Download Bern Sat session 1 - The Foundation of Buddhist Thought

A Weekend on Emptiness
Geshe Tashi Tsering
Longku Zopa Gyu Center, Bern, Switzerland,
25 — 27 January 2007
lightly edited from the transcripts by Gordon McDougall
Friday 25 January
It is very nice to be here with you once again to share our spiritual journey, very much to
share. I will not say I will teach you—not in that manner—but we are here to share each
others’ understanding feeling, joys, experiences and difficulties while we are on the
spiritual journey, in order to free ourselves from difficulties, particularly the mental ones.
So my role coming here again and again is not as your teacher but to share with you our
experiences.
This evening we are going to discuss the topic of emptiness, or sometimes called
ultimate truth, or ultimate reality. I don’t have any experiences in this topic but I have
encountered this topic for a long time, since I was a teenager. This topic has been
bombarded into my head and in my ears, so I can share on that basis, and I’m sure many
of you have had great opportunities to receive teachings on this topic from teachers like
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Lama Zopa Rinpoche. And because of the amazing
material development these days there are many resources, not just books but CDs,
DVDs, on line and so on, and no doubt you are using these resources. So I’m sure you
already have understanding on this topic so I hope you will share it with the group, which
is the best generosity.
So that is the manner of our gathering. The manner of my role is to share, but the
manner of our gathering is mutual sharing of those resources. Also for people here on my
last visit, this topic is part of that wider topic of the two truths. There I tried to share with
you mainly the conventional truth from the Buddhist point of view. Although there was
some discussion on ultimate truth there wasn’t much time and I had already planned to
deal with ultimate truth. There will be some recap, however, as these two are strongly
connected, one is needed in order understand the other.
We will start with the short silent meditation and during that meditation we will
cultivate a positive and constructive motivation to participate in listening and
contemplating the talk. And for people familiar with refuge and bodhichitta – the strong
aspiration to attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings – please cultivate this
during the motivation, but for those not familiar, generate a strong feeling that you are
here to understand this topic to develop wisdom and compassion. After that, try to bring
your mind to the breathing to be fully aware of the present.
(silent meditation)
The Uniqueness of Emptiness
I think it will be nice to discuss this topic from the point of view of the non-Buddhist
Indian religions, what things are common between Buddhism and the non-Buddhist
Indian religions such as Brahmanism, Jainism, and the current day Hinduism. I’m sure
you will know that there are many concepts within Buddhism that are common to the
non-Buddhist Indian religions, such as the concept of karma, which is one of the main
Buddhist theories, and ethics, and concentration, and practising wisdom, and the view of
samsara—cyclic existence— and moksha—liberation. All those are very very similar if
we look at it just from the individual topics. There are very few differences between the
two systems of belief. For instance if we look at karma, or moksha, or samsara, or the
development of concentration, considered individually, there is very little difference. As
so, even today in India, the public who practice Hinduism—not the scholars who look
deeper into the philosophies—believe Buddhism is part of Hinduism. Many of their
practices are very similar to Buddhist practices.
But if we add on the view of selflessness or emptiness, then whatever Buddhism
talks about—karma, liberation, whatever—then all those become unique explanations.
Otherwise, it is not so unique. Take an example: we have this theory that we sentient
beings circle in cyclic existence, going through birth, aging, sickness and death, and then
around again. Brahmanism and Jainism say almost exactly the same thing. But if we look
at it from the point of view of who the person is that is locked into this cycle—the nature
of that person, the ultimate reality of that person—then Buddhism is quite unique. There
is no other religion that has managed to explain the ultimate reality of that person. What
the Buddha taught was selflessness—anatma; that’s the topic we will discuss.
In other words, all Buddhist practices become unique Buddhist practices if we
look at them from the perspective of selflessness, or emptiness. And so, following the law
of cause and effect, karma, with an understanding of emptiness becomes a unique
Buddhist practice. If we practice ethics with an understanding of emptiness, that becomes
a unique Buddhist practice. The same with generosity or concentration. So therefore
cultivating understanding of this topic is very crucial for a Buddhist practitioner.
I found this quite useful to understand that the practices I am trying to do, the
teachings I am trying to follow, have unique elements. That encourages me to follow it.
That doesn’t mean to develop a sense of superiority, but to see that Jainism might have
these teachings, Brahmanism might have those teachings, but Buddhism has all this seen
with the wisdom of emptiness. What is that will make a difference to my spiritual
journey? I’m not saying that because Buddhism has these unique explanations then we
should feel superior, that’s not the point.
What the Buddha Taught on Selflessness and Emptiness
Emptiness, selflessness, anatma. At this stage I will use these terms interchangeably. If
Buddhism has this unique explanation, then how did the Buddha teach it? This is also
quite useful to learn.
The Buddha taught this teaching alongside many other topics, according to the
peoples’ dispositions and interests. He taught it in conjunction with other topics in
relation to his listeners’ disposition, interests and ability to understand. He didn’t say: “I
have realised this and it’s amazing and you can have it, whether or not you are interested
in it or able to appreciate it”. He didn’t approach the subject in that way at all. He said on
several occasions that he taught these teaching over 40 years after his enlightenment
according to the dispositions of the people. That tells us he taught us a variety of
teachings, different levels of teachings, and not just giving the final and ultimate level of
understanding of the topic. I think this is quite important to know.
This is true of all his teachings but especially on selflessness, on emptiness; he
taught on different levels. In the early stage, the Buddha taught emptiness mainly from
the subjective point of view—from the perspective of the person or “I”—rather than the
objective point of view, related to external things and events.
It will slowly become clear if we go a little bit further. Of these two stages, the
teachings on the selflessness of persons comes mainly from the Theravada Buddhist
tradition. As you know there are two main strains in Buddhism, Theravada and
Mahayana, and the sutras dealing with the selflessness of person can be found mainly in
the Theravada teachings. Selflessness is the term used rather than emptiness, but I will
use either here. The emptiness of self belongs to the tradition we now tend to call
Theravada. The second stage, the emptiness of both the subjective—the self—and of the
objective—things and events—belongs mainly to the teachings found in the Mahayana
tradition.
There’s another level, the vajrayana tradition. In the teachings that belong to that
level, the Buddha also taught emptiness mainly from the subjective point of view, but not
with reference to the person but to the mind, and within the mind to the subtlest mind. I’ll
repeat that. In vajrayana the emptiness the Buddha taught is mainly related to the
subjective, but subjective not referring to the person but to the mind and within the mind
it refers to the subtlest mind.
I just want to draw your attention to this. In that last part I used the terms
emptiness and selflessness. It is quite different from the emptiness or selflessness the
Buddha taught in the previous two stages of Theravada and Mahayana. We will talk
about this on Sunday.
The Buddha taught these teachings on all these different levels. In other words,
that earlier, that Buddhism has one unique teaching which is emptiness or selflessness,
never taught in any other non-Buddhist ancient religions, and I don’t think in any other
Abrahamic religions such as Christianity or Judaism. It seems in the past they had lots of
meditation and other things, but in terms of selflessness, although I haven’t studied, it
seems that Buddhism is unique. But it is very important to remember that the Buddha
taught this topic on many different levels and if you are interested in this topic it is very
useful to look at each of these levels.
Now another thing that is helpful to understand, when the Buddha taught
selflessness or emptiness he taught it from the angle of dependent arising, which we will
discuss in detail. Before that, I want to share with you how we know that he taught
emptiness from the point of view of dependent arising. It is very clear if you look at all
those Indian great masters like Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, as well as the Tibetan masters. For
example, Nagarjuna’s Root of Wisdom (Mulamadhyamikakarika) he said (Tibetan). Tong
pa nyi means emptiness den jum means dependent arising and lam means the path or
realisation, so this means:
The mind that realizes emptiness and dependent arising, both these realizations are
the middle path, they will both equally take us into the middle path.
Both will help to free us from the two extremes of nihilism and eternalism. We’ll
talk about these a bit tomorrow. So both these realisations have the power to free us from
the two extremes so both are the middle path.
I pay homage to the guide who taught those teachings which are the excellent
speech.
(not exact quote)
So Nagrajuna is paying homage to the person that delivered these two excellent
teachings, because both have equal mechanisms to free us from the two extremes. There
are many others similar praises to the Buddha by Nagarjuna, for example, again in the
same text, the Root of Wisdom (Mulamadhyamikakarika) the very first verse is very
similar to the one above, paying homage to the Buddha because he taught both emptiness
and dependent arising.
And also, Lama Tsongkhapa, the great 14th century Tibetan master, he composed
a praise to Buddha because he taught dependent origination. He says:
Among the teachers, the teacher who teaches dependent origination.
Among the wisdom, wisdom that realises dependent origination.
In this world these two are the most excellent and the most victorious
That is you, the Buddha. To you I make prostrations.
(not exact quote)
And so we see that the Buddha taught emptiness, and that he taught it in different
stages, and furthermore, that he taught it from the point of view of dependent origination.
Therefore, when we talk about emptiness or selflessness, it is extremely important to try
to understand the topic from the perspective of dependent arising.
Why Emptiness is Important
How will the understanding of this topic help us? As I said earlier, many of our gross
mental difficulties, or even the subtle ones, can be eliminated using many of the practices
common to Buddhism, Jainism and Brahmanism. For example, the cultivation of
concentration. There are many different levels of concentration, the last level called the
eighth stage, and Brahmanism has full teachings on how cultivate this last stage, and this
has the ability to eliminate many, many levels of our mental difficulties, such as
attachment, aversion, and ignorance. As far as attachment and aversion, almost up to their
root. I’m saying “almost”, I’m not saying completely!
What the Buddha realised while he was searching the true path to be completely
free from the mental difficulties was that eliminating the manifest negative minds was not
the complete answer, and we need to be able to destroy the actual root of these minds.
While he was searching he saw those common practices have the capability to eliminate
to a very deep level those minds, especially the first two, attachment and aversion. But he
saw if we do not have the understanding of selflessness or emptiness we cannot uproot
the root of these three. Particularly concentration at its utmost eighth stage has the ability
to get rid of those three poisons, but he saw just mere concentration, no matter how deep
it is, does not have the ability to destroy the root.
So now the main discussion is this. This is true for not just the Buddhist
practitioner, but anybody who searches for liberation from suffering and the origin of
suffering, not just from the manifest sufferings. Unless we uproot the root of the three
poisons, especially attachment and aversion, we will not achieve complete freedom from
suffering and its cause. So the Buddha taught emptiness or selflessness on top of those
already existing teachings such as karma, cyclic existence and concentration because he
saw that unless we uproot the root of the three poisons we will not experience complete
liberation.
Now you may ask what is the sticking point, what is it that the non-Buddhist
philosophies haven’t understood. That is the point. For example, if we look at the way
that Brahmanism teaches karma, the law of cause and effect, although I haven’t studied it
very much, I have read some texts. In their teachings, it says my karma is totally my own
responsibility and in that way is exactly the same as the Buddha taught. What I am
experiencing now is the result of my past actions and what I will experience in the future
depends on what actions I do now. But the difference here is that although it is totally up
to me, the “I” who is creating the cause, or experiencing the result, that “I” has a Brahma
nature. There is something called “I” that has an intrinsic nature who is creating the
karma or experiencing the result.
The point I’m making here is the “I” or self who creates the karma and
experiences the result, from the basic Buddhist viewpoint, does not exist separate from
these aggregates. There is nothing apart from these aggregates. The aggregates are
“heaps” the composite of body and mind that is me. The body is made of many parts, but
so too is the mind, feelings, sensations and so it. Together, it makes the aggregates, and
Buddhism divides it into five heaps or aggregates.
The other traditions all believe that the “I” or self that creates the karma and
experiences the result is more than these five aggregates. There is the “I” or self is some
kind of eternal entity. Quite often, for example in Brahmanism, that entity is the entity of
Brahma. In other theist religions it can be that the “I” is in the nature or has the blessing
of that creator entity, completely separate from the aggregates. The Buddha denied that
there was an “I” or self completely separate from the aggregates, and that there was no
eternal “I” or self.
Q: If a Brahmin or Christian practitioner through long contemplation has an
experience of emptiness, is that possible?
A: When you say Brahmanism, as long as that person has the experience of
Brahmanism, he or she will never contemplate whether Brahma exists or not.
Q: But some mystic person...just someone who looks inside without any
philosophical understanding of emptiness, is it possible to have an experience of
emptiness
A: I think if he or she is in the right place to contemplate, if he or she
contemplates on his or her body to investigates whether the “I” exists inherently, there is
a possibility. But the person who holds a particular theory, it’s not that easy, because they
are holding that view.
We are just starting to talk about this subject of selflessness. I’m trying to explain
to you who creates the action and who experiences the result of that action. Buddhism
says that the person who creates it and experiences it cannot exist—cannot be a different
entity—from these five aggregates. (People who are new, don’t worry about the five, just
think about what is here.) Think of the action, today to make a good banana cake and
tomorrow eat it. That person who makes the cake and eats it, does that person exist
completely separate from this body and the mind of feelings and so on? That’s what the
non-Buddhist philosophies are saying. The nature or essence of that person making and
eating the banana cake is totally separate from the body/mind aggregates.
On another level, that person who made that banana cake and is going to eat it
tomorrow is not eternal. That person is momentarily moving forward. Changing! But
non-Buddhists say no, he doesn’t. The person who made the cake and will eat it is the
same person and so he is eternal and unchanging. He will never change. They are not
saying the person’s physical body is not getting old, not like me getting more grey hairs,
but as an entity there is some kind of essence that is unchanging, as an eternal entity.
But the Buddha said, and subsequently Buddhist masters said, the person changes
momentarily. It never stays static, even for a moment. In other words, in a strange way,
what the Buddha is saying, is that the person that makes that banana cake is never going
to have the chance to eat that banana cake! Because he is momentarily changing the
person making the cake doesn’t exist after the first moment, and so he can never eat it.
That a problem, isn’t it! Because the Buddha taught that if you create wholesome karma
you will experience a wholesome result; if you create unwholesome karma you will
experience an unwholesome result. That’s a very common teaching, so we have to talk
about how to stop those two being contradictory. On the one hand we are saying that the
person who creates the karma is not static but momentarily changing, and on the other
hand we are saying that the person who creates the karma must experience the result, and
not just soon, but maybe many, many years later. We need to understand what’s going on
there. It seems there’s a contradiction.
Q: But does that mean that the cake is also changing?
A: Are you very worried about the cake?!?. Good question. Any phenomenon that
comes into being under the power of causes and conditions is subject to change, whether
it is a Buddha or a sentient being, whether it is a samsaric thing or a non-samsaric thing.
As long as it comes into existence under the power of causes and conditions it is
momentarily changing. And that includes that banana cake too.
Q: Why do you use the term change and not evolve? What’s the difference
between changing or moving?
A: It is the usage of language. My usage here means momentarily going through
the process, not necessarily meaning this cup becomes this microphone. It’s the process.
Every single moment the causes and conditions move to different stages.
Q: (inaudible)
A: Very good example. Those religions who have a concept of creator and not
just a concept but ever object, animate and inanimate, has the nature of that creator. If
that is so, then that nature should not be in the process of changing. If they change then
there is trouble. For example, the nature of Brahma within every human being is eternal;
it will stay from beginning to end, no matter how many changes there are to the body and
mind of the human being. Even changing from this life to the next, which Brahmanism
believes, the Brahman essence will never change. So if we look at all these other, it is
pretty much the same. If you look at the present scientists, I’m not saying they believe
that there is some eternal essence or there is something there intrinsically, but they are
really searching in that direction. They are really trying to find the source of everything.
Their goal is to find the one thing that is the essence, not dependent on any other thing,
which is static. We will talk about this tomorrow. This is very interesting. For example,
the people who are searching for the origin of the universe, are they really searching for
some kind of starting point? If so, then they are searching for some sort of eternal
element.
We are talking about the self, the “I” who creates the karma and experiences it,
how does that self exist? That is an extremely important point for the Buddhist
practitioner.
As I have said, at a certain stage the Buddha taught that that “I” or self does not
exist independent from the aggregates. There is no self or “I” that is completely
independent from the aggregates. When the Buddha taught this, what does that mean to
you, that statement? Does it give you some feeling? At the same time the Buddha didn’t
say that the five aggregates are the “I” or self. He didn’t say that the “I” or self who
circles in cyclic existence, creating karma and experiencing its result, who may get
liberated, that “I” is the five aggregates. Think about that. Quite an interesting subject
here.
Every Buddhist practitioner, including myself, have had bombarded in our heads,
“selflessness” “emptiness” bla bla bla, but still we have a strong believe that there is a
self slightly separate from these aggregates. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense! That
concept creates lots of trouble! Lots! Even if we manage to minimize lots of delusion,
attachment to body, feelings and so on, if we haven’t sorted out that concept, whether it is
true or not, there is a lot of trouble.
Here’s another example. Look at when a moment anger for another person occurs,
in that process of the generation of anger, there is a strong belief that either for the person
or their action there is some essence, something that is intrinsic in that person or on that
action that has caused you harm or disappointment or whatever. Beyond all those
activities, beyond that person’s aggregates and everything, in the moment of anger, there
is a strong belief in the essential nature there of the person or the action. And that is what
we are talking about here, the importance of understanding emptiness or selflessness. The
understanding will help us see that either in the person or the event there is nothing
essential apart from the things coming together. Do you understand what I mean? I’m
quite excited! But I don’t know.
This subject needs time, energy, resources, enthusiasm. If we put all those things,
it will become clear. If you are interested, you really need to read, study, listen.
As I said at the beginning, this is unique within religious philosophies. It is very,
very interesting. Although it very philosophical, it is very relevant to our day to day life.
If we try to apply the notion of emptiness, it is extremely useful to solve everyday
problems. What it will do is solve the concrete, solid, object “I want for my Christmas
present” or those concrete, solid “I really don’t even want to hear the name..
“aggregates”! (laughs), it will help dissolve that concrete sense.
The Buddha taught that without the understanding of selflessness no matter how
deep the concentration is you will never uproot the root of suffering. No matter what
other qualities you develop, love, compassion, ethics, which a common to all religions.
When I was at His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s teachings in south India, he urged the
monasteries to not end up practicing compassion on their meditation cushions. He said go
and engage into the outside world like the Christian brothers and sisters. Love,
compassion, ethics is common to all, and Jains are even more cautious about harming
sentient beings than Buddhists.
But in that environment there is the unique teaching, that is emptiness, therefore it
is good to try. In Tibetan we have the expression. The very soft wing feathers of a bird, if
we touch them on rock again and again eventually that rock will become smooth because
of the feathers’ touch. So although the topic of emptiness is not that straightforward but if
we visit it again and again, slowly our mind will soften. And that understanding will help.
Saturday 26 January session 1
The First Two Levels of Seeing the “I”
Many Buddhist practices are not unique, but selflessness or emptiness is. I am Buddhist
therefore I am seeking liberation, without seeking any intellectual input on that “I”, it
appears very innate, very natural, but when we start to examine what that “I” is, that “I
am Buddhist”? It then moves into a different level, from an innate notion of “I” into
intellectually acquired “I”. Because as soon as we start thinking about it we see it we
believe in the law of karma, in some form of future lives and that if we follow the path
we will achieve liberation. Then we start to think that there is a continuation, an abiding
nature of “I”. In that process, if you start to think, “I am Buddhist, I believe in karma,
therefore I will experience the consequences of what I do now” therefore there seems to
be that abiding nature of the “I” moving from one stage to the other stage.
This kind of discussion really needs thinking about and observing how what is
said relates to our own experience, otherwise after this talk you may feel this is extremely
boring! Otherwise it’s just emptiness emptiness emptiness selflessness selflessness
selflessness. I myself remember from my days in the monastery when I heard teachings
on emptiness over and over again and it was just sound hitting my ears ping ping ping,
with no meaning, like ping pong ball bouncing off. We need to relate this to our own
experience otherwise it makes no sense.
We do cherish the “I”, even in sleep, we want to keep it safe and pamper it.
There’s nothing wrong at that level, but it is extremely important to understand what that
“I” is. When you say “I want” or “I don’t want” both are connected to the “I”. If I don’t
like being in samsara I need a way out—I need a way to get this “I” to liberation—but for
that we need a correct view of the “I”. It’s like wanting to go to India but buying a ticket
for the wrong person. We need to analyze who that “I” is, and where we do that analysis
is in our minds, how we perceive that “I”. That is really crucial.
Generally we perceive that “I” in two levels. The first is very innate and natural,
“I go, I eat, I sleep, I want, I don’t want, and so on”. And the second level, when we put a
little bit deeper and start to observe the “I” we start to see the “I” a little bit differently, as
enduring, lasting. Although as a Buddhist we would never say the “I” is permanent,
because we’ve that’s what we’ve learned. That’s what we say, but that doesn’t mean
we’ve realized that. If we are honest and we investigate a little deeper we will see that we
have the sense of the “I” as enduring, abiding nature. Does it exist in that way?
Intellectually-acquired View of Self
Many of you have the background of Christianity/Judaism or atheism. Looking at them as
two different polarities, look at how these two “baskets” perceive the “I”. On the
Judeo/Christian side when you probe how the “I” exists you start to see there is some
kind of enduring, abiding nature, but also some kind of unitary nature, in the sense of
some kind of uncreated, uncomposed by many things, acausal. My body, my feelings, my
views, my theories are composed of many other things, but my “I” is not. It’s like
somebody has put it one there, some kind of unitary entity. Mainly by the creator, if you
come from a Judeo/Christian background. Think about that. Whether you call yourselves
Christian or Jew or whatever, because of the influence of the background you come from,
overlaid over your ideas of karma—I create the cause, I experience the result, I go from
this life to the next—overlaid with that is this sense of the “I” which is not only abiding
but unitary and has nothing to do with the physical body and the mental events that make
this I up.
That’s why I thought it extremely useful to explore the non-Buddhist theories of
the self or atman. Although I have very little knowledge of Christianity, it seems to me
that because they all have this concept of creator, that they share this idea of some
“essence” that is the core of our being, and that essence is unitary and abiding. So at a
certain extend they all have a similar concept of the “I”. So although the ancient nonBuddhist Indian religions are not the same as the Abramic religions, there are similarities.
The non-Buddhist Indian religions have three features that make up the self. Self
is:
 permanent
 unitary
 indivisible
Self is permanent, that means it’s never going to die. Self is unitary, therefore it is not
composed of the body/mind aggregates. And self is indivisible nature in the sense it is
single, it is not multiple. In this body there is only one self.
What those religions see is that self is permanent but the body, feelings,
sensations and so on—which the self relies on—are not. They come and go, but the self
remains, without changing. Self is unitary but the aggregates are composite. And self is
indivisible but the aggregates are multiple. So this is interesting. All these three
characteristics have a meaning.
The other side of the equation is the view that atheists have of the self. For them,
self is one with this body. When this body ceases, everything ceases; nothing is left.
Both these views are what we call in Buddhism is intellectually-acquired views.
In other words, we get these two views through encountering these philosophies. If I had
grown up within a Christian environment I may believe there is a soul which has this kind
of character. Body goes, soul doesn’t; body changes, soul doesn’t; body is result of my
parents’ sperm and egg, soul is not. Conversely, if I was born in an environment where
there are no such views or they are deliberately suppressed and my parents taught me
there is nothing more than this brain, I may believe that when I die nothing continues.
That’s what we call intellectually-acquired views. They are not innate.
If we compare those views with the naturally occurring concept of “I” they
contradict. They are not compatible. In general, when we talk about “I” in our day to day
lives, there are two levels of our concept of “I”. One is very natural and innate, nothing
enduring, nothing abiding, nothing in the nature of God or Brahma, the other is all those
things. We live with these two notions, but it is only when we compare the two that we
see that they contradict. So which is true? They can’t both be true.
When I say “I’m thirsty”, there is no concept of this “I” that is enduring, abiding,
in the essence of God is thirsty. But at the other level the nature of “I” is more complex,
so which is the true “I”, or are there many “I”s in this body? That’s frightening, because
we are struggling to fulfill the wishes of one “I”, so if there are many that’s really bad
news!
The Buddha saw that it’s really important to sort this issue out because without
doing so, even if we gain lots of realizations through our meditations if we suppress our
attachment and aversion, but if we can’t sort this question out, sooner or later the
attachment and aversion will come. Like attachment and aversion are on one pan of a
scale and concentration is on the other. When the concentration wanes, attachment and
aversion rises; when concentration is strengthened, attachment and aversion lessen, but
we will never be free of them.
Q: I see the contradiction between the innate “I” and “I” as intellectually-acquired
to a theist, but what contradiction is there with an atheist?
A: Good question. There is a contradiction. Atheists use the argument that there is
nothing other than the brain or the body. If there is, show us? Because the “I” is this
body, when the body dies the “I” dies. Show us how the “I” goes from this life to the
next. The innate “I” doesn’t think that, does it? The “I” that thinks “I want to drink this
water” doesn’t think “The “I” that is nothing other than this body wants to drink this.”
In the intellectually-acquired concept, the difference between the two polarities,
the one that explain that the “I” has an enduring, abiding nature, more than this physical
body, and the one that sees the “I” as nothing but the body, the difference is in this group
there is a strong assertion the “I” that is based on the aggregates and “I” that is dependent
on them, these two are completely separate entities. But the other view sees these two as
one.
I want to look at more this one, thinking that the “I” or self, although it depends
on the aggregates, it is a separate nature. An example is like a boss and servant. Another
analogy is the burden and the person who carries the burden. The “I” and the aggregates
have that relationship. The aggregates are the carrier and the “I” is the object to be
carried. They have a relationship but are totally different entities.
Just think in our day to day life, does that occur in our head? My body, my
feelings, my status, whatever, they serve me. They give me what I want. What is the
relationship with these two? All these aspects of our body/mind aggregates serve to raise
or lower our concept of “I”. If we are physically attractive, we feel “Hmm, I am..” We
even raise our neck higher.
So although we acknowledge that the “I” and the aggregates have a strong
relationship, do we see them as one? Or is it that the “I” is still the boss, separate entities.
We all have that sense that I am the boss and they are my servants. That notion really
contradicts the simple notion of “I” that we generally have with the simple actions of “I
eat, I go” and so on. For that notion of self, Buddhism has a different term: self-sufficient,
substantial reality.
Self-sufficient means although the “I” is dependent on the aggregates it can
survive by itself. It is able to stand by itself. So we might feel we are dependent on our
body and feelings and so on, but still I can survive. And it is substantial, there is some
sense of substance when we think about the “I”.
So the difference with the previous one is, the previous one saw the “I” as
completely separate from the aggregates. The aggregates are impermanent, the “I” is not;
the aggregates are composites, the “I” is not; the aggregates are multiple, the “I” is not.
But here it says, no no no, the “I” depends on the aggregates but it can still survive as a
separate entity.
Saturday session 2
The Problems of Holding the These Two Views of Self
This session I will talk about people who have the notion of “I” that the self is enduring,
abiding, eternal, what difficulties that that kind of notion of selfhood will cause. And the
other group that feels the self is completely the same as the aggregates, what difficulties
will that cause.
There is no doubt that people who hold that view of self as enduring, abiding and
eternal, due to encountering that kind of philosophy from the psychological point of
view, sometimes holding such a view is helpful in that it will help in creating positive
activities. A Christian, or Jew, or Brahmin who feels that the soul is a product of the
creator will feel that he or she must follow the teachings of that religion and so many of
those teachings are rooted in practicing compassion, love, ethics, and so on. Engaging
into that activity based on that view is very helpful.
For example, followers of Brahmanism or Hinduism who believe that self is the
eternal essence of Brahma can engage into very extreme practices, following very
esthetic lifestyles. It is not all the time negative following such views.
On the other hand, atheists who feel that this life is the only life and nothing goes
after, there are lots of good people. So I’m not saying that people who hold such views
are wrong or negative. But the Buddha saw that as long as we hold the view of self as
abiding, enduring and eternal, that creates the room, the possibility to cultivate
attachment. As long as we hold such a view, it creates the room to cultivate attachment.
That is the main reason.
Just think, if we do have some sense that the self is abiding and enduring, then is
there the possibility to want to cling on to that self? And if we have that self-grasping
then all the other forms of attachment can arise and it can be a slow slide downhill into
grosser and grosser attachments. No doubt having such a view gives us lots of
possibilities to create positive things.
It is said that the Buddha was asked sixteen questions which he wouldn’t answer,
not because he couldn’t but because there is the danger to cause big problems. There are
sixteen all of which come into two groups. He was asked does self go to the next life?
Then he started to see that the person who asked the question is thinking of the enduring
self. The Buddha didn’t say anything. If he said yes, the person would think that this
enduring, abiding self goes to the next life and that the Buddha is giving him the chance
to hold onto his self. If the Buddha says no, the self doesn’t go to the next life, then the
person can fall into the other category, the atheist, who thinks that nothing goes to the
next life. And if there’s nothing, then there’s no reason why I can’t do anything in this
life, drink, and so on… I can cheat or hurt, and so on, and if I manage to get away with it
then that’s it. Because of that the Buddha didn’t answer those sixteen questions.
No doubt, holding the self as having an enduring nature, religiously,
psychologically, therapeutically, helps. Therapeutically, it helps. To think of the self as
the essence of a creator that is looking after you does help. The Buddha acknowledges
that, but still for people who really seek full liberation, that’s not right. Complete
liberation from all difficulties you’ll never free, because there is always a little bit to hold
on.
Not only that, ontologically—in reality—the self does not exist in that way.
Holding the view that it has that kind of character—abiding, unitary, blessing from some
superpower, whatever—not only does that give the room to bring attachment, but also in
reality, ontologically, it simply just does not exist in that way. Think about this and these
statements will only make sense if we analyze and more if we only analyze the reality of
my “I”, rather that looking at other peoples’. To see that my “I” doesn’t exist in that
manner. That kind of self is mainly constructed by our mind with the support of those
philosophies.
It is important whether that is true or not related to one’s own experience,
knowledge and everything.
The retort made by philosophers of the ancient Indian non-Buddhist religions is
that by asserting this you are denying the law of cause and effect. How can you explain
the theory of rebirth if there is no abiding, enduring self? The answer to that question is
really important. Dependent arising! You have heard that answer many times.
Up to now we are really dealing with the concept of self mainly from the
Theravada teachings. Selflessness is what is talked about, emptiness is hardly used. In
those sutras the twelve links of dependent origination is the main solution to the question
of needing an abiding enduring self to explain the law of karma. We do not need to hold
that view because we assert the theory of rebirth and we do not need to assert self with
that kind of character to attain liberation. We can still explain it. All these answers are if
we understand the twelve links of dependent origination. If we understand how they
operate the answer is there. What those twelve links are is a long long discussion. In the
sutra called Padimasamupadda the Buddha taught these twelve factors. Within that the
law of causality operates and liberation is possible.
The Twelve Links without an Abiding Self
Some of you who went to His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s teachings last year in Belgium
will remember he used a very nice argument in Nagarjuna’s Root of Wisdom
(Madhyamikamulakarika). There are eight lines almost totally identical, four lines and
four lines in the form of an argument between the different Buddhist philosophical
schools. All schools equally assert that self does not exist separate from the aggregates.
That is common to all schools, but when you ask then how does self exist then there are
differences of opinion. So there are many good arguments about the nature of self. So
these eight lines say [to the lower school] that although you do not assert the self is
separate from the five aggregates but you still assert that self exists inherently, then you
cannot explain how the four noble truths operate. The other school replies if you do not
assert that there is an intrinsic self within the aggregates how can you posit the four noble
truths? (The four noble truths is the condensed version of the twelve links of dependent
origination.) So what they are saying is that to show that the self circles in cyclic
existence using the twelve links you need to show an intrinsic self, one that goes from
one link to the next, and in the same way if you take the twelve links in the reverse order
you need to assert an intrinsic self to show how it goes from the last link to fundamental
ignorance and then to liberation. So this is a big headache! Anyway I shouldn’t go there!
I was too excited!
But really the answer to those questions—and not just to the lower school but to
the Indian non-Buddhists, and to our own questions—the question is if there isn’t a self
that is abiding how does the concept of karma and rebirth work, and who is going to
achieve liberation? The answer is in the twelve links of dependent origination. If you
look at the twelve links of dependent origination in forward order that answers how we
circle in conditioned existence. If you look at them in the reverse order you will see the
opposite. It want out of cyclic existence, therefore first I do not want the twelfth link. If I
stop that then I need to stop the eleventh, and so on. When you reach the first one,
ignorance, and if you stop that, that’s liberation. You don’t need an abiding self.
I don’t know what biologists say, maybe to maintain some kind of stability we
need something solid to hold onto. Whatever the reason we all quite naturally have such
views, which are mainly philosophical views. In order to go from one stage to the next
we need something solid that moves from one to the next, but from the Buddhist point of
view we do not need some substratum to hold those functions. When causes and
conditions are there, they themselves will operate without a solid base. So the answer is
in the twelve links.
If we want to know exactly how karma operates you learn the first [ignorance]
and eighth and ninth links [clinging and craving], then the second [karma] and tenth
[existence]. Look those five you will understand perfectly how karma operates without
needing a solid self that carries them.
The first ignorance, and the eighth and ninth are the afflictions, the ignition key,
and the second and tenth are the karma itself, the function, the activities. That’s karma in
Buddhism. When these five factors are together the result is definite. There is not need
for a holding base.
Then the theory or rebirth, the question is answered with the twelve links. If the
five we looked at (one, eight and nine, and two and ten) are there, then the remaining
seven will be definitely there. What’s in the remaining seven? Birth (11) and aging and
death (12); and consciousness (3), name and form (4), sense bases (5), contact (6), and
feeling (7).
As I started saying yesterday, for the Buddhist concept of selflessness or
emptiness you must try to understand the notion of dependent origination. Emptiness
should not be seen as nothingness. It is very strange, saying emptiness, selflessness, but
to understand that kind of reality we need to approach it from varieties of phenomena
[that do exist].
To understand emptiness or selflessness it is extremely useful to understand it
from the perspective of dependent arising and particularly the twelve links of dependent
origination.
Saturday session 3
Questions and Answers
Are there any questions?
Q: As a Christian there doesn’t seem to be any contradiction between the idea of
the “I” as the doer of actions that changes constantly, and the eternal soul.
A: I think for me, as far as I know, the concept of the soul is not really a big
different from the concept of atman or self in the non-Buddhist Indian schools hold. If
you try to differentiate between the “I” and the concept of soul we need to differentiate
between the two concepts. What is the concept of soul?
Q: I can see the candle flame is changing but the essence, the flameness, is
constant.
A: There you are just playing with the words. That flameness is just a label.
Q: But the process is the same.
A: Maybe we can answer that when we come to the third level of selfhood, as an
intrinsic entity. Until now we have just looked at the first two concepts of selfhood. What
do you mean by that soul?
Q: My eternal nature doesn’t change.
A: If you say the “me” you are really talking about the feeling of me that you
have. The feeling of me and the “I” is different.
Q: (another student) It seems to me that his question can be answered by the
understanding of impermanence. If we understand impermanence then we understand
emptiness.
A: There is no doubt that if we understand impermanence it will help us
understand emptiness. That’s why this twelve links helps us understand that we don’t
need an abiding enduring self to experience karmic consequences and there is a strong
sense of impermanence in that.
Q: I find from a Christian point of view the concept many Christians have of God
is not a creator but as the creative process, so I don’t think the Christian and Buddhist
points of view don’t contradict. God as the creative process comes very close to
emptiness. Soul as sentient beings, the living thing, is also very close.
Q: I see the soul as the buddha nature. It is also impermanent and changing, but
always present.
A: If we interpret these theories, we can always see similarities. Again, I myself
have not have studied Christian theologies, but the little I have understood, the concept of
self does not go with the concept of soul and the creator. Fundamentally there is a
difference, which is that the concept of emptiness lays down that everything is possible
due to dependent origination. The concept of soul or God is fixed. No?
Q: Not necessarily. The concept of God is flexible.
A: Then you need to explain to me the concept of the creator.
Q: I haven’t studied but the word creator can be understood as something
independent that creates
A: No no no, that is not something, that is a misinterpretation. If you believe in a
creator you must believe in a principle creator, unchanging, eternal. Of course, under that
power, everything else is changing, moving. But for the creator itself, nothing moves,
nothing changed, nothing is dependent.
Q: My concepts more are changing
Q: I seem to remember that Father Lawrence once said that there is one section of
theological argument that can equate God with the personification of the creative process,
but there is no argument that he might not be intrinsic. It is always presumed he exists
intrinsically. And still the idea of principle creator is fundamental in Christianity. And
that is not really how most theologists see him, and definitely not how the average
Christian seems him.
Q: I don’t think there is really much agreement between Christian philosophers,
but in Buddhism there is a unity of ideas…
A: No!
Q: There are many different interpretations, which creates more confusion. I think
there is a big gap between science and religion. Maybe many Christians now don’t have
such a concrete idea of God as the principle creator and are more influenced by science.
Maybe that’s why there is a lot of confusion in Christian thinking now and why many
people find Buddhism more comfortable.
A: To a certain extent Brahmanism, the widely flourishing religion during the
Buddha’s time, has a very similar concept as Christianity. Brahma is the creator, but not
in the way that he is involved with the making of every single thing in the universe, but
that the essence of Brahma is there in all things. They also believe in the law of karma
and that is so similar to the ideas of karma that you see in Buddhism. The only difference
is when you discuss who is that person that experiences the karma. In Brahmanism there
is the idea that the Brahma nature pervades the individual. I think there are many other
similarities, and that is why I started yesterday with the non-Buddhist Indian religions to
show how the “non-soul theory” is unique to Buddhism.
Q: I read that the answer to what goes from life to life, the Dalai Lama says the
“I” goes from life to life. I’ve also heard that thinking goes from life to life. The other
aggregates perish but the thinking goes from life to life.
A: I don’t think so! When you say thinking, thinking is heavily dependent on the
brain, isn’t it?
Q: (general discussion – students talk about consciousness and concepts)
A: Concepts is a very gross mental event, very heavily dependent on the brain.
Concepts can’t go from life to life.
Q: It was in a book by Lama Zopa that said thinking goes from life to life.
A: So you are taking refuge in Lama Zopa’s book!
Negation
I think these are really good points to take our discussion further, but before we do that I
want to make a conclusion to how we have talked so far. My conclusion is this.
Selflessness (anatma in Sanskrit) or “non-soul theory” some translators call it. We
have so far we have seen that we think of the self on two levels, on a very innate, natural
level, and when we think about the self we see it as very abiding, durable, permanent
entity. The Buddha said it may help psychologically, therapeutically, but in reality the “I”
doesn’t exist in that manner, and not only that, by holding that is does exist in that way
causes us to increase our attachment and keeps us in cyclic existence.
At that level we can say selflessness, in that the self doesn’t exist like that, as an
eternal, durable nature, permanent nature. So selflessness, it doesn’t exist in that way. We
need to get something from this area. “Oh yes, that is what selflessness means.” We need
to be clear on this because this is the kindergarten notion of selflessness. If we don’t have
the kindergarten concept of selflessness then the university concepts will be very
difficult. That’s why we started from here.
Buddhism doesn’t say the self doesn’t exist, but we have to get something from
this stage and see how the self doesn’t exist in this way and this way and this way. We
need to first see that we do see the self as durable, permanent, eternal, and see that in fact
the self doesn’t exist in that way, it is empty of that kind of self.
I’m going to introduce you to an important term, negation. Quite a strange one.
Negation. The main literature that talks about emptiness use this term a lot. Something to
be negated in order to understand emptiness. So we need to know this.
Now here, in order to understand Buddhist concepts of selflessness at this level
we have to negate something. What do we have to negate? The self as permanent, eternal,
independent from the aggregates. That’s the negation. Don’t be put off by these funny
words! The point is here very much working with our minds. It’s not that we negate by
seeing that something is there outside that we need to throw away. It’s how we perceive
our self. If we perceive our self as having a durable nature, independent from the
aggregates, that should be negated. Negated in seeing that that way of seeing the “I” is
wrong.
This is very important because then we can see that when Buddhism talks about
selflessness it is not talking about the fact that self doesn’t exist. They are talking about
that the self doesn’t exist in a particular manner, in a particular way.
The Innate Sense of Self
Now we will move to the next stage. I asked you to think about how we see the self, and
said generally there are two ways, one very innate and natural and one more intellectually
acquired. Now we are going to look at the first one. The “I” when we say “I go” “I eat” “I
am Buddhist”. It is a very natural and simple way of perceiving the “I”. Is there any
mistake in that notion? First, try to bring within yourself the feeling for the “I” in
something as simple as “I go”.
There is no doubt our consciousness has huge confusion in this process of
identifying what is “I”. I think in the West there are philosophies that the ”I” is the
consciousness and there are quite highly sophisticated Buddhist schools that also assert
that the consciousness is the “I”. So my present argument is not what we philosophically
posit as the “I”. At this stage it is to identify how we perceive the “I”. We’ve already
talked a lot about the second one, now we need to consider the first.
In that manner, without any philosophical input, is there any mistaken notion or
not? Just because it is very natural, simple, innocent, that does not mean it is correct. Lots
of our intuitions are wrong. We intuitively feel that “I” that goes, that eats, but it is not
necessarily right. Do you believe it? I can easily prove it. When I am ill, I intuitively say
“I’m not well” even though it is just my body that is not well. Intuitively I feel it is my
“I” that is not well.
Also we talked a lot about intellectually-acquired notion of “I” but it is not
necessary that all intellectually-acquired things are wrong. There are many correct
notions only acquired through the intellectual process.
My main point is here, really to think the manner of how we naturally perceive
the “I”. In that process, the great Buddhist masters such as Nagarjuna and Aryadeva saw
that even within this very innocent way of perceiving the “I” there is a mistaken element.
What is it?
Q: You see the “I” separate from the aggregates.
A: No! In that perception there is no sense of separation from the aggregates. You
say “I go..”
Q: Well, it’s not you that go!
A: I really want you to go to the debating yard! I want you in Sera or Ganden!
Shave your head!
What they have observed in that very innocent, simple concept of “I” is that there
is the grasping of intrinsic or inherent existence. Although it is not sophisticated or
intellectual, but it is there in the concept of “I go” “I eat” and so on. In that there is
whatever you call it, the feeling or notion of intrinsic or inherent “I”.
Q: When I watch my “I” the “I” tightens a bit so I trained myself to use my name
instead of “I” and it seems a bit looser. It seems by using the “I” it became more fluid.
A: Yes, that seems a good method.
So, how can we see there is an intrinsic notion of “I” when we do these simple
things? It is not easy to detect.
This term, inherent, has many different connotations, but there are two stages. For
example, in our everyday world we say moisture is inherent in water, or heat is an
inherent property of fire. We say that in our everyday language, don’t we? We also say
this is my nature, I always fall asleep in class. But when we say that, or heat is inherent
nature of fire, we are not really talking about that heat does not come into existent
without any causes. Particularly Westerns who know Chemistry know how fire is created
and what happens to molecules when things get hotter. So that is on level of meaning of
the term inherent. But here, when we say “I go” and so on in that process there is an
inherent concept of “I” it is deeper, subtler. It’s the idea that the “I” has some kind of
independent nature. Now, we’ve already used “independent” earlier when we said that
the “I” wasn’t independent from the aggregates, but here the use is slightly different.
When you say “I go” “I eat” is there any concept that the “I” of “I go” is
dependent on the aggregates? Not only is the “I” depend on the body but it is a mere
label, but we don’t think like that. Maybe there is a conscious or unconscious decision
that I want to eat, but there is a difference between the agent doing the action of eating
and the “I” of “I eat”. It’s how that the “I” is perceived, not how the decision is made.
This I causes a huge problem, doesn’t it? In that concept of “I” in “I eat” is there
any manner in which that “I” has some kind of intrinsic entity as an “I”, it stands by
itself? What Nagarjuna and his subsequent students said there is a strong element that that
“I” has some kind of intrinsic nature. That’s what they said! I have no idea!
This is not simple because it involves thinking about a notion that works below
the conscious level.
Q: The “I” is seen as being oneness with the physical act of movement.
A: Yes, but is the “I” seen as nothing more than the process of moving, or does it
seem to stand up on its own?
Q: It seems to me that when I am walking, I am nothing more than walking, but
then I glimpse there is a separate “I” operating, and when I look for it it seems to change
again, so I don’t really know what it is.
A: Yes, you’re right. There are many different degrees of “I” that we hold, some
very gross, some more subtle, some very subtle, some intellectually held, some very
intuitive. Sometimes the concept of “I” really drops, especially in meditation, but that’s
not really the point. The best time to search for the “I” is when it is very strong. I will
give you a very good example. This I feel embarrassed about. When I check in at the
airport I always ask for an aisle seat because I’m frightened to sit next to the window.
While I’m in the aisle seat I can’t see what’s happening and I feel a little bit secure.
That’s completely stupid, isn’t it? It doesn’t matter where you sit, if something happens at
35,000 feet it happens! But at those moments, that might be the time to examine how you
feel the “I”. You might see that the “I”stands up quite independent of the body and mind.
You know, one time I was flying with a small airline in India; it was a really small
plane and extremely old. My friend Steve said, “Oh, Geshe-la, it’s such an old aircraft.” I
didn’t know it was so old, but as soon as he said that, me fear went woosh! And it was
really bad. The two captains had to jump over my seat to get into the cockpit. I gripped
the handle so tightly that after fifteen minutes I realized I had a strong pain in my hand.
So the best time to analyze how we perceive the “I” is at such times, when the “I”
is very threatened.
Q: When I look for the “I” that’s when I see it come up strongly, but I don’t think
it’s there otherwise.
A: In general that is not necessarily the “I” but your notion of the “I”. It’s like
people who start meditating, after two or three weeks they start to see lots of rubbish in
their heads. But that’s not lots of rubbish newly created by the meditation, it’s always
there, it’s just that they are starting to observe it now. This might be similar. Not that the
“I” is getting stronger but your notion of “I” is getting clearer.
Now this “I” we are now talking about is much subtler than the earlier notions of
“I”. It is not that easy to point it out. We can only really understand it if we explore our
concepts of “I”. The people who have a very good understanding of impermanence, of
dependent arising, that the “I” depends on the five aggregates, even those people can
have this notion of “I”.
All Buddhist philosophical schools say the “I” depends on or is based on the five
aggregates, so we need to look at how the “I” is dependent on the aggregates. This
subtlest notion the “I” is labeled on the aggregates, and not just labeled but merely
labeled. Does it help to counteract the simple notion of “I” to see that in that notion there
is a concept of inherent “I” to say that the “I” depends on the aggregates in that it is in the
manner of a mere label?
I warned you this morning, didn’t I? Ping ping ping! Emptiness Emptiness
Emptiness! I’ll repeat again. This simple notion of “I” saying “I go” “I eat” even in that
notion there is a mistaken element in that in that concept of “I” there is an inherent or
intrinsic nature. To counteract that, does this help? The “I” depends on the aggregates in
the manner of a mere label. We can also say mere name, mere imputation. Can you see
any contradiction between the “I” that exists intrinsically and the “I” that exists as a mere
label upon the aggregates? If not, I have nothing to do now!
Play with those two terms and see if there is any contradiction. We’ll leave this
point now and return to it tomorrow.
The Buddhist Philosophical Schools
I’d like now to look at the different philosophical schools. There are different schools of
thought within in Buddhism. They haven’t come into existence because of differences in
practicing love, compassion, those things, but mainly because they have different views,
particularly on reality.
There are four different school, the first two are called Vaibhasika, Great
Exposition school, and Svatantrika, Sutra school. Vaibhasika school is the earliest school.
It is so called because it follows a particular text called Great Exposition. In terms of the
view of this school, they don’t use emptiness, but selflessness, but compared to the later
schools it is very gross. It is the self that is empty of permanent, unitary, and indivisible
nature. So the Vaibhasika school’s idea of selflessness is no more than this. They never
use the term emptiness, only anatma, selflessness.
The second school is Svatantrika because it followed a particular sutra. Their
concept of selflessness is a little subtler. They see the self as empty of not just permanent,
unitary, and indivisible nature, but also absent of substantial, self-sufficient reality. Again
they don’t talk about emptiness, just selflessness.
You might not have any interest in this, but it will really help you tie things up in
the future when you read books. So far, my loose talk has just gone everywhere, now I
want to tidy it up a bit.
The third school is called Chittamatra, or Mind Only school. It’s a little bit
complicated because we haven’t touched on their views at all yet. We jumped from the
lower to the higher.
We have to draw some attention at this stage… the first two schools not only
don’t use the term emptiness, but also that concept of self or selflessness is only applied
to the agent, the “I” and not to other phenomena. That’s important. From the third and
fourth schools, then the term emptiness is used and also selflessness not only refers to the
agent but also to every single phenomenon. The process is this. First try to understand the
real nature of self, then move to the real nature of phenomena, which is anything other
than self.
The Mind Only school’s view of emptiness (and from here on I was use the term
emptiness) is quite different from the other three schools, the two lower and the higher
school. Their presentation is really quite different. It is called Mind Only because this
school asserts that there is no external phenomenon that is not the nature of the mind. Or
we can say like this. There is no external phenomenon that is not the same entity as the
mind, in the same way as ice and water are the same entity. External phenomena and the
internal mental consciousness perceiving them are one entity in the sense of one entity
appears as two natures, one as the external thing and one as the mind observing it. In
other words, there is no independent external phenomena independent from the mind.
Their view on emptiness is this. Because there is no external phenomenon
independent from the mind, so for them emptiness is that the observer and that which is
observed are absent (or empty) of different entity. In other words, for them empty of
what? Observer and observer are absent of different entity. I’ll repeat. Empty or what?
The observer (the consciousness) and observed (the external object) are absent of having
a different nature.
The fourth school is Madhyamaka or Middle Way school, although all the schools
claim to be middle way schools. Nobody claims “we are extreme”! But somehow the last
one is called the Middle Way school. It has an internal division I won’t go into now. In
that school, for masters such as Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita, and Chandrakirti, emptiness is
empty of inherent or intrinsic reality.
We all have different mental dispositions. There is a Tibetan story. There is a
mother with two children with completely different dispositions, one who always wants
to eat and another who has no appetite. Whatever the mother says, “Eat” or “Don’t eat”
one always hears “Eat” and the other always hears “Don’t eat.” It’s interpreted according
to their needs and dispositions. So the Buddha taught according to the sentient beings
dispositions, not the reality, so of course there are lots of arguments.
Sunday 28 January session 1
recap and motivation not transcribed
The Mere “I”
We need to talk a little more about the second manner of how the self is perceived. We
need to really again observe how we perceive our self, our “I”, our sense of identity, in a
very nature manner, without any philosophical input. When we say “I go” “I eat” etc is
there any sense of grasping? That the “I” can stand up by itself without the support of the
aggregates? We need to go into our experience to see this?
So I would like you to consider for a few minutes. Take a simple statement like “I
go”, “I eat”, “I am a Buddhist” and observe it so see if the “I” is seems to stand on its
own without being dependent on the aggregates.
Students meditate
For me it’s completely blank! Many great masters have said that until we have a
realization of emptiness, no matter how innocent that mind is, we cannot differentiate that
innocent “I” from the “I” with an intrinsic nature. When you say “I go” how we perceive
that “I” there are two things existing. One is the “I” that we create, that exits inherently,
and the one that naturally exists. We cannot differentiate between them until we have
realized emptiness. Once we have realized emptiness we will see that the “I” appears to
have intrinsic manner, but in fact it doesn’t. That is where you see the term in the texts
“like an illusion”.
When adults see a magician performing magic, they see certain things, but they
know that isn’t true. This will never happen until we realize emptiness. We will never see
the real existence of “I”, we will always see it as having intrinsic nature.
What I’m trying to do is to get you to feel if there is any difference between the
way you feel the “I” of “I go” and the way it exists. Without any philosophical input, our
innate sense of what “I” is even at its most innocent has this intrinsic nature.
When we perceive the real existence of “I” is after we realize emptiness. How we
will see it at that moment, we will understand the “I” of “I go” it will appear as having an
inherent nature, but we will know that it doesn’t exist in that manner.
When we say intrinsic or inherent nature how do we perceive that? Again, if you
try to connect your sense of “I” with your body, feeling—whatever is here as the
aggregates—and how that “I” relates to those aggregates, how dependent is it upon those
aggregates? To understand what we mean by intrinsic, we need to relate how much the
“I” and aggregates fit together. Is it 100% dependent on the aggregates, or 80% or
whatever? This is what we need to examine, and how we examine it is to see how much
the “I” depends on the aggregates. Maybe it is heavily dependent, but still it can stand up
by itself, or is it utterly dependent on them? If we get to the point where we feel that the
“I” is totally dependent on the aggregates, then how is it dependent on them?
“Dependent” has many different levels. For instance, for this clock and vase [on
the table in front of me] to stay at this height, it depends on the table. For this flower to
grow depends on soil, moisture etc. There is that kind of dependency, causal dependency.
Some dependencies are not causal, but mutual. If we say the existence of “I depends on
the aggregates”, in which manner is this? We really need to examine this.
Nagarjuna and some of his followers have said that the “I” depends on the
aggregates in the manner of designation and basis of designation. To use other terms,
imputation and basis of imputation, label and basis of label. As I warned earlier, there
will be lots of alien terms, and now they are coming!
This object in front of me is called a table in English. I don’t know what it is
called in German. In French, la table! That table is the designation, the label, the
imputation. The object itself, the legs, the top etc put together is the basis of that
designation, or imputation, or label, whatever. Nagarjuna and some of his followers have
said the manner of the dependency between the “I” and the aggregates is that the “I” is
the designation and the aggregates are the basis of designation. The “I” is designated on
the five aggregates.
That manner of dependency is very important to understand. Very often in
Mahayana Buddhism we use the term “mere I”. It is said “mere I”, because it is merely
labeled on the aggregates. The real existence of “I” is as being merely labeled or
designated on the five aggregates.
We need to compare these two, what the great masters have said—that the “I” is
merely designated on the base of designation, the five aggregates—and how we perceive
the “I” in day to day life when we say “I go” and so on.
What’s happening is, as I asked you to do, to try to understand without any
philosophical input, that understanding is extremely important, because that perception
needs to be negated, to be eliminated, and to do that we need to identify it. It is like
searching for a burglar in a town we need at least an e-fit picture from a police artist. We
need that at least. It’s the same process here. In order to understand that the “I” doesn’t
exist intrinsically, we need to identify just how it would exist if it did exist intrinsically.
First really, very gently, try to see how we perceive the “I” at its simplest, most
innocent level, without any philosophical overlay. The great masters have said we will
definitely perceive that “I” as existing intrinsically. Unless we have already realized
emptiness in which case that’s a bonus and we don’t need to do all this! Otherwise,
guaranteed we will see it this way. So we need to look at its appearance and how it really
exists according to those great masters.
I find it’s quite helpful to do this. Although both are quite elusive at this time, still
we have two things. On one hand, the way the “I” appears to us, in an intrinsic manner.
We perceive the “I” a thousand times a day, so we need to practice observing how it
appears to us. We need to see that it does appear in an intrinsic manner. On the other
hand, those great masters have said it actually exists as a mere label on the aggregates. So
we need to compare those two.
The Emptiness of Phenomena
I think that’s enough talk about “I”! Now we will talk a little bit about the other
phenomena, which is also important. Although it is said that what is important for the
practitioner is the “I”, even though they might have many other important things, like
their possession, their guru and so forth. The great masters have said that when the
practitioners start to truly search for the reality of all phenomena, the primary concern is
the “I”, all other things are secondary.
Like for example, you are going somewhere and you are given the choice of one
object only out of ten that you take that you will never find in that place. Of course you
choose the most important thing. It is the same for the practitioner searching for the
reality of things and events, the first thing will be the “I” because for a practitioner that is
the key to being free from cyclic existence. So although there are two kinds of emptiness
to be realized, first is the emptiness of “I”, and then the emptiness of other phenomena.
So that’s why this last one and a half days it’s been “I” “I” “I”!!
The emptiness of phenomena is very simple and straightforward if we understand
the emptiness of “I”. When we talk about others or phenomena, it refers to anything other
than our “I”. It includes our body, our feeling, whatever, and all other phenomena in the
universe. To understand it we use the same argument that we have applied to search for
the true nature of the “I”.
How do we perceive our body in day to day life? We perceive it as having
intrinsic nature, not as being a mere label, a mere designation. It appears as having some
kind of entity independent of other things. And if we extend that to other things we see
exactly the same thing. And so we use exactly the same argument we use for the “I”.
Just think. I said earlier, I quoted from those great masters. The “I” is designated
on the aggregates. Now from the five aggregates, take the form aggregate. Form is
designated on the basis of designation, on this, the body. One by one, the basis of
designation of the “I”, the five aggregates, they also are designated on their basis of
designation.
Sunday session 2
We were talking about how to apply the same notion of out true nature of our “I” is as
mere label on our aggregates, it does not exist inherently or intrinsically as it appears to
us in our everyday lives. Not only that it does not exist in that manner, we grasp onto it as
if it does exist in that manner. That is not true. That is false, it is a wrong concept. The “I”
does not at all exist in that manner. That is our misconception, the wrong grasping. That
causes us to experience all sorts of difficulties because that misapprehension is the cause
of whatever attachment and aversion that arises in our mindstreams.
We have to apply the same process to the external objects, external meaning
anything other than our “I”, our body, feelings, our possessions, our environment, our
planet, which appear to us as having an inherent nature. They not only appear to us like
that but we follow that appearance. We believe that to be the true nature of all existence,
but if we examine it we will see that it does not have that nature. Wrongly perceiving it to
have intrinsic nature, we grasp at it as if it does, so in exactly the same way as we mistake
the true nature of the I” we mistake the true nature of all other things and events.
Using the same argument, we can come to see that all things and events are
merely designated on the basis. Apart from the basis of designation there is nothing that
stands up on its own as a body, as a feeling, as a belief, as a spiritual path, as a guru, as a
deity. All those things, from the simplest thing such as our breakfast cereal to the most
important thing for the practitioner such as the guru, all those things and events are
merely labeled on their own basis. Besides that basis of designation nothing stands us on
its own that we have designation.
Then, in other words, whether we say the emptiness of self or the emptiness of
other phenomena, the emptiness, what is absent is the same, the absence of intrinsic
existence. It’s just that one is applied to the self and the other to other existence—our
body, feelings, possessions, or whatever other phenomenon.
Calm Abiding and Special Insight
How sure are those great masters that nothing exists from its own side? That is the
argument, isn’t it? To understand this, Lama Tsongkhapa’s the third book in the English
translation of the Lamrim Chenmo shows you how important it is to have insight, which
here refers to vipassana. Because what we need here as an instrument to examine whether
there is an “I” that exists within these five aggregates, and that instrument is vipassana.
Although without proper insight we will reach a good understanding of emptiness, but to
go beyond that understanding we need insight.
What is vipassana? As a general manner of meditation it is analytical meditation,
a way of examining, investigating. What to analyze is important. For example, we can
analyze impermanence, suffering and so on, and for the Buddhist practitioner these are all
very important types of analysis. But out of all those different types of vipassana, the
most important one is the vipassana that analyzes the true nature of self and the true
nature of all things and events. Within many different jewels, such as pearls, rubies and
so on, the one that stands out from all the others is the diamond. Although I myself don’t
know why this is, that is what is said! Just as the diamond stands out from all the other
jewels, the vipassana meditation on the true, ultimate nature of “I” or self stands out from
all others. It is the best, the most powerful.
Because of that strong emphasis, whenever the Tibetan masters talk about
vipassana, they straight away talk on emptiness. How to analyze is one thing important to
know. After Nagarjuna and particularly after the great Indian logic master, Dharmakirti,
the Buddhist way of analyzing changed dramatically, because of the introduction of logic
by Dharmakirti. For all the great masters after him, the way of analyzing is very much in
the form of logic. That’s why it’s quite helpful to learn the proper Buddhist way of logic,
because that is how this is presented in most texts.
There is the subject, the predicate, and the reason. This is how it works.
Particularly for people wanting to read Lama Tsongkhapa’s texts, when you read you will
see how argument is generally presented. In examining, it is important to know the
manner of analysis so if you follow some sort of logical statement then the analysis will
be very straightforward. This means this means this means this. It cannot fall into wishywashy analysis. Otherwise we may think we are analyzing but we are actually taking
different ideas from different sources and it just ends up discursive namdo. “Oh it can be
this, it can be this, it can be there, it can be here” and in the end we don’t know what it is.
It can be fine! We can analyze the breath, “it’s going, it’s coming, it’s a little bit shorter,
it’s a little bit longer.” That’s fine! But when we do something more complex, when we
start to search for something like the true nature of “I”, we need some kind of procedure,
then the analysis will be powerful and we will reach a conclusion.
Take for example the statement we see quite often: “I” (subject) is absent of
inherent existent (predicate) because it is a dependent arising (reason). Now your mind
has to really stick with this. “I” is the subject we are analyzing, is absent of inherent
existent, which is the predicate, the thing we are going to learn, because—here’s the
reason—it is dependent arising.
Bring this reason here. If it is a dependent arising it must be absent of inherent
existence. In the language of logic that is “pervasive”. Pervasive means, if it is dependent
arising whatever it is, big, small, valuable, worthless, it must be—it must be—empty of
inherent existence. There is nothing that is a dependent arising and not empty of inherent
existence. Being one means the other. It is pervasive.
Your mind is set on this. But you have to search. Is there anything that is a
dependent arising that is not absent of inherent existence? If there isn’t, then you have to
think about how about my “I”? That is the main subject. There are some other
procedures, but here is the main structure of Buddhist logic.
Therefore, what I’m saying here, the goal is to understand that “I” is merely
labeled on the aggregates. Why? Because there is nothing within the “I” that can stand up
on is own. Do we need to search in here, the body? The search engine is vipassana.
Within the many types of vipassana, here we are searching the true nature of “I”.
What that will do, when we search with our insight on these five aggregates, is
there anything that can stand up by itself as an “I”? One of the aggregates, or all of them
or a bit of one of them? Is there anything? The great masters have found that there is
nothing as an “I” that can stand up on its own. Although the “I” is designated or labeled
on the five aggregates, does it really exist as some kind of intrinsic entity within these
five aggregates? If we search we are never going to find it.
That is the sign that this “I” doesn’t exist other than as a mere designation on the
aggregates. If it did it must be found by that search engine, that vipassana analysis.
Therefore it is said to be “empty”. Think about it.
Here, maybe I need to make it clear. In our everyday life the “I” or the self
appears intrinsically from within the aggregates. And not just appear, but from that we
grasp onto it. That part is we normally in our everyday life, I grasp, I apprehend, I
perceive that the “I” has an intrinsic nature in that it can stand up from the aggregates on
its own. Does it really exist in that manner? The great masters say no because the “I” is
merely labelled. For ourselves to be convinced, we need vipassana, a vipassana that
examines these five aggregates, and when we examine we will not find the “I” that exist
like this at all. That is the manner of realizing “emptiness”. Empty of what? Empty of
intrinsically existing “I”.
The Criteria for the Base of Designation
Q: How do you know this analyzing is not an illusion.
A: Everything is an illusion when it comes to emptiness. I think you are right.
When you say “illusion” it has many different connotations. If you say “How can you
know it is not mistaken?” That I can answer. For example, on this table this eye
consciousness sees this is a flower. How can we know this eye consciousness is not
mistaken? It is not mistaken because there is not any other valid consciousness that can
contradict it. Even the Buddha’s mind cannot contradict what my eye can see. I’m not
saying the full picture, but my eye seeing the flower. That is the logic.
in one of the Lama Tsongkhapa’s great texts, the commentary on Chandrakirti’s
Entering into Madhyamaka he taught a particular procedure for realizing emptiness. First
it is extremely important to be clear about what is to be negated. Emptiness. Empty of
what? There are some other subdivisions in his text I will not go into. That’s why we
have been spending time looking at how we perceive the “I”. After that I said many great
masters all said for ordinary people—those who haven’t realized emptiness—they
perceive “I” as inherently existent. So the first step is to identify the object of negation.
In our everyday life it makes sense. As I made the example, to stop a particular
burglar, we need to identify him, otherwise we might have to stop every single person
coming into our room and that might be a big loss. Someone might be an amazing person
for us. So this is the same, before we stop this wrong sense of “I” we have to know what
it is we need to stop. So that is why Lama Tsongkhapa emphasizes the importance of
identifying the object of negation. That is really for us, for people who really want to
know the true nature of “I”. Words you have heard, books you have read, are not enough
at all. Even if Lama Tsongkhapa or Nagrajuna themselves were to sit in front of you and
explain it, that is not enough. You must experience it for yourself. As I said yesterday
even if the words ping pong again and again, it won’t go into your mind. You must think.
Q: Even if this is we both recognize this is a flower, how can we know this is the
correct base of designation for a flower?
A: My dad says no! This is not a basis of flower for my father. We share a
common language but not my father. If you said to my father “Is this the basis of
designation of a flower?” he would say “What?!?” We need some kind of common
acceptance, which we haven’t gone into today. This is a big debate. Lama Tsongkhapa
clearly said in order to fit this particular object is the basis of designation of a flower it
needs to fit certain criteria, but other Tibetan masters say he is going too far. Can we
designate this flower “cup”? I don’t know.
Q: We can, if everyone agrees. If the Tibetan for flower is “cup” then that would
be right for Tibetans.
A: Tibetan flower is not flower!
Q: I mean your father would agree it is a cup using the Tibetan word, because it is
something you can drink from. A fly wouldn’t use it like this. My conclusion is we agree
we have the same thing appearing for us, whether we call it “cup” or the Tibetan for cup.
We have the same recognition of the base.
A: Not necessarily.
Q: But we still see the function of it. I’m not sure whether you see the same thing
as me..
A: That’s exactly it!!!
Q: We can both see it is a cup, so we can agree on that.
A: That is a common culturally-accepted thing. It has nothing to do with the
object from the object’s side. Culture binds us into this way of thinking.
This is a big debate. For example, we said the “I” is merely labeled on the five
aggregates. But in order to qualify those five aggregates are the basis of designation of
“I” do the five aggregates a particular qualification or not? Can we designate the “I” on
this cup? Lama Tsongkhapa says it needs qualification, but other masters have said no,
because if you require some criteria in order to designate then you are giving the basis of
designation some identity from its own side. From the object its own side there must be
something.
Q: But it’s only of parts come together in a certain way. If we have skin and bones
and they come together we call it a body.
A: I agree, but the point here is really people who say it doesn’t need any
qualification from the side of the basis of designation, then the problem arises, why can’t
we put any label on any base?
Q: It’s purely learned. I learned that this is a flower and not a cup, that’s all.
A: So we can designate any way we want. This cup can function as a flower?
Q: No.
A: So it’s not purely learned? If we designate such a thing as a flower, does it
have to function as a flower? If not, we are getting really crazy! If we say it needs to
function as a flower, then the basis of designation needs some kind of qualification. It’s
not just something you learn.
Sunday session 3
Just before lunch we were talking about what the most powerful tool is to find the reality
of whether the “I” and external things really exist as they appear to our everyday
perception. And not only appear but grasp that it has some kind of intrinsic existence. Or
whether it is as the great masters have said, that it is merely labeled on the aggregates.
So we need to see these two seeming contradictions very clearly: one is our
grasping our apprehension that the “I” exists inherently on this body, with a findable
nature, the other is that it doesn’t exist in this way, but only as a mere designation on
those aggregates. The most powerful tool to see this is vipassana, insight. There are other
tools that will help get us there, but of we are searching for complete cessation of
suffering we need vipassana.
Out of six perfections, when people make the bodhisattva vows, based on the
mind of enlightenment, they commit to engage not in just an aspirational level, but
actually engage into the bodhisattva’s activities. These deeds or activities are condensed
by the great masters into the six perfections: the perfection of generosity, the perfection
of patience, the perfection of morality, the perfection of joyous perseverance, the
perfection of concentration, and the perfection of wisdom. So when Lama Tsongkhapa
taught those six perfections he particularly focused on the last two. He elaborated it in his
amazing teachings of the Lamrim Chenmo. In English it is the entire last book of the
three.
There he takes several chapters to explains it in great detail how to cultivate
shamatha, calm abiding, and he says that calm abiding and special insight completely
capture all the bodhisattva’s needs to develop concentration. If we have these two, all the
other types of concentration will follow. My main point is this, because we have already
said that vipassana is the tool. In that text he says we cannot develop pure vipassana
without shamatha. Of course we can develop some analytical tools without it, but we
really need shamatha to take us all the way. Therefore people who seek vipassana, that
kind of tool, have to cultivate shamatha. I thought that is quite important to know,
because there are teachings that say we can cultivate vipassana without shamatha, but
Lama Tsonghkhapa says no. So if we are searching for a tool, that is the process.
Emptiness in Vajrayana
So far our main discussion we first touched with “I” and then briefly extended that to
include all other phenomena, saying we can use the same procedure. As you know there
is another level teaching where the notion of emptiness is applied to the mind. This same
argument we used for “I” and other phenomena, we can use for the mind. That is
particularly from the Gelug tradition we talk about buddha nature.
So in other words, do the same analysis to find the true nature of our mind,
particularly our subtle mind, the mind that has continuation from life to life. So we apply
the same analysis. In terms of continuation it goes from life to life, but does it have any
intrinsic entity? Does it have any inherent nature? So do the same analysis.
This kind of teaching comes into the sutras in the third turning of the wheel of
Dharma, particularly The Sutra Thoroughly Unraveling the Thought. The sutras
belonging to the first turning, such as those on selflessness, are common to Theravada
and Mahayana. Sutras belonging to the second turning, mainly the Prajnaparamita
sutras, the majority of the sutras, the explicit teachings are on emptiness of self and
others, and are to do with the Mahayana tradition. Sutras belonging to the third turning of
the wheel of Dharma have a particular way of presenting emptiness, and quite often His
Holiness the Dalai Lama says if we thoroughly learn vajrayana practice, particularly in
the sense of dealing with subtle minds, he says these can by found in the third turning.
They mainly deal with emptiness in connection with the mind and particularly the subtle
mind, as opposed to emptiness of self and other in the second turning.
Now I would like to move on a little. As I said Friday evening, the emptiness as
the term quite used in the vajrayana practice, particularly in Highest Yoga Tantra. It is
quite useful.
There is a statement.
In the sutrayana teachings the final mode of existence of the object is revealed, but
the final mode of existence of the subject [the mind] remains hidden.
(not exact quote)
Therefore the vajrayana teachings reveal the final mode of existence of the mind.
We need some clarification about what this means. Is there some contradiction here? I
have just said that the emptiness of the mind is explained in the third turning of the wheel
of Dharma so it seems the final mode of existence of the mind is revealed in the
sutrayana teachings, and yet here it is saying that it is not. Here we have to interpret the
term “final mode of existence of the mind” differently. Here “final mode” does not refer
to emptiness, but to the most subtle mind, rather than emptiness, and that is not revealed
in sutrayana teachings. So while they explain the emptiness of mind they don’t go into
the levels of mind in the way that the vajrayana teachings do and so don’t explain the
most subtle level of mind, which of course is very important in Highest Yoga Tantra.
No matter how advanced the vajrayana teachings are, there is nothing they can
reveal about emptiness that is not explained in the sutrayana teachings. What they can
reveal which is not in the sutrayana is the most subtle mind.
In terms of emptiness, empty of inherent existence, there is nothing the vajrayana
teaching can explain that is not explained in the sutrayana, but what is not taught in
sutrayana is the mind’s most subtle mode of existence.
In the vajrayana teaching we come across the term “the four empties”. These
“empties” do not refer to empty of inherent existence, but being empty of different types
of mind. That teaching is unique to vajrayana. Those four empties will naturally occur in
the death process or we can make it happen in meditation while we are alive.
The four empties are:
 empty
 great empty
 extreme empty and
 all empty
What these four empties are empty of is empty of or free from the grosser levels of
mind. Our gross minds during the death process naturally stop their function. As each
group of gross minds stops we will experience a particular empty. So the death process is
like that. A group of gross minds stop functioning we will experience, for example,
“empty”, and then another group of gross minds stops, and we experience “great empty”
and so on. That is a real experience. Loosing those gross consciousnesses leaves us with a
sense that something is gone, something is empty, so that is where the name comes from.
When due to stopping or dissolving—the usual term—all the different types of
gross minds, when the mind reaches its pure nature, there is no conceptualization, and not
only that, but all other types of mind stop, that is the clear light, which here is called “all
empty”.
But that “empty” is not the same as the empty we are talking about, empty of
inherent existence, but empty of all the gross minds. And when all gross minds have
dissolved and we reach clear light, that is the final mode of existence of the mind, which
is taught in vajrayana but not sutrayana.
In other words, in vajrayana teachings there are stages to generate emptiness that
are exactly the same as the sutrayana. For example, if you are going to visualize yourself
as the deity you have to meditate on emptiness then generate yourself as the deity,
otherwise you cannot do it with this physical body. In that context the emptiness is
exactly as taught in sutrayana, no grosser, no subtler. But there are stages in the
vajrayana, you will be practicing the four empties, and they are not related to the
emptiness of the sutrayana teachings, but absence of gross minds.
That is something we started on Friday. We have covered emptiness in Theravada
sutras, in Mahayana sutras, and in vajrayana sutras.
Ultimate and Conventional Truth
I want to conclude with what we talked about in my last visit, the two truths. From the
Mahayana explanation, emptiness and ultimate truth are one, synonyms. There is no
difference, whether you use emptiness or ultimate truth. That means as you read this
morning the Heart Sutra “Form is empty, emptiness is form. Form is not other than
emptiness, likewise emptiness is not other than form. Likewise feeling, discrimination”
and so on. Lastly, “no cessation, no attainment.” So we need to apply that from our body
to our attainment.
“Form is empty” or “emptiness”. In Tibetan the words are not completely the
same, but I think the English is interchangeable. From the angle of the words there might
be some semantic argument, but I think the meaning is there no matter which word is
used. What it is saying is that our form/body is absent of true existence, and that the
form/body that is absent of inherent existence is the form/body. There is nothing we can
posit as form different from this form/body that is absent of inherent existence. I’ll repeat.
“Form is emptiness” means our form/body is empty of inherent existence. “Emptiness is
form” means that emptiness and the form that is absent of inherent existence is form.
There is nothing different we can posit as form. So it apples to all other things.
If we move that statement to “I”, “I” is emptiness, emptiness is “I”. We have
discussed this all this weekend. That goes with the two truths. The conventional truth of
“I” is empty of inherent existence, and the conventional truth of “I” that is empty of
inherent existence itself is the “I”. There is nothing we can posit as different from itself.
Anyway, read that! Just try to apply that.
My main point is of the two truths, my conventional truth nature of my “I” is my
mere “I” itself, my ultimate truth of my “I” is my mere “I” that is absent of inherent
existence. These two cannot be posited separately. I cannot posit the conventional truth of
“I” without my ultimate truth of “I”, and I cannot posit the ultimate truth of “I” without
my conventional truth of “I”. So I’ll leave this with this really nice statement: The two
truths are one entity but different isolates. I won’t interpret anything! But you need to
remember this. I’ll repeat. Two truths are one entity but different isolates.
Questions and Answers
Are there any questions?
Q: The four empties, do these tie up with white, red, and black vision and clear
light?
A: Exactly! You are on the spot now.
Q: On one hand this can be experienced in meditation, but on the other hand the
Dzogchen tradition says this clear light can be experienced right now in relation with
regular objects. How do these two explanations go together?
A: They are not saying everybody can experience this now, but people who have
trained in meditation can do that, so I don’t think there’s any contradiction. I don’t think
the Dzogchen masters are saying that I can do that. I can’t! But what they are saying is
that people who train their minds can experience that everywhere. In a certain extent it is
the same as from the Gelugpa’s point of view, which says that when a person trains in
Highest Yoga Tantra, particularly when they reach the completion stage, they can do that
death process meditation exactly as it occurs in death. That person can see clear light
everywhere.
Q: What is your recommendation for busy Westerners to cultivate shamatha in
everyday life?
A: From Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings it seems it is very clear that to cultivate
shamatha we have to dedicate certain time just for that. At one time he says if we come
and go in that meditation eventually we will learn a very bad habit and that will stop us
generating real shamatha in this lifetime. So, I don’t know, I have no answer for
Westerners with a busy life. Very cruelly, I can say the Tibetan expression: You cannot
play the flute with your mouth full of food. If you want to play the flute, stop eating, and
if you want to eat, don’t think about playing the flute. This is a very cruel answer!
People who want comfort and all samsaric things and also want this too. It’s just
not possible.
Q: So you are saying it’s impossible for us to slowly work towards developing
shamatha while we live a normal Western life?
A: I’m saying what Lama Tsongkhapa is saying: it’s better to dedicate some time
just for that. Go some place where there are favorable conditions. No doubt spending
some time on a daily basis to develop some meditation practice will bring some calmness
and clarity, but shamatha is not just calmness and clarity. What Lama Tsongkhapa says in
that text is intense clarity and stability, but that is still not full shamatha. To achieve full
shamatha you need to go a little bit further, you need pliancy, and more. Out of pliancy,
pliancy has two, body and mental pliancy. The practitioner first needs to develop mental
pliancy and that will bring body pliancy. When body pliancy is cultivated it will produce
a sense of physical bliss and that will ignite mental bliss. When the practitioner
experiences mental bliss, then it is said full shamatha is achieved.
So that is the process. First develop intense clarity and stability, then mental
pliancy, then body pliancy. That will produce a sense of physical bliss that will ignite a
sense of mental bliss. Then you have full shamatha. That is the process, so it is said that
even if the practitioner has intense clarity and stability but not pliancy, it is only
approximate shamatha.
In trying to cultivate shamatha we have to be careful of going into retreats again
and again and trying to develop shamatha but not achieving it. Lama Tsongkhapa says
you learn bad habits.
Q: Can you say something about on the daily basis if we still try to do some effort
is that still preparation for shamatha.
A: I think that is good to do, but in terms of preparation for shamatha, Lama
Tsongkhapa says there are six things to do. Out of six, the most powerful preparation is
reduce desire for desire realm objects. That is the main obstacle to distract our mind, not
to get stability or the clarity. In shamatha what we are trying to do is leave the desire
realm mind and move to the form realm mind. Shamatha is nothing unique for Buddhism
as I said on Friday evening. Non-Buddhist masters develop perfect shamatha.
Q: Does that mean you can’t practice vajrayana which needs shamatha?
A: People who seriously have a vajrayana practice may not need a separate
shamatha practice, because the visualization of the deity is the shamatha practice itself, if
we do it perfectly and correctly. And meditation on the deity can be the vipassana, but not
in connection with emptiness but with details and subtleties of the deities when you
analyze. So they say with vajrayana these two don’t need a sequence, but in sutrayana
definitely you have to first cultivate shamatha then vipassana.
Q: If you are a beginner, how can you decide which direction to go in? Do you
need the advice of a teacher?
A: Come to me with a khatag and ask me to do a mo! (laughs) I think it is really,
that’s why the sequence is very clear for us. First listen, then contemplate, then meditate.
So with listening, that’s collecting all the information and with the information it will
become clear where to go first, and then you have to decide, you! There might be times,
when you are in retreat, and you need particular advice about a particular situation, then
you can ask a teacher or someone who knows. But really it’s mostly up to you. You
shouldn’t ask a teacher, “Can I meditate on the four noble truths or not?” You can’t! That
is clear, you should!
Q: For me, I’m not sure whether I should go in the vajrayana direction.
A: If you take vajrayana practices seriously you don’t need a specific separate
shamatha practice. If you do it properly your vajrayana daily practice can be your
shamatha practice, your vipasanna practice, your meditation on emptiness, you
meditation on compassion. Everything. You don’t need some specific. If you do that your
list will be huge! You can do it all in one. That’s why you should first cultivate wisdom
through listening, then you will learn what to do, how to do it, the sequence and so forth.
Q: Can you say something about buddha nature and emptiness.
A: This teachings on buddha nature from the teachings I follow in the Gelug
tradition, it says buddha nature is our subtle mind that is empty of inherent existence, not
more, not less. That means our subtle mind empty of inherent existence is our buddha
nature. If we look at it in more detail it makes sense. Because our subtle mind is not
static, not inherent, then it gives us all the possibilities. If it were static and inherent then
we lose all the possibilities, including achieving buddhahood.
So emptiness really opens all the possibilities, including achieving enlightenment.
So let’s stop here.