A Short Commentary on Mipham Rinpoche’s Ascertaining the Two Kinds of Selflessness
by Khenpo Tashi
The Two Selflessness
Selflessness means ‘lacking a permanent self’. Here, there will be two situations used – during non-investigation and during investigation. Selflessness is observed in the second situation, during investigation.
The first selflessness is the ‘selflessness of the individual‘. It concerns the individual’s five aggregates – – Form, Feeling, Thoughts, Formations and Consciousness. The second is the ‘selflessness of the phenomena‘. It concerns all outside phenomena apart from one’s five aggregates. (Read: Three Vehicles of Buddhism)
The Purpose
Why do we discuss this? Is it just for scholars arguing theoretical concepts? Not at all. These are difficult topics. But why we discuss them is to sharpen one’s reasoning on the nature of reality according to Buddhist thought.
Why is reasoning important? Because we need logical faith in the Triple Gems and in their teachings. If our friend or colleague argues with us regarding why we believe in Buddhism, we can present our belief logically, step-by-step.
That is not for argument’s sake. That will allow us to meditate on the correct view of reality. Then, the proper result of meditation, such as weakening of one’s emotional afflictions, can happen for oneself.
Explanation of the Text
The text:
The mind that thinks “I am” in reference to the five aggregates of its own psycho-physical continuum is clinging to that “I”. In other words, the referent object of such clinging is the self of the individual or the “I”.
The explanation:
What is “I am”? It is based on the five aggregates – Form, Feeling, Thoughts, Formations and Consciousness. That ‘I am’ appears when the five aggregates come together.
We have to be detailed here. Sometimes, it is called ‘four or five aggregates’. Why ‘four’ only? Think!
(after sometime) The ‘four aggregates’ situation is applicable to the beings of the Formless Realm. They don’t have a physical body, but they still have clinging to the I based on their four aggregates.
What is the referent object? The ‘self of the individual’. In reality, or truthfully speaking, the ‘self of the individual’ is empty of inherent existence. So, leave it as it is, it is harmless.
It is the clinging to that self, the thinking, the mind, that is the harmful one. That is the lie. The source of all of one’s emotional afflictions and Karma.
There is a slight difference between ‘clinging to the I’ and ‘clinging to the self’. The first term can only be applied to the ‘self of the individual’. It cannot be applied to the ‘self of phenomena’.
But, the second term, ‘clinging to the self’, can mean ‘self of the individual’ or ‘self of phenomena’. It can be applied to both. Remember this!
In short, this part is saying that, the fake situation happens when, one’s mind clings to the ‘self of the individual’ as if it is real, when really, it is not real. This situation is always happening to us, due to our very thick habitual tendencies of clinging and grasping at ‘self’.
Next,
As long as we don’t investigate or analyse it, we have a sense that this self exists, whereas, in fact, it has never existed, just as there has never been a snake in a length of colored rope. The five aggregates, which are the basis upon which the self is projected, are themselves multiple and impermanent.
Do you remember the second situation, upon investigation, I mentioned earlier? Investigation or analysis now is to know the reality of selflessness.
The colored rope is made up of different colors of strings, then mixed together, becoming a bundle of colored rope. But, due to our habit, through the window of our eyes, we see something extra out of that colored rope – a snake.
The snake is not there, but we see a snake. The snake’s example is like seeing an ‘I am’ when we see the five aggregates.
Here, it is essential to apply the two kinds of impermanence – the rough impermanence and the subtle impermanence. The first kind of impermanence is about the changing seasons, today and tomorrow, ageing, birth and death etc. It is ‘rough’, meaning the change can be easily seen.
Then, there is the ‘subtle impermanence’. It is the moment-by-moment change that happens to everything. This we don’t see unless we investigate.
For example, just moving your foot from one step to the next step. That happens in a second. Each second of movement can be dissected into 360 moments. In each moment, the moving foot is changing in many ways. Blood passing through, cells dying and cells being born, etc.
So, there is no permanent foot even within 1/360 of a second, but only a collection of moments with a seemingly same foot. That is the subtle impermanence.
Likewise, if we use these two kinds of impermanence to investigate the self, it is said that “the self has never existed”.
Finally, ‘multiple and impermanent’, in Tibetan, ‘tag du dral’. This is a way of analysis in Indian Buddhist thought that immediately counteracts the two most common qualities of the ‘clinging to the self’ – unified and permanent.
‘Unified’ means, when we see ourselves, we think we are one, unbreakable entity. ‘Permanent’ means we think we are the same person when we were young and now after 20 years. Anyway, ‘multiple and impermanent’, that phrase is always mentioned in the ancient Great Indian texts on Middle Way school of thought (or Madhyamika in Sanskrit, U-ma in Tibetan).
Next,
The subject, which is the mind that thinks “I am”, is therefore self-clinging. And its referent object is what we call the “self”. Rather like mistaking a length of colored rope for a snake, we simply project the idea of a self onto the aggregates, while the self in fact has no real existence. Understanding this is the view of selflessness.
Yes, we have mentioned that.
To clarify, ‘subject’ is the one doing something on the ‘object’. Right? Here, the subject is one’s ignorant mind, what the subject is doing is the ‘clinging’ to a self. It is doing this to the ‘I am’ that appears when the five aggregates come together. That ‘I am’, the object, is also created by the subject, the mind.
So, the mind created the fake ‘I am’, and it then clings to that fake image.
The ‘view of selflessness‘ – this is the view of Madhyamika on the ‘selflessness of the individual’, the first of the two types of selflessness.
‘Understanding‘ means knowing, more an early knowing. When we know, it does not mean that we are fully familiar with it. It is like a headache. When a friend explains her headache to us, we know, but we have not felt it ourselves. When we feel the headache directly, that is being ‘fully familiar’. That we call ‘realization’ of headache in Buddhist thought. Haha!
So, when we ‘realize’ this view of selflessness, we are liberated. Here, understanding means only beginning to know the view. So, we are still under the power of the fake situation of ‘clinging to the self’, not yet liberated.
Continue to Part 2 about the Selflessness of Phenomena