Buddhist Discussion Centre (Upwey)
Ltd.
Conventional Self, Dependently Designated Self - Part 1
John D. Hughes
Recorded
Teachings
Buddhist Discussion Centre
(Upwey) Ltd.
33 Brooking St
Upwey, Victoria
Australia
3158
A.C.N. 005 701 806
A.B.N. 42 611 496
488
Phone: (03) 9754
3334
Fax: (03) 9754 3334
email: wbu@bdcu.org.au
Disclaimer
Teacher: John D. Hughes
Date of recording: 25/6/88
Transcribed by Alec Sloman
Checked by Leanne Eames
CD Reference
25_06_88T4S1i
File Name: 25_06_88T4S1i_JDHtranscribe.rtf
5 Day Meditation Course
Recording Title: "Conventional Self, Dependently Designated Self "
So the, Tsong Khapa explains with reference to earlier teachers ..."With regard to the innate egoistic view, which is the self habit, in the introduction Introduction” by Chandra. In the Introduction 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 as 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 unexcelled 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 “ . . . 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 [the] innate egoistic view, which is the property habit, is the actual mind‘mine’.” 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" “mine” in quotes. This actual "mine" object, m m-i i-n n-e object, “of the innate cognition that thinks "mine", in quotes, and [it] is not held to the be 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 samsara self habit,... “it's objects are the form aggregate” and so on. The outside Samsara samsara is the five groups. ... That’s for persons..., or just rupa for objects. The self habit outside, the nature of the Samsara 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, ...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 are the 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", absolutely 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 mine”. There are now three things operating. There is a cognition that thinks mine, 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 hold itself to be eyes, ears, or whatever.
But there is another one, that names the objects and then hands them over to this my mine, my mine, miney, me, 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, 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. T, they were generated out of the clash of the personal habit karma kamma 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 were intrinsically identifiably so.”
So it's like saying, once I've connected that cup of coffee onto this mine, me, me, 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 World war War three 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 are 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, of the eyes, the ears, and so on, are of 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 Introduction commentary Commentary, (Chandra) affirms that...and this is in quotes, "Delusion is misknowledge which functions as the reification of the intrinsic objectivity of non-objectively existent things." The mine, 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 The combination of those two is superficial, “.… With 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 an 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 samsara are not objective facts...they. 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 varied 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 kamma manifesting in the Samsara, 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 an intention to please you, or the person who gave it had the intention...because, but 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 labelling 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 Introduction commentary Commentary Chandra affirms, “'Delusion is misknowledge which functions”, this misknowledge, this delusion, functions “as the reification of the intrinsic objectivity of non non-objectively existent things.” The "I", "my", "mine", "me" is a non-objectively existing thing, and so is the....
The next session of these Teachings is entitled 'Conventional Self, Dependently Designated
Self- Part 2'.