Archive Result

I AND ATTACHMENT - 2

19850410GRJHNLIA 3

The subject chosen for tonight is the continuation of the last week’s talk ‘I and attachment’. It is a very strange subject and a very interesting one also. Strange in the sense that in Buddhism and particularly in Tibetan Buddhism the presentation of the I is totally different from what you probably expect it to be. Normally people do expect the I as most the important, very powerful and very fundamental, the base of all things. Tibetan Buddhism has a totally different way of presentation.

Emptiness or shunyata

Of course I is the base, the foundation of everything. Without I there is no way and no hope that I can function. And of course I have to function. I have to speak here tonight, I have to sit, I have to listen to you, I have to reply, and also I have come from a previous life, I am in the present life and I will go to a future life. And if I am not here, I cannot do all this at all. So I is the base of all functioning.

It is also important to know where this I remains. Whether that I remains with me as one-ness, or separate from me; whether it remains with me at all, or not. These are the things we have to look into. Say it exists with me, then the question is whether it exists within my body or within my mind, whether it is the same as my body or the same as my mind, whether it is separate from my mind or separate from my body. All these questions are the Tibetan Buddhist way of looking into the I.

The most important accepted theory in Tibetan Buddhism is Nagarjuna’s viewpoint of emptiness, shunyata. It is presented in two different ways: the shunyata of articles and the shunyata of beings. The shunyata of beings is the I-lessness, which is nothing more than selflessness. When I use the word self-lessness, don’t confuse it with selfish-lessness. It is just the self as object and then its -lessness. I as object and its -lessness.

We have to find out how this works. We look into the I, we search the I. Definitely when you search the I along with the body you will never, never be able to point out ‘this part is the I’. Similarly within the mind you will never, never be able to find the I, again. From the Tibetan Buddhist point of view we divide the mind into fifty-two different categories. If you go and search the I within one of those, you will not find it. For example, if somebody is looking for a table and you take the table’s top off, you take the table’s legs off, you take every part of the table out and you say: ‘Ah, there is no table’ and then you say: ‘Oh, I understood the emptiness of the table, because when I take the parts out there is no table left’, you have not understood it. That is not understanding of emptiness at all!

All these complicated matters are involved. That is why I said it is a funny, or rather a most uneasy, uncomfortable subject, difficult to speak about and difficult to understand. But I am sure a lot of you, people are interested in it, it is something you are dealing with.

The moment we say emptiness we must know emptiness is not empty. Emptiness is full and fullness is empty. Similarly, if you read the Heart Sutra, it starts with:

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

That means straightaway emptiness or shunyata or voidness, all different terminologies for the same thing. The first and foremost thing is: emptiness is full and fullness is empty. Then we have to find out: Empty of what? The shunyata of a person, the shunyata of me, is emptiness of me. That is empty of what? Empty of I. Of course I have to search. I cannot say: ‘I don’t exist’, because I am speaking, I am living, I am working; as I told you earlier. If I exist, yet still am I-less, then I have to find out why and what this lessness of I is. Nagarjuna, the great philosopher of the Middle Way viewpoint, has said:

Things only exist on a perfect object on which a perfect mind will call a perfect name.

Similarly I also exist on the combination of my body and my mind and on that combination a perfect authority calling my name. On the combination of that I do exist. That is what it is.

When you begin to search: ‘Where am I and who am I?’ you’ll find that question is very difficult to answer. We are not talking now about shunyata and all this, but right from the beginning the question: Who am I? What am I? Okay, I am a human being. Who am I? Of cause everybody will have an answer: ‘I am John, I am Mary all different names. Say my name is John. If I would be truly John, then I should exist independently as John, and not have to depend on other matters. Then the moment I was born, John would have been born. The moment I was born, my parents did not say: ‘John is born’, my parents definitely have said: ‘The baby is born’. It became John only after the name John was given, not before. So definitely I am not John. Okay, I am not John, but of course I am John the driver. The profession comes in now. Unless and until you learn your driving, you never were a driver. The same with John the engineer, John the carpenter, John the executive, whatever.

So, what really is happening with us? Between the name and the profession we shift the gears and therefore we will never, never be able to look into it. Actually our deep mind, our deep consciousness, doesn’t like to acknowledge that we are not truly existing; therefore we have the name and profession. If you take out your name, if you take out your profession, if you take out your body, if you take out your mind, then where are you? And who are you? Then people won’t know how to answer all this.

Yet you cannot say you are not there, you are very much there. You cannot say John is not there, John is very much there. John sleeps, John works, John steers, John steals, John gets caught, all this, you cannot deny it.

Dependent arising or interdependent origination

We have a mind which gives recognition to that big I that was born together with us. Now what really has to be done? Whoever is looking for emptiness, has to destroy the object of that mind which gives a great recognition to the person called I. You understand?

As the strongest reason to argue with that mind Buddha has recommended to use the reasoning of the interdependent origination or dependent arising. That reasoning is called ‘king of the logic’. Dependent arising will proof that the particular object recognized by a self-born mind, does not exist from its own nature. The moment I say ‘dependent arising’ automatically I understand having to depend on something. If a certain part is missing, the thing cannot arise, cannot exist, so it is dependently arising. I gave the examples of the president

What example should I give here? Let us take a president. A president arises dependently, therefore a president does not exist from its true nature. A president is an example of dependent arising, because for a person to become a president he needs to be fit to be a president, has to be elected a president and also after election an authorized person should say: ‘From now on you are the president.’ Right? Unless and until that has happened to him, nobody call him a president. The day when he was elected and was told he is president, from that day onwards he will think: ‘I am a president’ and the others will also call him president. So to be a president very much depends on a perfect or authority to call by him a perfect name.

Notice my words. First I said: to be fit to be a president. Suppose the person is not fit to be a president, then no matter whoever may call him whatever, he does not become a president. You understand? The traditional Tibetan example is this. From a distance you see a shadow. You keep on looking at it and you see it sometimes becomes bigger, it sometimes becomes smaller, it sometimes moves to this side, sometimes moves to that side. You say: ‘Ah there is a man.’ And you all say: ‘Yes there is a man’. You recognize that as a man and you see that as a man. Suddenly somebody comes from the other side and you ask him: ‘What is happening with that man over there? He has been standing there since very long.’ And that man will say: ‘Where?’ And you point out to him where the shadow is. And he’ll say: ‘Oh, that is not a man, it is a tree trunk’. So unless and until this man comes and tells you what it is, you have a mind that is recognizing that as a man. From the moment the person comes from that side and tells you: ‘There is no man’, since that moment that mind which recognized that as a man, has disappeared. Why it disappeared? That particular name cannot be proved to be a perfect name, because the object on which you give the name is not fit to be the object. Now, if you call somebody who is not fit to be a president, a president -say of an organization among yourselves- then it will become a nickname and an insult. That is when the object is not fit to be so.

So for I to be able to exist as the object of I, it should be a fit object and also the person who calls me should be a proper authority, because if the wrong man calls me with a wrong or even with a right name, it will not become my name. You understand now? The object has to be the right object, the name has to be the right name and the giver or the caller has to be the right person. On the combination of that I exist. That shows: I do not exist from my own nature.

Buddhists have four different viewpoints on this and considered the highest recognition is Nagarjuna’s presentation of the I. Nagarjuna’s I-lessness is: to be less of the I which is existing from its true nature.

So, if there would be an I which exists from its true nature, then we should find it when we go and search where and how this I exists. Which way? As a name? As a person? As a mind? With the body? Without the body? Separate? Oneness? There are many, many ways of searching..

One way of searching is a logical discussion called the four-cornered discussion: If the I exists with the body, then it should exist (1) as oneness with the body or (2) separate from the body or (3) both ways i.e. as oneness and separate, or (4) neither way, i.e. neither oneness nor separateness.

To make it short: my existence very much depends on the name and the label; it almost totally depends on the label rather than from its own nature17. I exist only as a combination of my qualities and my name on it. I do not exist separately from my name nor do I exist separately from my qualities. Also I do not exist as oneness with my body, I do not exist as oneness with my mind. My mind and me is totally separate, mind is mind, I am I, It is my mind, it is not my and mind together. The mind is not me, the body is not me, but everything exists from me. Because of me my mind exists; because of me I have my body. Because of me I have my close ones. And when I have my close and near and dear ones, I have my attachment. And when I have me and my then I have my enemy and I develop my hatred. So that I and that attachment and that my and that hatred all exist, exist in the way I just now have mentioned.

In other words, the mind which gives the recognition of an I which is without depending on the body, mind and name and all this, is the object of I-lessness. So, in true nature I do not exist at all. So you cannot really build the concept of attachment, anger, hatred, a name, prestige and everything; it all is built on the concept of I.

This is the concept of I-lessness. In true nature I do not exist. Yet, still you have to present the I functioning because of the dependent arising. The dependent arising is the most important reason that I do not exist from true nature. This is the most powerful logical reason which proves the I doesn’t exist from its nature. This is very brief the view on the I. If you like to discuss anything, you are most welcome.

Questions and discussion

Audience: Of the questions that have come up during our coffee-break, one most important question is: What is the reason why the I or I-lessness is important?

Rinpoche: That is a very important question. In the teachings of the Buddha the major aim for individual people is to get enlightened, not only enlightened from the knowledge point of view, but from the spiritual point of view, i.e. to obtain the highest position that a human being or any being can obtain. In order to develop that position, in order to gain that enlightenment stage, the requirements are only two. One is method, the methods through which you can purify all your mischiefs and the methods through which you can collect merit or virtues or good work. The other one is the wisdom, which is very important. When we say wisdom, we refer to the understanding of I-lessness or shunyata or emptiness, without the understanding of which you will never, never be able to touch the ignorance.

Ignorance is considered to be the root of samsara, the circle of existence. Buddhism believes life goes in circles; past, present and future lives circulate. The circle of existence is functioning from the root of ignorance. We are caught inside this circle. It is the circle which carries all the pains and miseries and problems that we are repeating one after the other, endlessly and – as Buddha says – also beginninglessly. No one can say: ‘This is the beginning of any individual’, so it is beginningless. There will be an end, 0not a total end, but individually there is ending of the circle.

The end is only possible when the root of samsara, which is the ignorance, is touched and cut. Only then the circle stops. The circle does not stop anywhere in between; it only stops at the root-level, which is the ignorance. And that ignorance can only be handled by the wisdom. Therefore the understanding of shunyata becomes very important. One of the great scholars has said :

No matter how much development you have

of love and great compassion;

Since it is not the direct opponent of the ignorance,

it will never cut or affect the individual’s circle at all.

So, without the wisdom the continuation will remain. You may get a better life in the future, but even then the root is not cut and samsara is not ended and you will continue to function in it.

So to cut the root of samsara it is absolutely necessary to have the wisdom. Wisdom means understanding of shunyata. Ignorance means the recognition of self as independent, self-functioning, dictator. It has to be recognized that that mind is the ignorance. Therefore I-less has become very important. It is a very deep subject, really. All Buddhist philosophy is built on this.

Another question was: What is dependent arising? On the combination of my mind and my body and on the basis of the right person and the recognition of the right name, I do exist. So my existence very much depends on this. That is very briefly the idea of [subtle] dependent arising. I do not know how to make that further clear917.

On the other hand in Buddhism we believe in the rule of karma, cause and effect. That is another very important field where the dependent arising goes in to.

Another field that cannot be ignored is the twelve links functioning in one’s life. It is called the twelve links of dependent origination. According to the Tibetan tradition it are twelve, according to the Chinese tradition eighteen links. Whatever way you choose, it works in the same direction, slightly different. That is about death, birth, living, creation of the body, development of the mind, etc. So there is the karmic dependent linkage, another one is the imputational dependent arising and another one is this twelve links of the functioning of existence. All these are dependent arisings.