Practical Ethics and Profound Emptiness Page 7

  29.The aggregates arise from I-grasping;

  the I-grasping is ultimately unreal.

  How then can there really be any arising

  of that whose seed is unreal?

  We have been wandering in cyclic existence since beginningless time. Under the control of the innate I-grasping mind, we generate afflictions, which create karma. Having created this karma that is polluted by ignorance, we take birth in cyclic existence by assuming the mental and physical aggregates of this life. In this way, our body and mind arise from innate I-grasping. Innate I-grasping is false and unreal in that things appear to it as if they existed from their own side, and it believes this is how they in fact exist. Yet ignorance is false and erroneous. If the cause is false, the result must also be false; and if the cause is erroneous, the result will not be good.

  Think about it: How could ignorance produce buddhas and bodhisattvas? How could attachment, anger, and confusion produce holy beings who have eradicated those afflictions? It is impossible.

  30.Seeing the way that the aggregates are unreal,

  one forsakes self-grasping.

  Having forsaken self-grasping,

  the [afflictive] aggregates do not arise again.

  By Abandoning Ignorance, One Attains Liberation

  The wisdom realizing emptiness ceases rebirth in cyclic existence. When we understand that the aggregates are not truly existent, we can see that the grasping at I and mine is false and erroneous. By repeatedly meditating on this, we can gradually eradicate the mind grasping them as truly existent. By abandoning this erroneous grasping, the afflictions based on it are gradually extinguished. Thus the karma motivated by self-grasping and afflictions is no longer created, rebirth in cyclic existence comes to an end, and liberation, the state free from true duhkha and its causes, is attained.

  Since hearers and solitary realizers have attained liberation and become arhats, they have necessarily meditated on the emptiness of both the person and phenomena. Although the lower Buddhist philosophical systems say that simply realizing the selflessness that is the lack of a self-sufficient, substantially existent person is adequate to attain liberation, in fact it is necessary to realize the emptiness of inherent existence of both persons and the aggregates. Hearers and solitary realizers have done just that.

  31.Depending upon a mirror,

  the reflection of one’s face is seen,

  but it does not ultimately

  exist at all.

  32.Likewise, depending on the aggregates,

  I-grasping exists,

  but that [I] does not truly exist

  just like the reflection of one’s face.

  Depending on a mirror, the reflected image of our face appears. That appearance of a face is false; there is in fact no face in the mirror. Similarly, dependent on grasping the aggregates as truly existent, grasping the I as truly existent arises. However, the truly existent I that is the conceived object of the I-grasping doesn’t exist. Just as the appearance of a real face in the mirror is false and a baby’s apprehension of it as real is erroneous, the appearance of a truly existent I is false, and grasping it as true is an erroneous consciousness.

  When the reflection of a face appears in the mirror, a face appears from all parts of the reflection. It is not that some aspects or some parts of the reflected image appear to be a face and other aspects do not. Similarly, for ordinary beings, every aspect of the person and every aspect of the aggregates appear to be truly existent. It’s not that some aspects or parts appear to truly exist and others do not.

  Except for very young children, most people understand that a face appearing in a mirror is not real. However, that is not the case with the person and aggregates that appear to be truly existent. Most people assent to that appearance and believe things truly exist as they appear.

  How to Meditate on the Emptiness of the I

  One method to realize that the I does not truly exist — that it is empty of true existence — is to meditate on four essential points that examine the relationship of the I and the aggregates.

  (1) Begin by identifying the object of negation (what is to be negated), the I as it appears to the innate I-grasping. One method to identify the way this false I appears is to think about especially bad or good situations you have experienced. At those times, the false I, the truly existent I, appears. You have to look at it skillfully and immediately, otherwise you won’t be able to see the way it appears because it quickly becomes mixed with something else. The body does not appear to innate I-grasping, nor does the collection of the aggregates. However, the appearance of a truly existent I easily gets mixed with these.

  The philosophical systems that assert a permanent, unitary, independent self and the systems that negate the self being the aggregates, the collection of the aggregates, or the shape of the aggregates all accept a coarse object of negation: the appearance of the color and shape of the body or the appearance of the collection of the aggregates. But this is not the appearance of the subtle object of negation, an inherently existent person.

  The I appears to the innate I-grasping as if it had its own nature and yet was mixed in with the body and mind. It seems to be self-existent, able to stand alone as an objective entity. But this only happens for a very short moment before it appears mixed with something else. When we are either very upset and angry or very happy, the appearance of an inherently existent I is clearer, and it is easier to identify such an I as the object of negation.

  To know only that inherent existence is the object to be negated is not sufficient to clearly recognize it as such. Although we may be able to explain what the object of negation is to others, our understanding is only on the level of words. We must understand it for ourselves more deeply through meditation. When you have ascertained the appearance of just the I itself appearing self-existent, without the appearance of the body or the collection of the aggregates, you have understood the first of the four essential points in the meditation on emptiness: ascertaining the object of negation.

  (2) Now, while still holding the appearance of the inherently existent I, a corner of your mind decides, “If the I exists as it appears, then it must be one with the aggregates — identical to them — or different from the aggregates — totally separate from them. There is no other possibility.” Only these two choices are possible if things existed inherently, because inherently existent things cannot depend on any other factors. Thus if the I existed inherently and independent of everything else, it would have to be either identical with the aggregates or totally unrelated to and separate from them. When your mind is clear about this, you have understood the second essential point, ascertaining the pervasion.

  (3) Next, while holding that appearance of an inherently existent I, a corner of your mind investigates whether the I exists inherently as it appears or not. Start with examining if the I is one and the same as the aggregates. Consider the various faults that would arise if they were identical. For example, if the I and the aggregates were identical, whatever you said about the I should pertain to the aggregates and vice versa. For example, the body arose from the combined sperm and egg of our parents, so the I should have also arisen from the combination of the sperm and the egg. But that isn’t the case. If the I were identical with the body, then we would be our body and there would be no need for a consciousness from a previous life to join with the sperm and egg in order to create a person. Similarly, if the I were the consciousness, then when we said, “I’m walking,” it would mean the consciousness is walking, which is ridiculous! If the I were one and the same as the consciousness, the word I itself would be superfluous and useless.

  (4) On the other hand, if the person were different from the aggregates in the context of true existence, it would be totally unrelated to the aggregates. In that case if you took away each of the aggregates — form, feeling, and so forth — one by one, a person would still remain at the end. If the aggregates were on one side of the room, the person could be on the othe
r. That, too, is not the case.

  Thus we conclude that in the context of true existence, the person cannot be either one with or different from the aggregates, and we ascertain that the I does not exist independently in the way that it appears to the innate self-grasping mind. We then concentrate on the non-true existence of the I, the emptiness or lack of such an I.

  When you meditate, don’t think there is some kind of innate I-grasping over there and contemplate the I that appears to that. Rather, make this personal by thinking of your own I-grasping. How does the I appear to it? Does it actually exist in the way it appears?

  In short, to realize that the I does not exist the way it appears, try to understand the way it appears to your innate self-grasping and then refute the I actually existing in that way. People who have received instructions on how to meditate on emptiness from their spiritual mentors first identify how the I appears to their mind. Then they observe how their minds grasp the I. In your practice, keep making this innate I-grasping arise and observe how the I appears and how the I-grasping holds it. When you do this repeatedly, you will gain some experience of the object of negation.

  There are several reasons we can use to prove that things don’t exist inherently as they appear: they are neither a truly existent unity nor a truly existent plurality; they are neither inherently identical nor different from their parts; they do not arise in any of the four extreme ways — from themselves, from another, from both, or without any cause; they do not exist in any of the seven ways Chandrakirti described in his Supplement; and they are dependent arisings.

  Not Existing as It Appears

  There are varying levels of subtlety to realizing that the face in the mirror does not exist as it appears. Ordinary people are able to realize with direct valid perception that although a reflection appears to be an actual face, it does not exist as it appears. This is the coarse level of false appearance. The reflection also appears to be truly existent; this is a subtler level of false appearance. The fact that ordinary people can realize that the reflection doesn’t exist in the way it appears doesn’t mean they have realized that it is not truly existent. If they had, they would have realized emptiness and become aryas. Rather, they have simply understood that it is not an actual face although it appears to be one.

  The eye consciousness to which this reflection appears as a face is a mistaken consciousness. Although it is also mistaken with respect to the reflection appearing truly existent, principally it is mistaken with respect to the reflection appearing to be a face. That is because to realize that that consciousness is mistaken, we need to realize only that although the reflection appears to be a face, it is not actually a face.

  Not every thought of I that we have during the day — such as “I am eating,” “I am meditating” — is innate I-grasping. In the course of a day, when nothing special is happening, we have thoughts such as “I am going,” “I am reading,” or “I am thinking.” These thoughts apprehend the conventionally existent I and are reliable minds. They are mistaken consciousnesses in that they have the appearance of inherent existence, but since they do not grasp that appearance to be true they are not erroneous. They correctly apprehend that we are walking, reading, or thinking. These consciousnesses are mistaken with respect to their appearing objects because the I appears truly existent to them. However, they are not erroneous because they know their apprehended object — the I — correctly. The Prasangika system says that every consciousness in the continuum of a sentient being7 — except for the aryas’ wisdom of meditative equipoise — is a mistaken consciousness because it is mistaken with respect to its appearing object.

  Those with meditative experience have explained this process sequentially. First there is a moment of valid mind to which a truly existent I appears. It thinks, for example, “I am walking,” but it does not grasp the I as truly existent. The moment after that, the innate I-grasping arises, yet the continuity of that valid mind does not become the innate I-grasping. Rather, the next moment a distinct mind — the innate I-grasping — arises, grasping at the I as existing the way it appears.

  The mind apprehending the conventionally existing I and the innate I-grasping are difficult to distinguish, because true existence appears to both of them. However, only the latter grasps true existence. For example, to the valid mind apprehending the table as existent, there is the appearance of the table being truly existent. However, that valid mind doesn’t grasp the table as truly existent. If it did, it would be self-grasping, a wrong consciousness.

  Those who have a great deal of experience meditating on emptiness and are close to realizing it say that recognizing the object of negation is difficult. But once this point is clear to you and you have correctly identified the I as it appears to the innate I-grasping, you are close to realizing emptiness.

  New students should know that to arrive at this subtle point, meditators have observed the self-grasping of person and phenomena in their own minds for a long time. Because they have studied the great treatises and sutras, they know the different levels of subtlety of the self-grasping and can identify them clearly in their own experience.

  Grasping inherent existence is an afflictive obscuration that must be eradicated to attain liberation. The appearance of inherent existence is a cognitive obscuration that is subtler and must be eliminated to attain buddhahood. Only a buddha has fully abandoned the appearance of inherent existence.

  Abandoning All Conceptions Is Not the Realization of Emptiness

  Some people do not know how to identify the object of negation correctly and assert that freedom from all conceptuality is liberation. They believe that both correct and incorrect conceptions must be abandoned, even at the initial stage of learning about emptiness. They say all conceptuality is the cause of cyclic existence, just as all shackles — be they gold or iron — bind us.

  If this view were correct and all conceptuality were negative, we would have to give up bodhichitta and the entire method side of the path because to practice them we must use concepts. We would also have to stop learning and thinking about emptiness, and we could not use inference to realize emptiness, because those activities involve conceptual consciousness.

  These people cannot be blamed for thinking like this. The Buddha said that the conceptual mind should be abandoned. But these people didn’t understand that statement in light of the Buddha’s skillfulness in teaching disciples according to their disposition and capacity. Nor did they understand that the Buddha gave both provisional and definitive teachings. While suitable for certain people at a particular time, the provisional teachings are not to be taken literally or applied to everyone. The definitive teachings, on the other hand, talk about profound emptiness. His statement about abandoning all conceptuality was a provisional teaching.

  Along the same lines, some sutras say that when one thinks phenomena are neither existent nor nonexistent, one will be liberated. If we take that statement literally, we have a conundrum because then we can’t validly establish anything. If we don’t rely on Nagarjuna, who clearly indicated the difference between definitive and provisional sutras, we won’t be able to discern which teachings were taught to people with a Chittamatra disposition, which were given to people with a Sautrantika disposition, and so on. By relying on Nagarjuna, we will be able to understand the Buddha’s final intention and attain liberation.

  33.Without depending on the mirror,

  the reflection of one’s face is not seen.

  Likewise, without depending on the aggregates,

  there is no [notion of an] I.

  Without a mirror, the reflection of our face doesn’t appear. Similarly, without the aggregates, the innate I-grasping doesn’t arise. To understand the way this occurs, we have to examine how the I that is designated in dependence upon the aggregates appears to that mind. This way we understand that the appearance of the I depends on the aggregates, although the aggregates do not appear to the innate I-grasping.

  When the aggregates a
ppear to us, they appear truly existent. The appearance of truly existent aggregates swiftly induces the self-grasping that grasps the aggregates as truly existent. Upon this basis, the notion of a truly existent I arises in our mind. Thus without the appearance of the aggregates, the I-grasping does not arise. The I appears to this innate I-grasping to be totally independent of everything else, as if it were an autonomous entity that set itself up and existed by itself. This is the object of negation. Remember, if it seems that the aggregates or the color and shape of the body appear to the innate I-grasping, then according to the Prasangikas we haven’t yet arrived at the subtle object of negation.

  The self-grasping of persons and self-grasping of phenomena arise in a certain order. First there is self-grasping of phenomena, when the mind grasps the aggregates to be truly existent. Based on that, self-grasping of persons arises, grasping the I as truly existent. However, when we seek to dismantle these misapprehensions of the I and aggregates, the order is reversed. First we meditate on the selflessness of the person — our own I — then we meditate on the selflessness of phenomena — our physical and mental aggregates as well as other phenomena.

  The reason for this reversed sequence is twofold. First, when we contemplate how the I exists, it is relatively easy to see that it is dependent on its basis of designation, the aggregates. To identify a person, we have to perceive one or more of his or her aggregates. For instance, we know Tashi is there because we see his body, and we know Susan is nearby because we hear her voice. It’s not difficult to see that the person depends on the aggregates and is designated in dependence on the aggregates. Being dependent, the person cannot be independent. However, seeing the aggregates as dependent is more difficult. It is not as obvious that they also depend on their basis of designation.