Entering the Middle Way, 15 August 1991, part 2

So as it says in the Heart of Wisdom Sūtra, says that form is emptiness, emptiness is form. This is to, this sets up that emptiness and form are the same entities. For example, our mind and the emptiness of our mind are one entity. The emptiness of our mind and our mind are one entity. If they were different entities many faults would accrue which follow from this.

Emptiness in terms of the mind is an ultimate truth. That is to say it is the final mode of abidance of the mind. Therefore, it is true whereas the mind itself is not the final mode of abidance of the mind and therefore it is a falsity. So in terms of the world when an individual speaks, when whatever an individual speaks is an accurate reflection of what they are thinking then we say that this person is straightforward, that they’re truthful. On the other hand, someone who thinks one way and speaks another is referred to as, I don’t know we would say hypocrite, but this doesn’t get at the meaning of the word that we want.

We would say he’s pretense, he’s a pretender. And then what he says, he thinks it is but he says it isn’t then there’s a false person, dishonest person. Likewise, when we, in the term conventional truth that is to say it is a false truth that the word means false so concealer, it means, and truth. It is a false truth whereas the ultimate truth means the ultimate truth. We can’t trust him because it’s not an accurate reflection of the way what he’s actually thinking.

So, we call that person a liar. So, with respect, it’s necessary that we again and again read the various texts presented in middle way that we listen to the teachings and we reflect upon them and try to understand this mode of abidance, this reality from the mind’s point of view. We aren’t going to understand it immediately. Returning to the analogy of the TV, you know, because the image appears to be a person to the eye consciousness but it does not exist the way it appears then this object is referred to as a falsity. We can understand that it’s a falsity.

But to understand that the flower is a falsity is a little more difficult. In order to understand of the flower, it’s necessary that we understand the presentation of emptiness. Until we realize emptiness in terms of the flower, we want to understand that the flower is a falsity. So as I mentioned previously there is a difficulty, degree of difficulty, difference in difficulty, a in difficulty, a difference in the degree of difficulty in understanding the ultimate truth. Until we understand the emptiness which is the ultimate truth of the flower we will not be able to understand its conventional nature that is to say it is the flower is false.

Why is that? When the object flower was first designated by giving the name flower to it, an object was named flower then that object appeared to be a flower not by means of being named but from its own side it appears to be a flower. This is the way it appears. That flower does not exist the way it appears is its emptiness and in order to understand that this appearance is false, it must necessarily be that we understand that it doesn’t exist the way it appears. Therefore we have to know its understanding in terms of its emptiness before we can understand in terms of its falsity or its conventional nature.

We said that the flower does not exist not being imputed by means of a name. Name. How can we establish this? We know that the flower grows dependent upon causes and conditions. If the flower existed from its own side without being imputed by means of name then it would not rely upon causes and conditions to grow but we know it relies upon causes and conditions to grow therefore it cannot exist on its own side.

It must be imputed by name which is difficult. All conventional existences are just like this flower. So, we meditate upon what is being explained in terms of meditation. Meditation is not just sitting there with a straight body. Meditation is something which occurs within one’s mind and with respect to meditation there are two types.

There are analytic meditations and stabilizing stabilizing meditations. In terms of analytic meditations we proceed with making use of various reasons, analyzing objects, trying to determine what is its reality, what is its mode of existence. Then when we come to some conclusion, we then stabilize upon that conclusion. So if we proceed proceed in this session by analytically investigating in our meditation again and again various objects as to their nature, the way in which they exist, their reality and we are going to develop a wisdom with respect to their reality and when this becomes developed to the point where we will come to understand the final mode of reality of the object and it also with respect to that. As our wisdom develops, it is able to eliminate all our various faults proportionately.

And that wisdom which is able to eliminate all our faults is the final wisdom or the transcendental wisdom and this transcendental wisdom is the ultimate result. What do we mean by name? Name is a sound. Every phenomena whatsoever is given a name, you know for example, we give a name flower or table. Is what all the various objects are given a name by a first individual who designates that object.

Now in terms of the way of designation, there are three ways in which the name can be designated. One, the first is the name is designated because it has a relationship with the object. The second because it has a similarity with another object and the third is simply haphazardly given your name. So this third type of means of designating a name which I call haphazardly is simply the giving of a name out of a desire for there is no reason, there is no particular relationship or similarity with other objects but simply the desire to give a name such as the name flower or give the name table. Immediately upon being born from his mother, Sanford didn’t exist.

So when was a little boy his name was Samford but even Samford immediately upon birth was not Samford. That his parents they said well what should we call the baby and someone said let’s call it Sanford. So it depends upon being given the name, being designated or imputed as Sanford. Sanford came into existence without having been given that name Sanford didn’t exist. Came into existence upon being designated by this particular name and then other individuals they came and they looked at the baby and said, What’s its name?

And so, it’s named Sanford. So, this baby began to become popularly as Sanford and when this child walked in the room they say here comes Sanford and when Sanford was eating they say Sanford is eating. When this child is walking they say Sanford is walking and Sanford himself began to think of himself as Sanford. I am Sanford. Then Sanford went to India and at that time he had long hair and smoked and there was no, at that particular time there was no Jampa.

So subsequent to having gone to India then someone acted as his abbot and cut his hair and gave him vows and gave him the name Jampa Gyaltsen. This was his new name’s pronunciation. After that people began to call that same individual Champa Gyaltsen. Champa Gyaltsen came into existence upon being given that name. When this person went, they would say, Oh, there goes Champa Gyaltsen.

When this person arrived, they would say, Oh, here comes Champa Gyaltsen, and Champa Gyaltsen and this person began to think of himself as Champa Gyaltsen and all of the various activities which were done by this person were activities done by Champa Gyaltsen. So, Champa Gyaltsen was merely imputed by that he wasn’t established from his own side. If Champa Gyaltsen were established from his own side without being imputed by name then even before he became a monk when he was Sanford, then when this person came, they would say, Oh, here comes Champa Gyaltsen, or this person when Sanford went, they would say, There goes Champa Gyaltsen, because Champa Gyaltsen existed from his own side and was Champa Gyaltsen even before he became a monk. Champa Gyaltsen does not exist independent from his name. He does not exist without being given that name.

When did he come into existence? When he was given that name. He did not exist. Therefore, Champa Gyaltsen is merely dependent upon his name or being imputed by name. And this holds equally true for all of us that we are dependent upon being given our name, but additionally this applies to all phenomena whatsoever.

For example, the flower before the name flower was imputed to a particular object, flower didn’t exist. That for example, there would be appearing to us when we look at this object in front of us. There is a red object, there is a white object and we don’t know what those objects are but we just see a red object and a white object and there’s, but then we say well what should we call it? Let’s call it a flower and it depends upon being called, given, imputed that name flower and flower came into existence. In Australia, take example that they print up little pieces of paper and they put numbers on them and they put some of the portrait on it and they say let’s call it a $100 note.

You know and then in dependence upon being called a $100 note, when I give you a $100 note, you think I received $100 and when you give it to me I think I received $100 but before we gave it that name, 100 note, we just received a printed piece of paper with a picture and a number on it. So likewise, all phenomena are merely imputed by name. Idea of a $100 note. Okay. Prior to printing the note, the $100 note didn’t exist.

It merely was a thought from someone’s mind. This thought, you know, the thought of printing the $100 note, the $100 note didn’t exist. At the time of making this prophecy, at the time he makes his prophecy that Champa Gyaltsen will be born in a hundred years.

Champa Gyaltsen does not exist. But what then is being referred to? We say it’s not actually Champa Gyaltsen’s name.

It is that which possesses a similarity to the name. It’s not the name itself, it’s a symbol of the name. So does the concept of space travel exist before? So, you know, a person is Bob Hawke, if a person is Bob Hawke, is he necessarily the Prime Minister of Australia? So, Ārya Asaṇga is referred to as the charioteer of the Mind Only school.

So, whoever is Ārya Asaṇga is the pioneer or the charioteer of the Mind Only school, but he who went before Ārya Asaṇga met with Maitreya and received his teachings — before that time, giving that name Ārya Asaṇga to that person is simply a nickname. He has a nickname Ārya Asaṇga because at that time he’s not the charioteer, he’s not the pioneer of the Mind Only school, only after meeting with Maitreya, that’s when he really became Ārya Asaṇga. If a person is, then he’s necessarily the prime minister, it also needs a basis of imputation. For example, five aggregates form aggregate, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness act as the basis of imputation of the person. Those in turn, for example the form aggregate, the four elements act as the basis of imputation for the form aggregate.

So, those in turn, each of the aggregates in turn has a basis of imputation. About whether the basis and the object which is imputed come into existence simultaneously or not, and they don’t become the basis and then