Yeah. Do you experience it as as as physical or mental? Or I I think it it is both. It’s both. So you so there’s a physical I and a mental I?
I think I think the I experiences physical and mental. No. We’re talking about What the experience is on. Well, the mental experience is the physical. So the object we’re investigating is the eye.
How is that eye experience? Is the eye mental or is it physical? Well, that’s putting it outside. Yeah. We’re we’re analyzing it with our microscope.
Okay. Yeah. I know. I I know. I’m just I’m just being nitpicking for myself Yeah.
Because my my eye is confused. Yeah. So you experience your eye as confused? Well, I you know, the edifice around me to to understand that. Is your is your eye a man or a woman?
I don’t I think the manifestation of of I is presently male. So is and and so the manifest so your eye your eye you you have a male eye. Your eye is male. I inhabit a male body, I think. But you aren’t your body.
Your eye inhabits the body, it’s not the body. It’s like something inside you is the eye, like a lion in a forest. Well, it’s like that weirdo dream that you’re inside your body and you can’t move. It’s I don’t know. I’m just It’s good.
It’s good. It’s good. It’s good to play around with the ideas. It’s it’s it’s difficult to pin down. Know.
Know. Yeah. Yeah. It’s like yeah. It’s you can play with mental oh, you know, verbal games and that sort of stuff, you know, because of language.
I mean, how is that that that thing about how how what is perfection? It can only be one perfection word because anything else would not be perfect. You know? Yeah. So where is that one perfection?
Yeah. I don’t know. You can play with those sort of concepts and you can get yourself really confused. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s right. Yeah, I agree.
That’s the best confusion can be a valuable experience. It’s like admitting that it’s not as clear as you once thought it was or you took it for granted. So we can dedicate all the positive energy we created together. Oh, no, we’ve got the time. We’ve some more time.
I think we’re getting people are getting bored with. Any other comments? Question. We can dedicate the positive energy we created together. Created together.
May all beings everywhere, plagued by sufferings of body and mind, attain an ocean of happiness and joy by virtue of my merits. May no living creatures suffer, commit evil, or fall ill. May no one be afraid or belittled with a mind weighed down by depression. May the blinds see forms and deaf hear sounds. May those whose bodies are worn with toil be restored on finding repose.
May the naked find clothing, the hungry find food. May the thirsty find water and delicious drink. May the poor find wealth, those weak with sorrow find joy. May the forlorn find hope, constant happiness, and prosperity. May there be timely rains and bountiful harvests.
May all medicine be effective and wholesome prayers bear fruit. May all who are sick and ill quickly be free from their ailments. Whatever diseases there are in the world, may they never occur again. May the frightened cease to be afraid and those bound be freed. May the powerless find power and may people think of benefiting each other.
For as long as space remains, for as long as sentient beings remain, until then may I too remain to dispel the miseries of the world. Through these skillful actions may I quickly become an awakened spiritual master and lead each and every living being to that awakened realm. May the supreme jewel, bodhicitta that has not arisen, arise and grow. But in that which has arisen, never diminish, but increase more and more. In the land circled by a snow mountain, you are the source of all happiness and well-being, powerful Chenrezig, Tenzin Gyatso, please remain until the end of cyclic existence.
Can I I just have one little announcement? It’s about a a party, Which I’m sure all of you like all of you like to go to a party. And some of you probably know, maybe some of you don’t know, I’m going to be leaving Buddha House in at the end of April. And that we’re gonna have a there’s going to be a farewell party. And the party is on April fourth.
Just I think that’s a Saturday night. And there’ll there’ll be a notice on the on the web, but also on the whiteboard. But I just wanted to invite you all personally. It’s going to be at Lindy Abrams who lives in Blackwood. Anyway, that’s Saturday, April fourth at seven o’clock.
Anyway, there there ‘ll be information around the party. I just wanted to I’m going to move to the Northern Beaches, which is just north of Sydney. Is that each at the center? No, I’m just going to take a sabbatical. I’m going to take a break.
When are we coming back here? Keeping the kind of the situation open for the future. So that’s why I’m I’m kind of rushing. I want to finish in before Easter, the three principal aspects teachings. Was a bit rushed.
I felt a bit rushed, but anyway, to get through the material. Anyway, yeah, can talk more in the future around it. But just wanted to let you know let you all know that and let to invite you to, like, a going away party or a farewell party. Okay. But there’ll be some there’ll be notice on on the whiteboard and on the web.
If you’d like to get a cup of tea, you’re welcome to we’ll have a discussion. Otherwise, thank you for your patience. It was quite a lot of information tonight. Probably rather Lamrim-heavy and confused.