Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 40-minute session, Ven Jampa Ignyen addresses a core philosophical puzzle: if yogic practitioners directly perceive selflessness, but selflessness is permanent and only appears to conceptual mind—not direct perception—how does this perceptual realization actually work? He walks through the Sūtra school’s framework, explaining how sustained meditation on correct reasoning about selflessness gradually refines conceptual understanding into non-conceptual, direct perception. A key mechanism is indirect comprehension: the idea that awareness can comprehend something without that object appearing to it. The discussion extends to how lower Buddhist philosophical schools relate to higher ones, using the image of climbing a mountain toward ever-subtler views. For serious practitioners with philosophical training.
FLAGS:
– title: Stray “y” at the beginning of title metadata (“y Mind and Cognition…” should be “Mind and Cognition…”). Severity: low.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 M and C 2001 05 15.mp3
UUID: 2433f5b5-5bdd-4ac1-9b53-a820e3c5cf7d
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Mind and Cognition 2001 Month 04-06 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-05-15
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 40.2 minutes
Words: ~4,192
Well, we had nine. Yeah. It says, again again, he says, take selfishness of person. Right. Right.
Then in the first section Yeah. It says, because it is possible to obtain clear appearance of an object by familiarity through becoming familiar with the continuum of inference comprehending self as a person, we say no. Yeah. And then in the next part down, take it. You say.
Yeah. And so on. Yeah. I I wonder what’s the main what’s the difference between those two states? Right.
Well, this point actually carries on from the point that, Purchog was making in relation, to how selflessness is comprehended from before. And, yeah, I guess it’s it may be a good time maybe just to go through this one so we can go through it a bit again later just to but this also connects with a point that’s made on the previous page. And okay. This is a a more advanced point. We’re actually jumping ahead a little bit, but it’s probably useful to go over this because it it may help to explain some of the things that we’ve already covered.
Now Right. Now at the top of page eight, we have this series of definitions that are given. That, cognized by discernment, is posited as the definition of object. And that’s okay. I don’t think anyone have any problems with definition.
And if objects are classified, there are appearing objects, conceived objects, engaged objects. The appearing object of that discernment and the held object of that discernment are equivalent. There’s a series of, statements that are made by the author in terms of the different types of objects that exist. Because in this section, positing our system, the author is giving his interpretation of this the entire subject of objects. Now beneath that, it has this important statement.
And this is this statement is given from the point of view of the Sūtra school. Right? Where it says, if it is an established base, established base just means anything which exists. If it exists, it’s an established base. It’s a dharma.
It’s an object, and so on. These terms are all equivalent terms. So if it exists, therefore, if it’s an established base, it must be the appearing object. It must be an appearing object because if it is a phenomenon, here taking phenomenon to be the equivalent of or in Sanskrit, which is, means anything which is impermanent. If it is a phenomenon, it must be the appearing object of perception.
And if permanent, it must be the appearing object of conception. So here, the sūtra school is making this actually, it’s quite quite a significant observation that they’re making. Higher schools don’t quite accept this, but the Sūtra Sūtra School is saying that everything which exists is an appearing object. If it’s impermanent, it’s the appearing object of perception. If it’s permanent, it’s the appearing object of conception.
For them, they make this everything hinges on the difference between the permanent and the impermanent. And the Sūtra School are a very practical school, they see that what is impermanent, that which functions are really what they call, or self characterized phenomena or real phenomena, real entities, and that which is permanent or abstract. And permanent things are not even truly existent. Impermanent things are truly existent because we interact, they function, you know, they’re they’re things that it’s in the impermanent realm where cause and results occurs. Things function, results are produced.
We exist. We live. We experience. Everything occurs in the impermanent sphere. All of those things are really appearing objects of our perception, sensory perception primarily for us.
Whereas what’s permanent are those really the appearing objects, the abstract things, aren’t they? They really are abstract. Anything which is permanent. You know, we can’t see it, smell it, touch it, taste it. They’re permanent.
They’re abstract. They’re the appearing objects of our conception. I’m not sure if that answers the question, but it’s yeah. They’re a very down to earth and practical school, a sūtra school, school. But they they have made this division of objects, of appearing objects, into, the permanent being the appearing objects of conception and the impermanent being the appearing objects of perception.
Therefore, for them, selflessness is the appearing object of conception and not of perception. Right. So selflessness does exist, but it’s permanent, isn’t it? Or we accept that it’s permanent. One test of that is that it’s not an object of the senses to begin with.
But then you die. And then aggregates die. So how do you get that? Selflessness. It’s permanent because it’s not momentary.
You’re saying that the idea of selflessness is No. The idea or the conception of selflessness must be impermanent because that’s awareness. Right? The object selflessness, that’s permanent, unchanging, not momentary, has no cause, has no result, doesn’t function. Selflessness has no function.
Doesn’t create anything. It’s not created out of anything. Selflessness is not created out of anything. No. It’s not impermanent, has no cause.
Selflessness, we can’t bring into existence. If it doesn’t already exist, there’s no way of bringing it into existence because it’s permanent. We can’t cause it to be, cause it to exist. Does that mean that conception is always permanent? No.
Conception always is impermanent because it’s awareness. No. No. No. If it’s permanent, it’s the appearing object of conception.
Yep. Of perception. This is the view of the Sūtra school, the sutrists. So this debate on the next page really relates to that point. Because then the question arises about selflessness that okay.
Now then what is selflessness? How do we actually understand it if it’s the appearing object of conception? And it’s not the appearing object of perception, how do we come to perceptually understand it? Right? We can understand the because here also, between conception and perception, there is a a difference in quality, isn’t there?
Absolutely, there’s a difference in quality between perception and conception, isn’t there? Conception is not clear, is it? Perception. The best way to understand anything is through perception, isn’t it? And so, really, if we want to understand selflessness, we the best way we can understand selflessness is through perception.
For hidden entities like selflessness, actually, first, we must generate a conceptual understanding of them. And then based on that, then we develop a perceptual understanding. That’s the only possibility. We can’t without conceptualizing these objects first, comprehending them through conception first, it’s impossible to comprehend them. We’re not just gonna stumble across them and, you know, we’re walking down the middle of Rundle Mall one day and bang, there we are, perceptual realization of selflessness.
Even the zen. It’s not but realization can be conceptual to begin it is conceptual to begin with. An actual conceptual realization is very profound. Yep. No.
Go on. Yeah. Well, Mahāmudrā also has a conceptual element as well. Same. We’re using the mind itself to understand emptiness in Mahāmudrā.
We’re taking mind as the basis of emptiness or the the attribute of the emptiness of the mind to comprehend emptiness itself. It’s similar process, but that’s jumping a little bit. Here, we’re actually dealing with the Sūtra school, which has a slightly different view than, say, Madhya Mika and a Madhya Mika presentation of or the middle way view of Mahāmudrā, the great seal. Probably best just to deal with this to begin with because that’s one one thing we need to be aware of that it’s not gonna be easy for us to unite everything together to begin with because even to understand one small area, like say, Lorig, takes takes some time. I think we can see this now that there is a lot of information being given.
It’s not easy to put it together. We do need to take small steps given the time constraints that we have. We have to jump a bit here and there. But in the presentation of Mahāmudrā, yeah, that’s really based on the middle way view. Although perhaps it could also be presented from a sūtra school point of view as well.
Here, we’re we’re just looking at the issue of selflessness, from the sūtra school point of view, which is a little bit easier for us to comprehend. But their idea of selflessness is something which is permanent and the appearing object of conception, therefore, and not the appearing object of perception. But they do accept that perception comprehends it. So they have to be explained this process. How and so therefore, this debate arises.
Now on page number nine, we can just go over this. So take selflessness of the person. Now he says here, it means the an opponent to the author or someone who disagrees with the author. Of course, we understand that the author has just made all of this up as a means of presenting his own views, but he may actually some of the people that have presented it here can refer to actual people and the debates that they’ve made the past. But this is he’s using this format to raise issues that he he has a great enthusiasm to present.
Okay? So he’s saying that now this other person is then would object. They would say, take selflessness of the person. It follows it is a phenomenon. A phenomenon meaning something impermanent because it is the appearing object of perception.
Because it is the appearing object of yogic perception comprehending selflessness of a person. Now we haven’t done this yogic perception yet, but yogic perception is the type of perception that a, say, an aria being generates when they perceptually comprehend selflessness. So they’re saying it is the appearing object of perception because it’s the appearing objects of the yogic perception which comprehends selflessness. And we accept that that exists. We ourselves accept that.
And that because that clearly appears to that, because selflessness clearly appears to the yogic perception comprehending selflessness. And that follows, says this other person to Purchog, the author, because it is possible to obtain clear appearance of an object of familiarity through becoming familiar with the continuum of inference comprehending selflessness of the person. So what that last reason there means is that if initially through correct reasoning, we can establish a correct conception of selflessness in meditative equipoise. And that meditative equipoise is the union of calm abiding and insight, which is wisdom derived from meditation itself, comprehending conceptually selflessness. Okay?
This so in other words okay. Just to to rephrase that. Initially, one comprehends selflessness with conception. Right? With that conceptual awareness, through reasoning.
This subject is selfless. You can we use various types of reasoning. This is selfless because it exists. There’s a correct reason. This is selfless because it is free of a gross self.
It’s free of a subtle self. It’s free of a gross self because there is no permanent single self powered self, that exists, say, within this object, or there is no substantially established self a risen self within this object and so forth. Anyway, through various types of reasoning, we can establish selflessness in relation to external objects and especially in terms of the person over a long period. Through developing that conceptual understanding, then we comprehend selflessness through meditating on selflessness, that object selflessness for, say, one countless eon. That conception becomes more and more refined until it almost until it gets to the point where it’s it it changes from being a deceptive awareness to a nondeceptive awareness.
At that point, it becomes perceptual. So that’s what’s being said here. Because it is possible to obtain clear appearance of an object of familiarity. Here’s selflessness as an object one has comprehended comprehended and is becoming familiar with, having comprehended it. Through becoming familiar with the continuum of inference comprehending selflessness of the person.
So it means we have inference here, which is correct conception. Comprehending selflessness, we become familiar with that inference, familiar with that valid conception over a very long period, refine it and refine it and refine it until we break through to a perceptual comprehension of selflessness. And that perceptual comprehension of selflessness actually clearly comprehends the object, and that object clearly appears to that to that perception. Okay? Do we accept that?
The reason given here? We say no pervasion. We say no pervasion. We say even though it is possible possible to obtain clear appearance of an object of familiar familiarity through becoming familiar with the continuum of inference, comprehending selfless selflessness of the person, it is not pervasive that that clearly appears to that, that selflessness still clearly appears to that yogic perception. Okay?
And then under that, we say, why is that? We said, we accept the reason given there in the end, but we don’t accept that the pervasion that occurs there. Does everyone understand that? Is that okay? In other words, like we’ve got these two boxes here, the one underneath there, everyone see that one there?
What that we say no pervasion means. We accept that reason there, but we don’t accept that if it is that reason, it necessarily follows that it must be the previous reason. Okay. Can we see that? What’s that’s all it’s really meant there by no pervasion.
But now the author then goes on to say, that is established though. I accept this process of familiarity occurring in equipoise. A being who’s in equipoise and returns to equipoise again and again over a long, long period, who initially has correct conception of selflessness through becoming familiar with that correct conception over a very long period, they break through and attain perception of the object. That, therefore, is established. Why?
Because yogic perception obtains clear appearance of the composite free of a self of person through familiarity with the continuum of that inference. What does that mean? That means if you do something long enough, you break through your conceptual understanding through to this direct insight. Okay. But he’s changed the object there, hasn’t he?
What they’re saying in that next reason, because yogic perception obtain obtains clear appearance of the composite free of of person. That’s the most important part of that sentence there. They obtain clear appearance of a composite, and yet an impermanent object, which is a composite. The composite must be an impermanent object. So that yogi who develops yogic perception, they comprehend a composite or a composite free of a self of person appears to their yogic perception.
Because for this school to appear to perception, it must be To be the appearing object of perception, it must be impermanent. Right? So here, the author is saying that for the yogic perception of that being, an impermanent composite which is free of a self that appears, to that yogic perception. Okay? But that’s possible because the appearing object of perception and being impermanent are equivalent.
If it’s impermanent, can be the appearing object of perception. Selflessness can’t be the appearing object of perception. Then under that, he said, he further gives the reason because through such a yogic perception, directly comprehending the composite free of a self of person, that yogic perception indirectly comprehends selflessness of the person. That’s what we feel. So in other words, that perception is indirectly comprehending the permanent object, and it’s this is an important point because indirect comprehension means comprehending it comprehending an object without it appearing to that awareness.
Is that in a perception, though? No. That’s That’s a perception. Oh, sorry. That’s a perception there because it’s yogic perception.
But it’s it’s perception which can indirectly comprehend an object. Yep. They don’t assert emptiness. So it just assert selflessness. No.
Here, indirect This is beyond concept. It’s a Yep. This actually is a a non conceptual state of awareness. And therefore, it’s a perceptual awareness here. Indirect what indirect means here is if something if a type of awareness comprehends an object indirectly, it’s comprehended without that object appearing, to that awareness.
It’s not a question of it being, perceptual or conceptual. Direct or indirect meaning means it’s either comprehended with that object appearing or not. I know Hopkins is using indirect and direct in another way there. Is that like the perceiving the dark No. No.
All it means here is that sometimes we can comprehend things without those objects actually appearing to the awareness. It’s asserted to be the case anyway. It’s hard. Like, some people will assert that, you know, if we’re on a high on a mountain, we look over the edge, we can actually our eye awareness comprehends lack of obstruction there, which is permanent. Just looking over the edge, our eye awareness, although it can’t see the lack of obstruction because that’s permanent, indirectly, can see that because indirectly, it sees the the basis of imputation of uncompounded space.
Sorry? It might be permanent, dude. What? Uncompetitive space? Even if you fell over the edge, it’ll still be permanent.
Now here, example required is something of indirect comprehension such as, like, it is asserted that sometimes sense perception even may indirectly comprehend something, even though that object doesn’t appear. But this is not not easy to understand. It’s not easy to posit. Well, I’m not sure. Well, in a sense, you know, just having one school should make it easier.
It’s not an ultimate view, but actually understanding Sūtra’s school view is very important for understanding emptiness. Sorry. It’s not just my not just my word on this, but it’s a little bit like, you know, climbing a mountain. We wanna be at the peak, which is like Mādhyamika view. Like, middle way view is like the peak.
It’s the highest view. You get to the top of the mountain, you can see further than any other point on the mountain. But it’s difficult to get, you know, unless you got a helicopter, you can drop yourself on top of the mountain. We do have to walk. We do have to climb to the top.
And climbing to the top is a little bit like comprehending the lower views or so called lower views. It’s a little bit like that. In order to get to the top, you have to progress through the various stages to get to the top. Is the point in which in our views? Absolutely.
Absolutely. With to the same people, between to the higher views, the same? No. It depended on the person. Yeah.
Some people were more advanced in because of their previous effort that they put in to study, and they, you know, comprehended when the Buddha taught Mādhyamika, they comprehended Mādhyamika. It wasn’t as if they just jumped straight from, you know, nothing to Mādhyamika. In their previous lives, they’d studied the lowest views and mastered the lower views and so forth. Well, selflessness is emptiness in the higher schools. It’s not and in fact, the present there is a general presentation of the four schools starting with the the great exposition and sūtra school, then the mind only, then the middle way school.
And in fact, even the earlier practitioners, those that perhaps externally were followers of the or asserted to be followers of the great exposition school of Vaibhāṣika, numerous beings of that period comprehended emptiness. Emptiness is actually taught within the lower schools, but it’s it’s not taught very extensively. That’s the only thing. The more extensive teachings deal with the grosser levels of selflessness rather than, say, with comprehending emptiness. But a being, in order to become an Arhat, have to understand emptiness.
And the higher schools accept that there were arhats at the time of the Buddha even before the middle way view was extensively taught. Yeah. Person first is easier. Person. Yeah.
Yeah. Oh, if you realize if you meditate on the selflessness or yes. A selflessness of the person, first, it’s easier than if you start with the selflessness of, say, Dharma or objects which are not person. And that’s because we’re intimately related to I. We have a certain special connection with I.
If we realize the emptiness of I, it’s easy to realize the emptiness of I first than but they’re very, very close because the emptiness of I depends on the emptiness of the aggregates, and the aggregates are not I. So it’s, you know, they’re very, very closely related, those two. But, yes, it’s recommended to meditate on the emptiness of the self first. Easier easier to do it that way. Oh, no.
It represents an entire tradition. And in fact, the higher schools rest fully on the lower schools. Without the work done by the lower schools, it’ll be very difficult. Are they actual schools there or are they Yeah. So it’s not just a Yeah.
Something that’s put there to present an an idea. Absolutely not. How could you comprehend selflessness of the person and not be able to understand emptiness? Well, from the highest school’s point of view, it’s not possible. From the lowest school’s point of view, though, they do assert these grosser levels of selflessness and they’re not emptiness.
Right? And and, of course, the Buddha did teach them. The Buddha taught lower levels or grosser levels of selflessness as a way of training oneself to realize the more subtle levels. And the lower schools tend to take those as a final teaching. Is, if you can understand if you can comprehend selflessness of a person, how could that be and at the same time not understand emptiness?
Well, if you understand a grosser level of selflessness, you don’t have to understand emptiness or act or the subtle levels of selflessness, which is actual selflessness. That’s all. The the lower schools are simply saying that these grosser levels of selflessness are in fact the final view. That’s all. I’m just wondering how could they come to that point of view and not stand up and everything is empty.
Oh, well, this is the whole issue with the different schools. No. No. It’s that it’s what’s appropriate for the person. If you have a particular teaching that you find, you know, it’s it represents, you know, what what you see the path to be, you know, fully and adequately, then you’ll tend to take that as the final, you know, the presentation for yourself and you will, you know, accept that, which is fine because that’s what, you know, we’re, say, we are.
That’s, you know, something that is appropriate for us. But other people people might hear that same teaching thing, oh, that’s not the final. You know, that’s not that’s a grosser presentation. I’ll seek something, you know, more subtle. It’s the teachings as they stand were given quite genuinely according to circumstance by the Buddha.
And later people, when they read through these, they said, oh, this is yeah. That particular teaching there, that represents the final view. This is how it actually is. And they begin to interpret that as the final view and then say the others, oh, no. No.
They’re just, you know, not as complete as that particular teaching. And so then you have differences arising between the students of the Buddha about which is about which teachings are definitive and which are interpretive. And for the lower schools, their teachings are definitive and the higher schools are interpretive. They’re not final. It’s quite democratic in that way.
Absolutely. Yeah. Oh, really? Well, it’s actually when the Buddha did teach, he taught from many different perspectives, and those teachings are, you know, when you look at them, you may not be able to differentiate, you know, which, you know, easily which is which. But later through great through a vast amount of investigation into the teachings, different schools arose to interpret what teachings were could be literally accepted and what could not, depending on, you know, the capacity of particular students.
This wasn’t something that came about easily. It took a lot of debate and discussion and because of the vast amount of teachings that were given. And certainly, initially, people, you know, very strongly held to their own particular interpretation. Absolutely. Yeah.
Yep. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah.
That that’s right. And Buddhism is similar, but Buddhism is very much or is even more directed towards philosophic view and holds philosophic view interpretation and so forth as much more central to its presentation of the path. And, yeah, it’s there’s a lot of ongoing debate about this. The Theravadin countries fundamentally take a Vaibhāṣika point of view of all this, and they hold that very, very as you listen to teachers, for instance, in Sri Lanka or Burma or Thailand and so on, they will hold a very strong Vaibhāṣika view or they they can hold it. But that’s that’s okay.
That’s appropriate for their particular mode of interpreting the teaching. In a sense, it’s not inferior at all. It’s just what’s appropriate for them, their mode of interpreting. Anyway, we should stop there.