Continuation of Part 1 – The Selflessness of the Individual
by Khenpo Tashi
Now, we have finished a very succinct explanation on the ‘selflessness of the individual’. In short, if not investigated, the ‘I am’ looks real when our mind looks at the five aggregates. In addition, that mind clings to that ‘I am’.
During investigation, the ‘I am’ is not real, only imaginary. The ‘I am’ is like the snake that we see when a colored rope is there. Our mind imagines something more from the bundle of colored rope – the snake.
Mipham Rinpoche is going to discuss the Selflessness of the Phenomena now.
The text:
All conditioned and unconditioned things other than the “I” or the self are “phenomena”. As long as we don’t subject our naive assumptions to investigation, we believe that these phenomena exist. Yet if we do examine them using logical reasoning, such as the argument of “neither one nor many”, we come to understand that no entity, whether coarse or subtle, can be said to be real. And that understanding of how things lack any basis or origin is what we call the realization of the ‘selflessness of phenomena’.
Anything apart from the ‘I’ is called phenomena. ‘Conditioned things’ and ‘unconditioned things’ are the two subsets of phenomena, but we will not discuss that here now. Just know that anything beyond the ‘five aggregates’ are called phenomena.
‘Naive assumption‘ – Another way of saying this is, when someone stole something, he is a thief. But, when he goes anywhere afterwards, he will pretend that he is an ordinary person. He will hide the fact that he is a thief. So, he is a thief, but there is an acting that he isn’t one.
‘Neither one nor many’ – this is a subset of logical reasoning in Buddhist thought. There are many logical reasonings used in Middle Way. Here, only one, this type or logical argument, is mentioned as an example.
‘lack any basis or origin‘ – this is another term that repeats in all ancient texts on the Middle Way, whether written by the great Acharya Dharmakirti, Buddhapalita, Loppon Loden and so on. (Tib: གཞི་མེད་ར྄ྩ་བ྄ྲལ། zhime tsadral)
Same as before, if no investigation, the ‘self of phenomena’ appears to exist. There is the tree, the house, the floor, this tea, this notebook, and so on. Upon investigation, we check where the ‘self’ of the notebook is, in the pages, in the ring binder, in the cover, in the written ink? None!
The term ‘Notebook’ is only a collection of all these things put together.
Next,
The ‘self of the individual’ and the ‘self of phenomena’ are therefore objects of negation: naturally, truly existent individuals and phenomena such as vases. Although we perceive these two kinds of self as a result of our mental delusion, when we analyse them we find that they lack even the slightest hint of reality—and this absence is the selflessness of the individual and of phenomena. The mind that understands the absence of self in this way is said to realize selflessness.
‘Object of negation’ – This English word ‘negation’ is not good. In Tibetan, it is more like ‘blocker’, ‘obstructer’. What is the blocker? The ‘self of the individual’ and the ‘self of phenomena’. In the above English text, they termed it ‘truly existent individuals’ and ‘truly existent phenomena’.
What does the ‘blocker’ block? It blocks the right knowledge – ‘selflessness of individual’ and ‘selflessness of phenomena’.
‘Naturally’ is the situation of no investigation. So, they, the individual and the outside phenomena like a vase, look real and truly existing in that situation. We perceive a ‘self’ during that time.
Upon investigation, we end up with the same conclusion for both – selflessness of individual and phenomena.
Next,
There are thus two forms of perceived self, and correspondingly two types of subject, or self-clinging. In order to eradicate both forms of self-clinging, it is necessary to arrive at certainty through logical reasoning, by considering how these two types of object, or types of self, lack true existence, and thereby generating realization of selflessness within the mind, as the ‘subject’ perceiving twofold selflessness.
Ok, so it is like this. A person is looking at a vase. The person with the self-clinging mind is the ‘subject’, while the vase is the ‘object’. Subject and object.
Here, there are two subjects, and each of them has their own object.
Subject A – self-clinging to individual
Subject B – self-clinging to phenomena
Object A – self of individual
Object B – self of phenomena
This statement is saying that, to understand the ‘selflessness of the subject’, the self-clinging mind, one must use logical reasoning on the object. Hence, first, investigate the object, then, one will understand the nature of the subject.
Here, one must generate in one’s mindstream, the ‘selflessness’ of the two subjects.
Next,
In short, clinging to an “I” is the source of all emotional afflictions, which are the root of Saṃsāra. Its antidote is the realization of individual selflessness, which is like the root of the path to liberation.
There are two kinds of selflessness, right? What are they?
- Selflessness of individual, and 2) selflessness of phenomena.
The first view is the medicine for all emotional afflictions.
Root of Samsara, our cyclic existence and recurring sufferings, is clinging to ‘I am’.
‘Liberation‘. There are three kinds of motivations, remember? (Based on Words of My Perfect Teacher) What are they?
(After some time) What is the first? Hrm? The first is the small motivation, the motivation of the worldly ones. They want to avoid the three lower realms, and they aim for the state of the humans and gods. How to do this? By abandoning the ten non-virtues and perfecting the ten virtues. (Read: Ten Virtues)
The second, the middle motivation. This is the motivation of the Hinayana practitioners, the Srvakas (Listeners) and Pratyekabuddhas (Lone Buddhas). This is what we mean by Liberation here. The definition? Due to complete disgust of Samsara’s sufferings, one aims for liberation from Samsara for oneself alone.
The third, the great motivation, is the Bodhisattvas. They aim for complete Buddhahood. The definition? Due to compassion, one aims to separate all sentient beings from all Samsaric sufferings, and bring each of them to Completely Perfected Buddhahood.
Hence, this middle motivation will bring a person to a realization of ‘selflessness of individual‘. This is the ‘Liberation’ talked about here.
Next,
And the full view of emptiness, through which we understand how all phenomena lack true existence, overcomes cognitive obscurations in their entirety—and is thus the root of the Mahāyāna path.
This ‘full view’ is the view of the Mahayana, the Bodhisattvas. Now, on top of the realization of ‘selflessness of individual’, the Mahayana has the view of the ‘selflessness of phenomena’. This second view is the medicine for cognitive obscurations.
Next,
Until we arrive at a deep, stable certainty concerning the great equality that is the inexpressible dharmadhātu, in which emptiness and dependent origination are indivisible, we must continue to refine our view.
This part is important for three things. First, it tells us to practice, to continue learning, ‘to refine our view’. Second is about the Dharmadatu. This is the Sanskrit term for the deepest characteristic of all phenomena. Third is the unity of emptiness and dependent origination.
‘Dharmadatu’ – This is not something sacred, or holy. This is the most fundamental quality of everything, of air, of this body, of this notebook, this tea, this door, all buildings, all beliefs… Everything.
What is the Dharmadatu’s other qualities? It cannot be expressed, great equality and ’emptiness and dependent origination are united’.
‘Emptiness and dependent origination indivisible’ – Now, this third part is the most important here! It will take some patience to understand. Hrm, let us pose this under a debate question —
“Why and how can ’emptiness’ and ‘dependent origination’ co-exist together?”
Let us debate the reasoning for this.
(The explanation of the final part of the Two Kinds of Selflessness has not been included here. Kindly seek the verbal explanation of a Buddhist teacher.)
For the English and Tibetan versions, please check the article in Lotsawa House.