Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 108-minute teaching on mind training, Ven Thubten Dondrub offers an in-depth analysis of how to determine the selflessness of the person and phenomena as taught in classical Buddhist philosophy. Starting from page 119 of the root text, he examines why realizing the absence of a truly existing self in the person is foundational and easier than recognizing emptiness in external objects. He walks through the four philosophical schools’ competing definitions of what constitutes the “basis of person” — the aggregates, the mind, or the mental consciousness — before presenting the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika view, which asserts that the self is merely imputed onto the aggregates and cannot be found upon investigation. He then introduces the seven-point analysis, a logical technique for investigating whether an inherently existing self could be identical with or separate from the five aggregates, showing both options lead to absurd consequences. Throughout, he emphasizes the necessity of identifying the object of negation clearly before meditation can undermine the false grasping that sustains ordinary misperception. Intended for serious practitioners already engaged with classical Buddhist epistemology.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2014 03 20 Mind Training.mp3
UUID: 42659769-f68e-4651-a690-e11dc9c920cb
Teacher: Ven Thubten Dondrub
Collection: Mind Training (Ven Thubten Dondrub)
Date: 2014-03-20
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 108.2 minutes
Words: ~3,810
Forces opposed to Dharma be completely passed by. May the host of eighty thousand obstacles be passed by. May we be separated from problems and harmful conditions to Dharma. May all enjoyments be in accord with Dharma, and may there be auspiciousness and perfect happiness. I go for refuge until I enlighten to the Buddha, Dharma, and the supreme assembly by the merits I create through this.
May I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings? So we can think that Buddha is pleased with our motivation, and visualise this by now approaching the crown of our head and directly above our crown, you know, the Buddha dissolves into us. So we started. We’re on page one hundred and nineteen. Hundred and nineteen. That’s what we finished. Oh, top of No.
We’ve hundred and twenty. We’re on page a hundred and twenty, the way. The way to determine the selflessness. Yeah. So so keep going down.
It’s, you know, that’s it. The order for establishing the two selflessnesses. So the two selflessnesses are the selflessness of the person, selflessness of the phenomenon. So it says, firstly, as explained, although there is not the slightest difference in subtlety regarding the self, which does not exist, whether the the basis is the person or the mental and physical aggregates, because of the difference in subtlety in the basis of engaging, there is a difference of ease in ascertaining the view. It is like so then what explains this.
So it says, it is like this. In order for a person such as the person, the other one gets mentioned. I don’t know why they use him because he was such a nice character. Maybe because he was such a nice character, but since the person was very strong. Anyway, in order for a person such as Devadatta to appear as an object to our minds, we have to depend on on his aggregates.
So his imputed existence can be established through reason. Thus, there is not a slightest difference. Actually, this is that’s different in the following. Anyway, However, because it is easy for some basis of negation to appear to our minds, such as our own persons compared to other phenomena, it is correspondingly easier or more difficult to ascertain selflessness. A person, then the selflessness of phenomena.
Even though the selflessness is exactly the same, it’s not a different kind of emptiness. It’s exactly the same. The person is is empty in exactly the same way as in phenomena is empty. It’s easier to recognize the selflessness of the person because the basis of negation sorry. The basis of imputation is is is is easier to recognize than the basis of the the basis of imputation of phenomenon.
If if you remember, I was making this point that when we look at a flower, a flower or a bunch of flowers, So there is a flower here which is imputed, and the flower, it does exist and only exist because there is a basis for the flower. And but right now, we cannot distinguish unless one is quite quite realized. The average person, so more than the average person, we can’t separate the merely label flower from the basis. But because the basis yeah. So that’s it’s tricky to be able to recognize the basis.
Whereas for the basis of the merely imputed self on fire. Anyway, that’s easy to recognize. Easy to recognize. Sorry? Maybe academically.
Well, that’s what they say. It’s it’s not easy it’s not easy to recognize, but it’s easier to recognize than with phenomena. So that’s basically what what that’s saying. But and and and what what it goes on to say on the top page, a hundred and twenty one, where it says, just as you understand selflessness in yourself, understand it similarly in all sentient beings. So once we’ve realized the selfless our own selflessness, it is a it is very easy to realize the selflessness of all other things because it’s exactly the same.
And just as you understand selflessness of all sentient beings, understand the selflessness in all phenomena. So once we have the emptiness of our of our own person, then it it is much easier to then begin to recognize that actually all phenomena are empty. But in in in stages of the path of realizing emptiness, we don’t work on trying to realize the emptiness of phenomena first. We try and realize the emptiness in our own self, our own person first because it’s easier. So it goes on the the actual techniques of establishing a view of selflessness is three aspects, but how to determine selflessness of the person.
So that’s the first. Secondly, how to determine the selflessness in phenomena. And thirdly, how dependent arisings of persons and phenomena appear like illusions. As I’ve tried to say now that before, the that are appearing to us now as truly existing. And what we see here is is a truly existing flower.
So that is an illusion. So how to determine the selflessness of the To begin with, this concerns recognition of what the basis of person is. So in other words, to be able to, as you determine the selflessness of the person, first, we have to know what the person is. We have to recognize the basis of the person. So on the basis of an I, the innate wrong conception of an I is the person.
We don’t we don’t develop this wrong view of self on the basis of something else. It is generated by experiencing a person in a false way. That’s why you get this wrong sense of eye. We don’t get a wrong sense of eye by experiencing a jar of water in the wrong mind. It’s by experiencing personal.
For some, such as the the followers of the Vaibhāṣika tradition. So that’s So such a you talked about the particulars, which is the. The focal object of the conception of the person is the five mental and physical aggregates. In other words, the Vaibhāṣikas say that the person that does exist is the five aggregates. The five aggregates of form, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and the six primary consciousnesses. For others, the person is only the mind.
All, you know, all, such as the Cittamātra school. So the proponents of mind only or of mere consciousness who assert the existence of the mind basis of all, take the mind basis of all as the basis in relation to the thought of I as the basis in relation to which the thought of I arises when the disturbed mind focuses on it. So we have to go back a little bit. Remember, we’re talking about the four philosophical schools, the Vaibhāṣikas, the Sautrantikas, the Cittamātra, and the Madhyamikas. So the the Chitamatrans school is unique.
So the Vaibhāṣikas, the Sautrantikas, and the Madhyamikas all agree that there are six consciousnesses. Whereas the Chitamata school is unique in in in various ways. One one way is that they talk not about six types of consciousnesses, but eight. So when you talk about the six all. And the other one, I forgot what was going.
Anyway sorry. Anyway, the key thing basic just to say here, you know, this is just an introduction to all this. The Tidamatra has talked about there are eight consciousnesses, One of which is the mind, it’s a simple one, which in Sanskrit is called the consciousness. So you’ll often hear about that. If you read about zen, they talk about that.
Because as I’ve mentioned, There is a subsequent caveat. There’s always complications. I would go on to say, the proponents of mere consciousness who do not assert the collection of eight consciousnesses. So there is a mind’s only school that is it’s kind of a rebel group, so they don’t they don’t accept the eight consciousnesses. Just the six.
Anyway, so that group and the followers of the master, Bhāvaviveka. So Bhāvaviveka was the founder of the Mādhyamika Svatāntrika school, which are called in English the autonomous reasoners because they believe in inherent existence, as well as the sūtra followers posit the sixth consciousness, the sixth consciousness, the stream of mental consciousness as the person. Okay? So we’ve got the two, the Vaibhāṣikas say that the person is the five aggregates. The the Cittamātra is talking about the eight consciousnesses say that the mind basis of all is the person, then the middle way the the Mādhyamika Svatantrikas and the Sautrantikas, which are the lower schools,, they say that the mental consciousness is the person.
Okay? So now we’re getting to what does it mean to self. Also, all of them assert that person is a mere imputation imputed to the mental physical aggregates, and so on. And that and that its referent must be something substantially existing. Okay?
So they do say it’s imputed, but even though it’s imputed, it substantially exists. This is because when its existence is being posited by a valid cognition and the imputed object is sought, it must be findable. For if it does not exist due to its own characteristics, it cannot exist at all. In other words, these schools all argue that even though something is imputed, to impute something, there has to be something there from inside from with its own characteristics substantially. Which all seems logical.
You’d like to put it very simply to to impute something that is good, Why? It seems logical that why you impute something good or useful in something is because from its side, there is something good. That seems to make whole lot. It’s yeah. It’s a it’s a mindful.
Yeah. It’s the wrong view. Yeah. It’s not the nice view. It’s a little bit on that on that.
They wouldn’t say that No. I don’t know. But the the present is the same. So now it goes on to say our own system. Our own system because we’re all present.
Right? Our own system comes from the words of the master Candrakīrti. So Candrakīrti is the big hero of the. I I would say, of Tibetan Buddhists in general, but especially of the. The master Candrakīrti in his Supplement to the Middle Way.
That’s the Candrakīrti thoroughly rejects the premise that the focal object this term focal object is not a very good translation. So the present need to say, to have the wrong view of truly existing self, or the I that doesn’t exist, grasping it as truly existing,, you have to So most of the other schools, just to sum up just summarize quickly, easily, are saying that it’s either one or all of the aggregates, which is the basis of imputing the thought I this is not correct. In his commentary to the Sūtra, by saying that the mere I itself is the focal object, he implies that the thought of an I must arise naturally in relation to it. So what this is saying is that what do we what do we I’ll just use the term see because I can’t come to the correct philosophical word to do it. But when or look at what do we look at in order to get like, in order to get.
Right now, we are looking at this object. And instead of instead of seeing a merely labeled flower, we see a truly existing flower. So what what are we looking at in order to see a truly existing flower? What are we actually looking at? No.
No. Well, if I just look here, can I see a flower? No. Something that we’ve labeled. Basis of the wrong is the wrong.
And so this is what it’s saying here about So with regard to such things as the mere I, the thought of I naturally arises, as you may remember I’ve said many times that and I don’t think this is a contradiction. But because of the there there are many levels of that. At the moment, So it says, every person, whether man or woman, whether exalted or whether an ordinary individual, So every person with insight of existence or liberated from it is designated in dependence upon the aggregates, which is like a clock on the table — it can exist. It’s you know, it it has its qualities and because there’s a table there, it it which which, you know, has it is really existing and is supported by that. So anyway, so in in this regard, neither the continuity of the assembly of the aggregates nor the assembly itself, nor the parts of the assembly, nor the continuity of the assembly, So, yeah, what what has been referred to here is a process of analyzing.
This is called seven point analysis. So we speak of person conventionally. Such a technique for determining the selflessness of a person is one of the best methods for cognizing the reality of things. Same reasoning should be applied to all phenomena. Well, not just this selflessness of the person.
For this reason, whether something is inherently dependent on its parts, separate from its parts and so on. This can be So firstly, when we generate the view of selflessness in our mental continuum through the force of logical reasoning, being free from elaborations. So the idea, the tricky thing is to So, basically, what what is happening here is the the author is presenting a meditation technique, realizing it helps us realize it is So even though I’m I’m sorry I keep emphasizing how difficult it used to to actually find the object of negation. Even though it’s difficult, the only way difficult things get started. That’s exactly what the Lamrim is all about. Do things step by step.
And so it’s always incredibly helpful, I think, and encouraging All I’m just doing is a simulation exercise to help us try and get that sense of self as much as possible. So that’s that’s the first point of identifying the object of negation. The sec second point of the four point analysis is is what is being referred to. It’s it’s mentioned in this next chapter, this next paragraph where we have to come to this definite conclusion, definite understanding in in these two ways, and then when we realize that those two could not both be true, one goes on to do the analysis of the other two parts of the analysis. There’s no middle — — either it has to exist this way or that way. Anyway, we’re going to that.
It says, in determining selflessness by means of the reasoning that things are free of existing truly as one or as truly distinct from the basis of imputation, were the person to exist inherently, it would have to exist invariably as one entity in the aggregates or as a different entity. These are the only two possibilities of how an inherently existing It has definitely no other mode of existence than these two. This is because, in general, whenever we prove that any phenomenon such as a vase has parts, its opposite, that it is partless, is refuted. So if if we if we prove to ourselves that a vase has parts, this also proves that vase can’t be partless. Right?
Like like, when we validly establish that a single object is partless, the opposite that it it has parts is refuted. So if we prove something is partless, we show it has parts; if it has parts, it means that it doesn’t have no parts. Actually, there’s no such thing as something as partners anyway. So that’s Everything’s got parts. Directional parts.
So as there is no way for something to exist apart from its either being the same as or different from something else, we should be convinced that there is no other mode of existence than these two. So either the eye we’re not talking about the eye that value exists. We’re talking about the object in the future inherently existing. Possible. Can you?
But, anyway, we should be convinced that this is this is the case. Because if we’re not, then we will never get rid of the wrong people because we’ll think all the the the somehow, I could exist in some other way. But why? Okay. So If we think if if we if we find the object to be and we we might that that object to be viewed may appear as though are inherently one by way of their own characteristics.
The first concerns the fallacies of asserting yourself as such. So the way this is put here which makes it quite difficult. Anyway, it goes on to say, if the self and the aggregates were of one nature, existing by way of their own characteristics, the cognition to which they appear as an object would be undistorted. This is because it would be a consciousness to which inherent existence appear as an object. When it goes on to say this will be similar to the view of that that those So this would be implying that the mind is perceiving the person existing.
We would be person would appear to our ordinary consciousnesses the way it appears. In other words, we would be an ordinary person would be realizing emptiness of things just automatically because their appearance and the way that exist match because if the person was exactly the same as the aggregates and we could perceive them directly, So it goes on to say, in this context, if self and the aggregates are of one nature, the final way in which the self and aggregates exist must be consistent with the way in which they appear to conceptual thought. In that case, they could not appear as two different things Because the way they appear to conceptuality and the way the two objects exist should be consistent, and the object’s mode of existence is held to be of one nature in terms of inherent existence. If that was so, these two would be one without the slightest distinction. And from that point of view, even their appearing separately to thought would be impossible.
So I think in a very simple gross form, what this means is if a person was inherently one with five aggregates, that’s not no. No. Don’t that’s a whole other thing. Don’t get into that one yet. Know?
Or I also would apply to yourself when you look at your own toe and think that’s me. Yes. And it goes on to say, since the aggregates are adopted at birth and discarded at death, to assert such a self, a self that was the same as the aggregates, would be meaningless because the self would be terminated as being merely a portion of the aggregates. So this is pertinent because it it would also mean if the I was the same as the aggregates, of course, there wouldn’t be rebirth. Of course, if we don’t have much strong belief in that that that would be very effective that if one has strong belief in past and future lives.
Of course, this is one of the reasons why people don’t believe find it difficult to believe in past and future lives because they do have this wrong view that I am the body. So the fundamental treatise called Wisdom, which is Nāgārjuna’s text says, there is no self apart from that designated upon the contaminated aggregates, meaning designated upon the contaminated aggregates. If when they act as such, the contaminated aggregates aggregates themselves and the self, your self will be nonexistent. In other words, that second sentence is saying, if the aggregates were somehow to mysteriously become yourself, then yourself would become nonexistent when you lose the aggregates.
Okay? None of this is just completely In in when you go in further into this point, you can also one with the aggregates — because there are five aggregates, so are you one with all five aggregates, or four of them, three of them, two of them? Which one? Are you one with the body? Just something to think about, that’s what I’m asking about.
It’s just, you know, a gross. It’s good to destroy that. But we may be grasping, thinking I am the body, but then am I all the body? Am I grasping that I’m all the body? Am I oneness with the whole body?
Or does it feel like I am in one part? So which So the second fallacy of the self being one by nature is that it would follow there would be many selves So the consequence so one of the crazy consequences — and remember, Prasanga means consequence. So they point out all the consequences of wrong views that the people who hold them, that is us, don’t think of, don’t realize. So one consequence of it follows from grasping that the self is the same as the aggregates is that it would follow that since there are there are many aggregates, there there will be many selves. Or the other way is that if if there’s if we call it as one self and that the one self is inseparably one with the aggregates.
It would have to follow that there’s only one aggregate. But actually, And each aggregate So either if if the self is one with the aggregates, it have to be lots of selves or only one aggregate. Neither of these makes any sense. So I can see this is causing a frown. This could be due to my very poor explanation, but I won’t accept that.
I would say it’s due to your confused mind. Same to me. So I’m just joking. But but, I mean, the point I’m trying to make here as a joke is something we can put. The mind that is understanding you is a pretty confused mind, which is supposed to be as well.
And we’ve all seen things that we’re trying to make sense of these things with a mind that doesn’t have a lot of merit, that isn’t purified, that is has, you know, ancient wrong views. So even if we intellectually understand, we start to understand You know, we have to really drive it into our consciousness and also into a consciousness that is more and more focused, clear, virtuous. Through the merits of these virtuous actions, now quickly attain the state of the all-knowing and lead all sentient beings without exception into that enlightened state. May the precious bodhichitta not yet born arise arise and flourish. May that born have no decline but increase forevermore.
The object of refuge of myself and all transmigration beings in all our lifetimes.