Bodhisattvacaryavatara, 29 November 1994, part 2

For example, in the case of I or ego or person, there is a notion of I on the basis of I on on that very basis of I the ego then there is that concept but when it comes to when it comes to aggregates which is another we in this case can be understood as body and when it comes to hand and so forth the notion arises differently where to literally relate it would mean where when one thinks of the aggregates one’s body one thinks body of I or in other words my body and in case of hand one gets notion hand of I my or my hand so similarly my mind so in these cases the very fact that there is a separation of the mental thinking which understood can can be understood in terms of language or indicates that the indicates that the body or the hand and also forth cannot be one cannot be I or the person because because otherwise there is no no point to have that separation to think body of I or my body or my hand my mind instead there should be I I body, I hand, I mind they must they cannot be off in in between body of I and so forth.

Whereas in the case of I or ego, the notion arises I. There’s no no separation. So that itself indicates that the body or the aggregates and their hands and so forth cannot be the person or the ego by the very same meaning that they are seeing the feeling of mind and relate relation of mind’s experience towards them is something not one with that. It is seen to be separate. So that is the reason.

When this is seen in terms of Tibetan linguistic analysis, the very fact the phrase is aggregate of I and of I indicates the very fact the phrase goes that way indicates the two are separate things where one is one which has the attribute and one is the attribute. So there is a link of the two joined by the word of or relative word. And in that way, the two are quite clearly a separate and not one. Similarly, when similarly, when one uses the phrase my shape or shape of eye in Tibetan, and similarly, my color, whatever white color and so forth, then the phrase is color of eye or say color color I white. So in that way, there is a link where the two needs joined a location of separation instead of being one.

So in other words, in other languages, the very fact one has to say my aggregate, my shape, my color, that it itself indicates there is a separation. Otherwise, it should be eye shape, eye color, and so forth. In brief, there is a notion of I I which is spontaneously there and this spontaneity of the notion thinking I I could be responsible or could be attributable to having been habituated with the notion for many lifetimes and for such long duration and therefore then there is this notion of I I now the very basis upon which that notion arise, that very basis is is to be called the I ego or person and to identify what person is it simply would then mean that very basis from which the notion I I arises is the person. Also, such a person is labeled with dependence on the aggregates. And by that very token there is not any person that is there without being labeled on the aggregates.

It is fact because on basis of the five aggregates form, feeling, recognition, activity, and consciousness, the I or the person is merely labeled upon them. So there isn’t any independently existing eye or a person which is not labeled on the aggregates. What I’m doing is that that. For example, this part of the body is called hand, but this is not hand, meaning the thumb. The index finger is not hand.

Middle finger is not hand. The ring finger is not hand. Middle finger is not hand. The back part of the hand is not hand. The palm is not hand.

The flesh bone and the skin is not the hand as well. The four elements are earth, water, air, and fire potencies. Are as well they are as well not the hand. Yet yet on the composite of these components and based on their congregation when the label hand is given and that is hand. So hand is merely labeled on the basis of these basis of label, the skin, fingers, bones and so forth.

So apart from these basis of label, there is not any hand to be found and yet the hand do exist upon being labeled on these components the basis of label and undeniably and thus the function so that part indicating it is undeniably there functioning its job. If each of the component parts are hands, then there’s no need for the composite to be called hand. Each of them can be called hand. And in that case, it does that part should not be called finger. It should be called hand.

Each of the other fingers don’t need to be called finger. They can they may as well be called as hand. Therefore, like in the case of person, the ego, and like in the case of hand, all phenomena in accordance with the highest Buddhist tenet Prāsaṇgika, it is explained all phenomena exist in the manner of merely labeled on the basis of the basis of label. That any phenomena, whatever they be, that they exist merely as merely labeled upon the basis of the label. But that very it by that very fact, it also indicates that there cannot be a phenomena which is labeled independently from independently apart from the basis of label.

There cannot be any labeled phenomena which has not basis of label. Due to this very perspective, therefore, all phenomena are explained to be labeled existent or imputedly existent. Yeah. That’s better. So all phenomena are explained to be imputedly ex existent.

By this, it means in accord by this, it means whereas in the case of the lower Buddhist tenets, they classify our phenomena to be of roughly from one perspective of two types, substantially existent and imputedly existent. That they do say there are phenomena which exist in solid matter or substance. Where as here, the Prāsaṇgika says, if it is existing phenomena, it necessarily is labeled and imputed phenomena. On with dependence with dependence on the aggregates when there arises to our thought, the notion of I, I, that notion can arise in three different ways. So in that way, we can say the way the notion of I appears to our thought, in this case, mind, same meaning.

So the way the notion of I appears to our thought or mind can be of three different types. So out of three ways how the notion of I appears to one’s mind, the one way of appearing is the I appears as if it exists without being dependent on name and label given upon it on the basis of aggregates. So it is a that is precise. So it is a manner of I which seem to exist from its own side, which seem to be formed and existing from its own site independently without being dependent on name and label. So that as well would include that it seemed to exist without being dependent on aggregates and the name and label given upon it.

So in essence, it is a way of appearing where the eye or the ego seem to be there existing solidly independently on its own. So that is first way, first or one way how the eye appears. And then the second or another way of the I appearing to mind is where the I simply where the notion of I or the I simply arises as I I, just plainly as it. This means it does not appear or arise to one’s thought as if it is existing from its own side without depending on label and name and label. Instead, it is merely a notion of feeling of I, I.

And this would then this this is the way how innate innate I, just innate or inborn in the sense it is there as sentient to interpret as sentient being. Habituated from past, it is there from birth. Therefore, innate, inborn. The word actually is simultaneously born, the word is. So simultaneously born notion of I, so innate.

So that is one way how I appears, just mainly as I I without any philosophical hang ups or notions about its existence and so forth. And then one way of how it appears is where it appears as merely labeled upon merely labeled by name and label on the basis of the aggregates and it does not exist from its side. So that is one one way of appearing that the I appears as merely labeled entity, labeled by name and label on the basis of aggregates and the I does not appear to one’s mind or thought as if existing from its own side. The third way of appearing of the eye where the eye appears as merely labeled by name and label on the basis of aggregate is the way how it appears to someone who has realized emptiness. Because how it happens is, although to one’s mind or thought the eye appears as merely labeled, nominally one views the eye or the person as functioning undeniably, that it is the one which engages in wholesome and unwholesome actions, and it is the one which reaps the experiences or consequences of those actions.

So there is undeniable functioning of the I or ego while it appears as merely labeled entity. How that is so is because someone who has realized emptiness then subsequent to realization of emptiness one is able to present in one’s thinking and perspective choicefully in the sense within one’s awareness that having realized emptiness subsequent to to that one is able to view that the eye nominally functions in its working and so forth. And this comes about after having realized the emptiness of the person or I. So in that way, to use strictly scriptural language, it would mean it is the way of presenting deceptive truth phenomena by someone who has realized emptiness in that way. Also, this is the way how the person who has realized emptiness is able to have the notion of I appearing that way.

That is the third one. And second way, where the I appears merely as it is, just the notion of I. That is just a general person’s way of feeling I or the notion of the I appearing to its mind. And those two are the mind which are corresponding to fact because how the eye appears to these minds. Actually, that is how it functions and also that is how it is to be found there nominally.

Appearing I is the way how I appears by way of ignorance. So we can then return or reverse backwards saying that is the way how due to ignorance the eye appears. Such thought is the ignorance, and it is mistaken, and it is the root of all our sufferings. So in our in our meditation excuse me. In our meditation on emptiness, the then we need to think well and try to get a get a perspective about these three ways how I or ego appears to our mind and try to identify the three possible way the I or ego appears.

As regards the three, the third one is the way I or ego appears to someone who has realized emptiness. And the other two are the way I appears even to someone who has not realized emptiness. Therefore, in meditation on emptiness, one first needs to identify the two first two ways, in this case first two in the sense in the list. So one needs to identify the first two ways the eye appears to the mind and between the two, the second which is mere eye, eye appearing, that need not be stopped. One need not refute or cancel that in one’s analysis.

Instead, one needs to concentrate one’s reflection and meditation on the way how the eye appears by way of the first manner which is how eye appears due to ignorance and to the ignorant mind as if it exists from its own side. And then having identified well then one needs to check well how one’s mind grasp onto the notion of that I and the manner how one’s mind, in this case, our ignorance, how ignorance grasps at that I. So once having identified that, then one needs to go through other trainings necessary to realize emptiness, such as in accordance with Śāntideva’s teaching wherein one part of the writings of the teaching says, impure thoughts are very well terminated by a special insight completely with the force of calm abiding. So in accordance with such advice, one firstly needs to have practice of morality as the basis for calm abiding. And calm abiding for new people simply means the single pointed meditation of mind where one gains concentration of mind.

So based on on morality, one then needs to attain calm abiding. And then one applies that calm abiding with one’s understanding and realization of no self of person or selflessness or emptiness of our person. The part why calm abiding is necessary is because when one has the calm abiding or mind having calmed down, having calmed of all distractions and falling and abiding on its object, therefore, calm abiding, then it is like where the strength of mind of its concentration can be placed on any given object for any length of time without any movement and distraction so forth. It is as if like on the table the cup is placed so firmly the cup remains there unless the table is shaken then the cup starts to move. Unless there is shake, the cup remains there.

So like that, when one’s mind achieves calm abiding, then when with that calm abiding or single pointed power of mind, one then remain focused on meditation here on the no self of I or lack of concrete self or identity on I. And through that way, one would be able to do very effective and strong meditation on the selflessness of person. Another example of the calm abiding remaining single pointedly focused on its given object of meditation is like a peg which is put onto one location. It remains there unmoving if it’s placed very well. So mind gains that strength through calm abiding.

So one remains one’s mind focused on the eye which one has identified earlier. So in that way, while remaining mind focused on it, then with another portion of one’s mind, one needs to do the analysis. How much of one’s other portion needs to do the analysis? Well, let’s say if the mind is the four fingers, so if the mind is the five fingers, then the main portion of mind which remains on the object of concentration, the eye, then it is the four other fingers which remains for concentrated. And the fifth finger, which is just a portion compared to other, is the one which does the analysis.

And what it analyses is, it analyses whether how that mind which views the eye grasp onto the eye. And one needs to check how and manner how it grasp at the eye and so forth and exist and to find out whether that way of grasping is to be found upon the object being viewed at or not. So in that way it needs to be checked in that way. Again to emphasize it is very fine portion of one’s mind which is doing the analysis while the remaining part of the mind remain focused. So in terms of going back with the previous two way the mind or the notion of eye appears, then at this point one needs to identify whether the way the mind grasping at the eye is, is it that it grasps the eye as merely appearing or as if the eye existing from its own characteristic without being dependent on name and label.

If it is the first part, eye merely appearing then one doesn’t need to be concerned about that. Instead if it is the eye which seem to exist from its own side then that is what one has to very well identify and has to know very well and that exactly is what at this point then becomes the identification of object of negation or identification of that which is to be proven as not existing there. Okay. So we shall stop here. And any questions, we’ll leave few minutes for that.

There wouldn’t be that much difference. It’s fine whichever way it turns out to be. Yeah. But but in some cases in some cases, our dreams can be deliberately deliberately accomplished. An expression normally meaning one can make dreams happen and use them for certain revelation or forecast and so forth in which case one first needs to go into certain practices and then when the dreams happen they would have valid valid meaning, and they can be of meaning.

Otherwise, just dreaming or non dreaming has not hasn’t got much meaning. It has its own practices, meaning it’s altogether different field. Yes. Yeah. Will have to be explained separately.

Perhaps it might not be a good idea to have it in open public teaching. Yeah. So the question was, what are the practices through which dreams can be accomplished? Yeah. Yes.

I get it seems If there is no need to go through all that process of apparently complicated procedure, emptiness realization would be an easy matter, then everybody would have realized. And saṃsāra saṃsāra would be by now empty without any residence. It would help. So even on the sport, I think, the I is merely labeled, but more precisely speaking, just thinking I am or I is merely labeled may not be that helpful. Instead, it would be far more effective and helpful to think I is merely labeled, therefore, it is not inherently existing.

It’s not truly existing. And if one thinks that way, no matter whether the other person says you’re horrible. And that’s, for example, according to question, it should help. It would make difference. To think that the other person’s words or remark are not truly existent would be helpful.

To think what yeah. To think what they’re saying is not truly existent. That the very fact you are thinking is very good. Now you need to intensify it. I is to be thought of as not existing inherently, and the word of the person making their mark is is to be understood as not inherently existing.