The Buddhist Hour Radio Broadcast Archives
Buddhist Hour
Radio Broadcast on Hillside 88.0 FM
Script 362 for Sunday 2
January 2005CE
2547 Buddhist Era
This script is
titled: “Conventional Self” “Dependently Designated
Self”
The following Buddha Dhamma talk was given by John D.
Hughes at the Buddhist Discussion Centre (Upwey) Ltd. during a five
day meditation course held at the Centre in June 1988.
The
authors apologise for any errors or misunderstandings that may have
occurred in the process of transcribing the talks from the original
audio tape recording.
The teacher John D. Hughes began in the
following way.
So the Tsong ka-pa explains with reference to
earlier teachers..."With regard to the innate egoistic view,
which is self habit, in the introduction by Chandra. In the
introduction...Chandra refutes the position that it's object is the
aggregates and comments that it's object is the dependently
designated self.
In other words... the object of the ego...
the thing the ego focuses on is a mental formation which is called
the dependently designated self.
The self habit...the kammic
[one], focuses it's attention on a mental object which is called the
dependently designated self. And that focus is in error.
Chandra
also states that the conventional self is not the mere conglomerate
of the aggregates. Thus, is it's object, is neither the
conglomeration of the aggregates at any one time.
See when
you have unpleasant feeling you don't want it to stay.
But
what is it that doesn't want it to stay.
It's this
dependently designated self.
Thus one should not put either
the separate or the conglomerate aggregation as the substance of that
"I". This is the un-excelled distinctive specialty of the
dialectal system and has been explained extensively elsewhere.
In
regard to the objective basis of innate egoistic views, it must
generate internally... the cognition that thinks "I".
In
other words, the innate egoistical views must generate internally.
The cognition thinks "I", "I", me, me, me, me,
me... like that.
And therefore the innate habit that holds
other persons to be intrinsically identifiable is innate personal
self habit...but is not the innate egoistic view of that same person.
So there's two complications in there.
The object of
innate egoistic view, which is the property habit, is the actual
mind.
The object of the innate egoistical view, which is the
property habit, owning, in the sense property owning habit,
property...owning property, is "the essential mind" in
quotes.
This actual "mine" object, m i n e object,
of the innate cognition that thinks "mine", in quotes, and
it is not held to the objects such as one's eye, ear, nose, tongue,
you know and so on. The mode of this habit, the mode or method if you
like, this habit... is the habitual holding of the objects perceived
as "mine", "mine", as if they were intrinsically
identifiably so.
There is a mental object in vast
error...that generates the thought "mine". It's object
isn't in the five groups but it's incredibly in error.
As for
the innate phenomenal self habit...that's the Samsara self habit...
it's objects are the form aggregate and so on.
The outside
Samsara is the five groups... that's for persons...or just rupa for
objects.
The self habit outside, the nature of the Samsara
outside is the five groups. So it gets a little bit different for one
view or the other.
Externally we recognize the five groups
only. We don't recognize other people as "me" or"
mine" or "I". We've no knowledge.
We see the
other people externally, ah "they are five groups".
We
can't see on them.... their mind that generates "I", "my",
"mine", "me". And the reason we can't see that
"I", "my", "mine", "me",
"mine" as a property of the other sentient beings is
because we're intoxicated with our own phony "I", "my",
"mine", "me".
So when we look at the
other sentient beings we say, "I'm five groups, they're five
groups". That far is true, but then you say...in error...that
there is the sparks of the contact. There is an "I" or a
"my", this is what I am, and it doesn't allow, that blinds
the mind completely with the innate egoistic views, "I",
"my", "mine", "me".
It doesn't
grant that the other five groups, the other beings, have such a mind.
Because that mind, that clouded mind, that stupidity, that fiction,
is blind. It can only identify "I", "my", "mine".
It can't, it doesn't lay claim to the other five groups outside it.
It doesn't say, for example, you are "me". Now if that mind
dropped, that ego mind dropped, THERE is five groups, HERE is five
groups. If your own ego mind dropped, which is false, you would see
all the other sentient beings, except the enlightened ones, as being
five groups plus possessing this innate egoistic view that generates
the cognition that thinks "I".
So until you've got
rid of the misinformation...YOURSELF...you can't see other beings as
being an "I", a "my", or a "me".
Therefore an unclouded being can respect the other five group
being warts and all. But the clouded being treats the other person as
merely five groups and doesn't...can't see that they are
generating... an innate egoistic view.
So when they start to
tell you a story, like we just had a round of boring stories
[Jocelyn], the dreariest boring, they were boring, boring stories as
a product of an ego mind...the...which is a false mind.
Now
when the other person says, starts, see their minds clash
...right...they hear some of these tapes out of context. When the
other person says "I will tell you my boring egoistic view view
of "I", "my", "mine", "me",
you won't listen. You say oh they're only five groups talking,
they've got nothing to say. Talk about me, talk about me, talk about
me, talk about me. That is the ego "I", "my",
"mine", "me", absolute mad.
Not mad in
the true sense, not ultimately mad, because remember, it is unreal.
It has no reality in fact. So something that is unreal you couldn't
say whether it was mad or sane. But conventionally speaking you say
it's mad.
So the object of the innate egoistic view...which
is the property habit...property in the sense of owning
something...is the actual mine object of the innate cognition that
thinks my.
There are now three things operating.
There
is a cognition that thinks mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine. That
is a mental object, like a rep....automatic telegram station
repeating mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine. That mental
object does not h[o]ld itself to be eyes, ears, or whatever.
But
there is another one, that names the objects and then hands them over
to this my, my, my, me, me, me, me. So I say... "this cup of
coffee"...I put name..."is mine". I transform ....
there is a cup of coffee there, actually viewed another way it's four
great elements, but doesn't matter. But then I label it....... and
then I couple that name to the cognition which says mine, mine, mine,
mine, mine, mine. And the net result is...of those two minds...I get
the statement...this cup of coffee is mine.
Now remember
those two minds were in turn...not real, they were generated out of
the clash of the personal habit karma hitting the Samsara, and that's
the way it is.
So the mode of this habit is the habitual
holding of the objects perceived, that's the cup of coffee...that's
the object perceived...as "mine". It holds them in such a
manner as if they intrinsically identifiably so.
So it's like
saying, once I've connected that cup of coffee onto this mine, me,
me, me, me, me mind...I am then firmly convinced of that conglomerate
of two minds...I think I have a simple statement 'that is my cup of
coffee'. And I'll fight world war three to keep it.
So you
see...at each level there is an ego error of saying there is one
thing...when actually it's two things striking together. At the
earlier level there were two things striking together producing the
sparks which was then the self. Internally there is another two
things striking together. One generates "mine" and one
picks up any object, rupa or mental, and says "mine".
Wherever there are two minds and the clouded mind thinks
there's only one, called me, me, me, me, me, there is confusion.
The
two higher ones which were innate...are even more subtle than the
first one which you could see quite easily.
So as for the
innate phenomenal self habit......as for that itself...it's objects
are the form aggregates, the eyes, the ears, and so on, are both self
and others. So the innate phenomenal self habit, the external
Samsara, does relate to the five groups..., because it is the five
groups. But from your view, although it's the same, we've got these
other two minds punching each other up.
In the introduction
commentary Chandra affirms that...and this is in quotes, "Delusion
is mis-knowledge which functions as the re-affecation of the
intrinsic objectivity of non-objectively existent things." The
mine, mine, mine, mine, me, me, me, me generating mind is really a
non-objectively existing things. It's not established by logic...it's
just there.
But when the other mind picks up the object and
throws it at this...which it does habitually, it says this is mine.
Doesn't matter whether it's a mental object or physical object or
what it is.
It is superficial.
The combination of
those two is superficial. With a nature of obscuration, seeing
intrinsic realities in things, when the things themselves are
actually empty of reality.
But it postulates, you see, if I
had a I, my, mine, me, and I pick up an object and I know the object
is unreal, then if I pull that unreal object onto the I, my, mine, me
and the two fuse, then that would mean "me" is unreal, has
no objectivity.
So that's why in this meditation to get near
it, you say, the infinite past is real, the infinite future is real,
but this (three clicks of fingers) present, where past meets future,
is unreal.
So verbally there's no logical problem but if you
pull something .... it's like an unreal..... known as unreal, put
onto an unreal I, my, mine, me it will self destruct.
So to
keep the unreal intact you'll have to suppose that the things you're
putting onto it are real: my cup of coffee...real...suppose.
So
once again we get into problems with words.
We could show
earlier that a dead body and your body moving can be treated the
same, so your walking dead body the other one is a stationary dead
body.
Now let's go very carefully.
The objects in
Samsara are not objective facts...they are mental formations
appearing on your mind. They are mental formations appearing on your
mind. As the Buddha said earlier, just to refresh your mind,
'the
various delights of blossoming flowers,
the pleasure of the
glitter of a golden palace,
these things have no intrinsic
function,
but are there on the strength of our constructs,
the
whole cosmos is constructed by force of thought.'
Now, we have
constructed by the force of habit, we have got this: an object that
is not objective, a cup of coffee has no desire to please me. The cup
is rupa, the coffee is rupa, the sugar is rupa, the water is rupa.
Nowhere in that cup of coffee can be established any intention to
delight me. I bring the cup of coffee, we've already analyzed the
five groups, we know this five groups is anatta.
The...the
coffee has no intention to delight any sense I have, my smell, my
taste, my sight. The ego innate ignorance does not have an object 'my
five groups'. I bring the coffee into my sense bases... and because
there is a contact of the phenomenal outside habit karma manifesting
in the Samsara as a cup of coffee.
And I bring that to these
five groups manifesting. There is no intention of these five groups.
There's no place for them to find any pleasure in the coffee, except
out of contact there must be like a shower of sparks, like a steel
hitting a flint. And that shower of sparks... remember...we're not
going to, we're going to turn down.
I then take the cup of
coffee, I ignore the shower of sparks, which is the sensations,
because they're not real remember, present is not real. Then the
unreal "I", "my", "mine", "me"
goes insane.
It goes insane because for the first time it's
lying nature has been discovered. It already was insane, because
anything that's unreal is insane, it's not true. But the "I",
"my", "mine" screams, pretend at least, have the
decency to pretend, that either the cup of coffee had the intention
to please you, or the person who gave it had the intention...because
as we said before we don't see the other people...when we're clouded,
as having an ego, we just see them as five groups.
So there
can be no satisfaction of pouring rupa on rupa. Otherwise if you put,
say, a bit of wood, you floated it on the surface of water, the water
would would have an orgasm and so would the wood. If either of the
four great elements combinations. So there is obviously some, some
delusion...and the delusion exists on this pair of minds, one saying
me, me, me, me, me, like an automatic distress signal, and the other
one labeling the objects and then bringing the object image ... which
is...it's not the true object of course, the true object is out in
Samsara, it's a replica image .... and throwing that onto the mine,
mine, mine, and then you get, this is mine, this is what I am.
I
am drinking a cup of coffee, I am doing this.
So we dig a bit
deeper.
So in the introduction commentary Chandra affirms,
'Delusion is mis-knowledge which functions, this mis-knowledge, this
delusion, functions as the re-affecation of the intrinsic objectivity
of non objectively existent things. The "I", "my",
"mine", "me" is a non-objectively existing thing,
and so is the....
So Tsong Ka-pa elucidates and illuminates
certain quotations from other teachers. And the purpose of this is to
develop omniscience.
If your mind is weak it will be broken.
If your mind is medium strong it will be broken. If your mind is
strong it will be broken. The aim is to break completely the two
components of the infinite kamma in the past, the me, me, me mind.
Then if there is no receptacle nothing can go into it.
If I
have a glass I can pour water into it, if I have a glass I could pour
oceans of water. It will just fall through the air and run away. When
you have a small receptacle called me, me, me, me, you can pour
things into it. When it gets full your satisfied. Then it leaks away.
Your craving becomes "I want more."
Now if you have
a very small vessel, because of the weak minds you are very easily
satisfied. You are saturated with the mental objects that you're
given, and that self gets smug. If you have medium ... say like a 5
litre container ... takes more, you get satisfied and then it leaks
away you want more. If you have a bigger self mind, say like a 10,000
gallon water tank, it takes more and then it gets saturated.
Now
which is the best time to smash a glass? Is the best time to smash a
glass when the glass is empty, when the glass is half full or when
the glass is full?
Which is the best time to smash the
glass?
"When its empty" was the response of one
student.
Why when its empty? When it's empty it is at the
peak of its craving. When its full its saturated or satiated for a
little while. Which would you defend, a mind with intense craving or
a mind that's satisfied, smug? Which would you defend the
most?
"Empty," said the student.
Why? You're
quite correct, you would defend it. Why?
"You're
despairing," came the reply.
You'd be in despair. You
would resist breaking the glass, you would say gimme, gimme, gimme, I
want water or I want sensation. So there's a trick. Your resistance
to smashing the glass, to smashing that mind, in this case we'll
assume because of your kamma its easier to break when its satisfied.
But you remember this, just because that is your reality, everyone
has the results of wholesome or unwholesome kamma which makes our
lives different. In your case, there is no right answer, it depends
on the kamma of the being.
You're quite sure of your view,
aren't you?
Good. Then your self mind will be broken when it's
perfectly smug and satisfied.
Now you gave me an answer. Are
you sure of that? That is your kamma. When it is empty, and you're
absolutely shredded and you're absolutely craving you want the
vehicle for the next lot of goodies to be smashed. Do you see?
Therefore in this teaching, there is no specific "are you full
up ready to be broken?, are you empty ready to be broken"? The
teaching is not like that. But it is equal for all beings. I want you
to explain to them your position, that is the kammic perceptions of
your best mind. You're on your best mind now, Gilda. Because your
mind is perfectly clear if you could only know it. So you have
correct view of how you, you know everyone is different, how your
kamma sees it like that. Explain your view.
"Well, I just
saw and think when the glass is empty your craving is at is
peak."
At it's peak. Your dukkha is at it's maximum. You
will fight and you will resist not to smash it. But when its full,
when you're perfectly satisfied you won't guard it as much. So that's
for you.
Tell me your view (to a second student)
"Well
the mind at a point of despair, that's when I'm ready to break the
glass and get something better."
This you're not going to
get something better, because you won't have an ego, you won't want
anything better. Now let's get your self teed up so you can be quite
clear on the process. Were not going to stop the world because we
can't. The outside Samsara. But we can stop and smash that mind that
says gimme, gimme, gimme, me, me, me, me, meeeeeee. It's a revolting
sound; meeeeee.
Tell me, there's two views, there can be any
point between that depending on your kamma.
Frank, what do you
reckon? Where are you at?
"Maybe not complete satiation,
but up, well up."
Well up like 3/4, 7/8 something like
that. OK.
Minnie, to which view do you kammicly
incline.
"Mine's yeah, I'd say it was the empty."
You belong on the empty side. A little bit in there maybe. I
won't ask Julie, she's already got. Joan, which end of the spectrum
are you kammicly disposed to?
"Empty."
Boris,
you don't know yet. Now comes the big sixty-four thousand dollar
question. Who does the breaking? Who breaks the mind?
"We
do."
No. That's a conditional Dhamma that would be to say
we do. How can I break an I? You'd have to duplicate one to break
one.
No, not the teacher. Because the teacher ... that would
imply the teacher was a self. Who breaks the mind? That is a nonsense
question. Please recognise it as such. If you puzzle who breaks the
glass? That's the sort of thing that glass full of me, me, me, would
ask. It is a nonsense question.
Do you understand that must
be a nonsense question? Do understand that Minnie? Do you understand
that Gilda? Do you understand it's a nonsense question? Do you
understand it's a nonsense question Jo? Peter, no you don't
understand I know. Paul? You don't think so, you don't understand.
Jeffrey?
"The power is of the Buddha."
Not
true. The power of the Buddha but you can't define what you're are
talking about. It's just words.
"Isn't that
wisdom?"
Maybe, maybe not.
"Why isn't that
............"
Because, it is ... remember this. The glass
is posited and it has no reality. So how can you break something that
doesn't exist? In reality. We are talking about reality. It is a
fiction, that mind, its a lie, its a delusion. It has no reality but
you believe it has.
If something is unreal, if something is
unreal, one view is it is unbroken. That is unreal. One view is it is
broken, but an unreal object broken is still an unreal object. Bet
you wish you studied logic? You aim now .. dialectic.
Do
understand that?
"No," replied the student.
The
object is unreal. Now, an unreal intact and a unreal glass broken,
they are still unreal. So if you can go to a higher level of
understanding, another level of Sunyata, there can be no, nothing
that can break something that is unreal because it has no inherent
existence. In other words because there is nothing there in reality
to be broken.
So what you can do, you can make the mind see
the glass is unreal. And when it does, it lets go the belief that
there is a real glass there and when that's gone .. empty,
Nothingness. It has the same affect as if it broke the glass, but it
did it in reality by untangling the tangle.
Do you
understand?
"Yes,"replied the
student.
Explain.
"It's not a question of breaking
the glass, its a matter of that the mind has a mis-knowledge, if you
like, a deluded view of the existence of something which in reality
has no existence. It's like posited thing, because of delusion,
that's believed in, imagined, from the view of that mind, seemingly
real. But ultimately not the case, not real. The only thing that
needs to be broken is that delusion and then the fact that there was
no real glass is obvious."
Now, you're saying, that what
has to broken is the delusion. But a delusion is a delusion. A
delusion is mis-knowledge. A delusion is afflictional mis-knowledge,
afflictional meaning it causes you pain. It's a canka, like a sore.
If you went to a doctor, and you imagined you had a boil, say
on the back of your hand. It was was an imagined boil. When you were
cured of the afflictional mis-knowledge that you have a boil on the
back of your hand, by the doctor. Did the doctor remove a boil to
cure you, or not? Yes or No?
"No," replied the
student.
Because there was no such thing there. The
afflictional mis-knowledge similarly that says there is something
when there is nothing is like an imaginary mind imagining as an
object a boil. The imaginary mind is unreal. An imaginary mind can
only hold in it imagined objects. Unreal. In other words, an
afflictional mind is a mind that is unreal. Having as its subject
matter any unreal thing. Now we go back a bit.
The glass, the
me, me, me container is unreal. The objects it fills itself with are
likewise unreal. So the mind is yet to see reality.
We will
conclude this teaching on "Conventional Self, Dependently
Designated Self." in next weeks program.
Thank you very
much.
The MP3 file of the original recorded teachings read on
today's program will be available online at www.edharma.org by early
January 2005.
May you come to see the reality of all
things.
May you be well and happy.
May all beings be
well and happy.
The script was transcribed, prepared and
edited by Julian Bamford, Frank Carter, Anita Hughes and Alec
Sloman.
References:
John D. Hughes Collection Recorded
Dhamma Teachings. Transcription Of Dhamma Teachings
Recording
Title: “Conventional Self” “Dependently Designated
Self”
Tape 4, Side 1
Teacher: John D. Hughes
Date of
recording: 25/6/88
Transcribed by: Alec Sloman
Transription
checked by: Julian Bamford 26 Dec 2005.
CD Reference
25_06_88T4S1A
File Name:
25_06_88T4S1A_JDHtranscribe.rtf
Recording Title: “Conventional
Self” “Dependently Designated Self”
Tape 4, Side
2
Teacher: John D. Hughes
Date of recording:
26/6/88
Transcribed by: Travis Heenan
Checked by Frank
Carter
CD Reference 25_06_88T4S2A
File Name:
25_06_88T4S2A_JDHtranscribe.rtf
Word count: 4032
Disclaimer
As we, the Chan Academy Australia, Chan Academy being a registered
business name of the Buddhist Discussion Centre (Upwey) Ltd., do not
control the actions of our service providers from time to time, make
no warranty as to the continuous operation of our website(s). Also,
we make no assertion as to the veracity of any of the information
included in any of the links with our websites, or another source
accessed through our website(s).
Accordingly, we accept no
liability to any user or subsequent third party, either expressed or
implied, whether or not caused by error or omission on either our
part, or a member, employee or other person associated with the Chan
Academy Australia (Buddhist Discussion Centre (Upwey) Ltd.)
This
Radio Script is for Free Distribution. It contains Buddha Dhamma
material and is provided for the purpose of research and study.
Permission is given to make printouts of this publication for
FREE DISTRIBUTION ONLY. Please keep it in a clean place.
"The
gift of Dhamma excels all other gifts".
For more
information, contact the Centre or better
still, come and visit us.
© 2002. Copyright. The Buddhist Discussion Centre
(Upwey) Ltd.