Tenets, 18 August 1994, part 1

Let’s first start with few minutes meditation on good thought motive, such as here we do meditation on precious mind of enlightenment. Like me, all other beings also do equally want happiness and equally do not want suffering. Therefore it is appropriate that I should generate altruism wishing to benefit them. Thinking in such way one then go ahead with meditation on compassion and loving kindness, thinking, may all beings be free of suffering and causes of suffering and may all beings have happiness and causes of happiness. Presently, when I am born as a human with all the qualities and capability to actually remove my and others sufferings and bring happiness to others, as well presently when I have met with unmistaken spiritual direction the teachings of the Buddha.

Also presently when I have as well encountered a teacher who shows such path unmistakenly and completely, therefore it is appropriate that I that I should use maximum use out of this rebirth and really even if it comes down to myself alone taking the responsibility to remove all other sentient beings suffering and bring them happiness I am prepared and fully willing to take that responsibility. If one thinks in this way then on top of the previous compassion and loving kindness there is the special thought or universal responsibility where one’s dedication in terms of others suffering and happiness is far more intensified and far more progressed. Even though presently I do wish such that all sentient beings be free of suffering and be with happiness, but when I ask do I have the capability presently to actually accomplish that I find that I don’t have. The reason that I don’t have such capability from one point is because my mind is wrapped with all sorts of impure thoughts. The other reason is that on top of being with impure thoughts I lack excellent qualities of the mind such as the excellent qualities of the mind as mind of compassion, mind of loving kindness, mind of realization of emptiness, mind of precious enlightenment mind and so forth.

Therefore I do lack the capability. Therefore I must first try to remove all the impure parts of my mind and make attempts to attain the excellent qualities of the mind. Because it’s only when one has got rid of all the impure thoughts of the mind which from the perspective of the seven types of mind would be classified as the wrong thoughts, then thoughts or the perceptions which have not realized their objects, wrong thoughts. So from the seven point types of mind perspective which are the wrong thoughts, the bad thoughts, if I got rid of them and in their place if I acquire all the excellent qualities of mind such as having all loving kindness compassion, compassion, mind mind of of enlightenment, enlightenment, finally even being omniscient and thus becoming a Buddha, it is possible to actually remove others sufferings and bring them happiness. In order to accomplish such excellent aims, I will then here engage and take interest in the learning part of the great vehicle part.

In doing so, I will first take all own interest in the aspects of the part of the great vehicle such as the realization of emptiness and so forth through that way we will make attempts to actualize wisdom produced by learning and then whatever I have learned I will clarify them, ascertain them, sort them out through reflection and through that way actualize the wisdom produced by reflection. And then whatever has been ascertained and firmly established to be true I will meditatively familiarize with them through that way or make all attempts to achieve Buddhahood. So that’s here with such a state of direction of thinking please adjust one’s motif. Now from earlier seven part study of Vaibhāṣika we are on the sixth one. The seventh part where what we mostly finished definition, division, etymological meaning, the assertion about the object, assertion about the subject, and now about the grounds and paths which covers within what in the threefold division comes under those concerning about the path.

So here we look at what according to discourse group’s spiritual attainment named as paths and grounds are explained. In that context, first comes the explanation about the selflessness. Now here Vaibhāṣika, in similar fashion with the earlier specific exponent, only accepts selflessness of person. They don’t accept selflessness of phenomena. So as regards selflessness and its explanation, it only concerns selflessness of person.

With regards to the selflessness of person there is first the gross selflessness of person which means the person devoid of permanent, independent or permanent, single single and independent existence. In that way it can be said that gross selflessness of person means or has the same meaning as the as the phrase saying the person devoid of in the permanent, single, and independent existence. Here when there is mention that gross selflessness a person means the person devoid of permanent, single and independent existence it is being mentioned with regards to the theory of self asserted by the non-Buddhist. How that is so is as we came across during the ninth chapter, a Tuesday evening study that with regards to the self, there are two ways of looking at first one which is uniformly by and large accepted by the non-Buddhist classical non-Buddhist and the other according to the Buddhists. Within it there are of course variation and there we found that the self asserted by the non-Buddhist has three features.

It is permanent, it is single, it is independent. Why it is explained to be permanent is because it has no birth and death. The very reason it has no birth would imply there is no death with such self. Therefore they explain the self to be permanent in that way. When the self is explained to be single because it covers everything it parades all and because it parades all it cannot be split into parts and portion therefore it is a single entity pervading everything so it is single.

It is independent because it doesn’t depend on causes and conditions it is therefore independent. This then is what the classical non-Buddhist by and large accepts the self to be having these three features and here in this discourse group like with the previous specific exponent at the minimum does not accept a self characteristic of those three features therefore gross selflessness of person would mean understanding that person is empty or lacks or is devoid of those three features. The person or the self sorry, the self asserted by the non-Buddhist is described as a conscious person, which is way of saying the self in its nature or aspect is the consciousness and it is the basis of person. Now the reason why why they can’t feel comfortable accepting the self to be impermanent thing is because they would say if the self is impermanent then there would be fallacy that the self would expire and perish similar as the body which is impermanent at the time of death when cremated and so forth expires and perishes likewise it would mean the self would perish or cease to exist. Seeing such fallacy they instead assert that self has to be permanent entity, not disintegrating or perishing at the time of physical death, and it continues to next rebirth.

Being permanent therefore is the first feature about the self explained by the non-Buddhist. The second feature is the single which is explained as meaning cannot be divided into parts. The reason why it cannot be divided into parts is because it pervades everything. The feature is independent where they explain the self does not depend on causes and conditions for its production existence and so forth. In that way it is not dependent on other.

So that becomes the third feature in brief. Permanent single independent being the three features of the self and yet the self still being consciousness they explain transmigrates to next rebirth and so forth. That is how the classical non-Buddhist accepts. But when looked from Buddhist point of view it is unacceptable, it cannot be cannot be so because how can there be a phenomena which is consciousness in aspect, permanent in nature and still a functional thing able to take rebirth and leave previous moment and so forth. There cannot be such phenomena at all and the very theory which all Buddhist uniformly even at least understanding accepts that there is not such permanent single independent self is what is called the selflessness of person, selflessness of the self in its most gross understanding and that is the gross selflessness of person.

The next is the subtle selflessness of person which according to the specific exponent and here the Vaibhāṣika explained to be the person devoid of self sufficiently existing in substance. Person devoid of existing self sufficiently in substance. That is this subtle selflessness of person and it same to what that phrase says, person devoid of existing self sufficiently in substance. Now with regards to this person devoid of existing self sufficiently in substance, what that means is firstly let’s look at what a person or the self if the self the manner how it exists say at functioning level which means conventionally or nominally. The way it exists in that manner is that based on the aggregates there is a mere I or I I the notion, the entity or the feeling so that is a person or the self it is mere entity dependent on the aggregates so that is how it is.

Now if there is a person existing self sufficiently in substance or on its own then that would mean there would have to be a self or an I which exists independent without any dependent at all on the aggregates and it would exist on its own. So that’s what it would mean. But because there is no there is not such self, therefore that very absence of the self in that manner becomes the self devoid of existing, self sufficiently in substance. And that is what here means by the aforementioned the subtle selflessness of person. In one’s inquiry to understand the subtle selflessness of person this would then imply one needs to first negate such supposedly existing in substance self sufficiently self like that.

Now generally, when there there is I existing it would be in the manner say a notion or feeling of I I. Now with that is what nominally conventionally the existing I, the functioning one would be. Now with regards to the I or self which is existing let’s say apparently existing self sufficiently in substance how that would if it is to exist, how it would exist would be in the manner say if someone says something nasty to you then there will be instantly a feeling of I would be thinking I am being spoken very rudely at. So there is at that moment if we analyze a notion of I self which is independent not depending on aggregates as if it exists by itself independently, self sufficiently in substance or in its own entity, in its own solidity. Now that is what is called the self sufficiently existing self misconceived by one’s ignorance and that very misunderstanding notion that the self exists so independent from aggregate is what is called ego grasping in the present context of the discourse discourse group.

And if we look in saṃsāra with reference to the 12 interdependent link, we can say the root of the 12 interdependent link, the root of the very existence through 12 interdependent link in saṃsāra is ignorance and that very ignorance actually means in the present case such ego grasping grasping at the self as existing self sufficiently in substance. This is the root cause. This very grasping is the root cause of saṃsāra. As regards as regards how true this is the ignorance, the root cause of saṃsāra with the discourse groups, well, it can be said not only with discourse group, this what is meant by ego grasping by all the lower tenets apart from the Prāsaṇgika. Due to that it would mean the specific exponents Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Mind Only and the Svatāntrika middle way or the autonomous middle way they all uniformly explain ego grasping to mean the subtle grasping at the self as if existing by its own existing self sufficiently on its own in substance.

There is a good example describing the manner of ego grasping as given with example by Je Tsongkhapa, and it is a nice example. There, Je Tsongkhapa says, in the case of a in the case of a high flying merchant, although the situation is that the merchant has so many commodities, things for barter and so forth, not only that, under the underneath merchant there would be so many employees, assistants, partners, and so forth. That is the situation, but whenever the merchant thinks about control on the business, the merchant that he or herself is there as a controller of everything independently from the assistance, partners, employees, and commodities. The things of merchandise, the merchandise things independent as if there is a feeling I am great, am the high flyer, I am the one. So that’s what the laughing part was.

So there is that feeling and that is what is explained is very similar to the grasping at aggregates and in the present case the ego grasping grasping at the self, the eye, thinking as if the eye or the self exist independently by itself, not depending at all on its basis of existence. Okay. Then let’s not go into many other details about selflessness. We limit to that. Now we go to the seventh, the last point, which is the explanation about the paths and the grounds proper.

Now with regards to the path, firstly, there are things to be abandoned by path, which means the impure thoughts to be overcome by path. And regarding things to be abandoned by path, similar to specific exponents, the lowest tenet, this tenet as well classify all impurities of mind into two groups the afflictive obscurations and non afflictive obscurations. This tenet also does not accept accept knowledge obscurations or obscurations to omniscience. The reason why they don’t accept knowledge obscuration is because they firstly don’t accept selflessness of phenomena. Afflictive obscurations are those which hinder the person from attaining liberation.

This needs the reference about our goals to achieve. There are two goals to achieve the liberation and omniscience and afflictive obscuration is the one which hinders one from attaining liberation. Here it will need a bit of a clarification because to be more precise afflictive obscuration is defined as one mainly hinders a person from attaining liberation. The second is the non afflictive obscurations which are explained to be obscurations which mainly hinder a person from attaining knowing all, from attaining omniscience. Earlier during the study into the specific exponent tenet, we did not have any explanation about the grounds and paths according to that school.

The reason for that is because as the reason for that is the explanation about grounds and path of the specific exponent is no different to that of this present tenet, Vaibhāṣika so it would be repetition to have it explained at that time at this point if grounds and path according to Vaibhāṣika is explained that itself would include the grounds and path explained uniformly by the specific exponent. Afflictive obscurations refer to the ego grasping which is what we just looked at the grasping at the self existing self sufficiently in substance. As well afflictive obscuration refers to all the impure thoughts produced by that ego grasping as well afflictive obscurations referred to the imprints left by those impure thoughts and ego grasping. The reason why the grasping at the self as existing self sufficiently in substance as well the impure thoughts produced by that as well the imprints of them are the afflictive obscuration is because they hinder one from attaining liberation. So that previous description description itself itself becomes becomes the the reasoning reasoning to to justify just reasoning to say that these are afflictive obscurations.

Then what are the non afflictive obscurations? Well non afflictive obscurations are the imprints left by the concept grasping at the self as existing self sufficiently in substance together with the habits produced by those imprints. Okay that’s it. And to slightly repeat and clarify what it means is non afflictive obscuration does not refer to the concept itself which grasps at the self existing self sufficiently in substance instead it refers to the imprint left by that concept. Also, it refers to the habits produced due to having such imprint.

Here when there is mention that there is imprint left by the concept grasping at the person or the self as existing self sufficiently in substance there needs to be a difference there needs to be clarification understood regarding the difference between imprint and seed. The two are two different things. By seed it means the very potency left by the earlier moment of the entity which has the capability, the potency to produce again. What would that would mean in the case of ego grasping, so to put it simply, ego grasping, although the phrase used was grasping at the person as existing