Geshe Lobsang Choden
Vipassana Teaching Lesson 2
格西洛桑曲燈
勝觀 (毗缽舍那) 講授 第 2 課

Vipassana Teaching Lesson 2 English Translation

“Self” and Emptiness

2024-12-14

Tsongkhapa’s View and Lineage of Emptiness

Last time, we discussed how Tsongkhapa, after studying the Buddhapalita Mulamadhyamakavritti, received blessings, and the ultimate view of emptiness of the Madhyamaka Prasangika school arose in his mindstream. He developed immense faith in the Buddha’s teachings on dependent origination and emptiness. Just as the noble Visesamitra and Subhasita are mentioned in the praise of the learned, he wrote the Praise to Dependent Origination to laud the Buddha’s explanation of this correct view.

Tsongkhapa’s Praise to Dependent Origination later became widespread in Tibet. One day, a great Tibetan scholar, Bodong Chokyi Namgyal, happened to hear a beggar on pilgrimage reciting this text. When Bodong Chokyi Namgyal heard the contents, he initially thought they were verses by Nagarjuna. However, when the beggar recited, “Therefore, the Teacher, having foretold Nagarjuna, fully explained the unsurpassable vehicle,” he realized it couldn’t have been written by Nagarjuna, as the verses praised him. He then thought it might be by Chandrakirti. But when the beggar later recited, “The excellent explanations of Chandrakirti, illuminate the depths of the difficult,” he knew it couldn’t be by Chandrakirti either. Curious, he asked the beggar what he was reciting. The beggar replied that it was Tsongkhapa’s Praise to Dependent Origination.

This great scholar thus developed an incredibly strong and unwavering faith in Tsongkhapa. He planned to visit the master, but sadly, Tsongkhapa had already passed to a pureland. Bodong Chokyi Namgyal then tossed the offerings of gold and silver he had intended for Tsongkhapa into the air, vowing to hold Tsongkhapa’s teachings in the future. This is a very meaningful story of a profound connection.

Tsongkhapa’s view on the correct understanding of Madhyamaka is quite unique. This is primarily because the ultimate meaning he expounded in his commentaries on the view of emptiness and Madhyamaka is exceptionally precise and insightful. This isn’t just because he was proficient in the contents of many commentaries by Indian scholars, but also because he had a direct vision of Manjushri, who gave him a prophecy. Manjushri told him that the views of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti were the most profound and correct interpretations of the Madhyamaka view. Chandrakirti can be considered a key bodhisattva who propagated Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka view; he came from another pure land precisely for this purpose. Therefore, understanding the Madhyamaka view through Chandrakirti’s treatises is absolutely correct. Thus, Tsongkhapa’s commentaries on the Madhyamaka view can be said to be the most complete and precise explanations of the correct view of emptiness.

The Stages of Realizing Emptiness

Not all of Tsongkhapa’s explanations on the Madhyamaka view are easy to understand; some parts are quite profound. For this reason, we should study them repeatedly. If we have the opportunity, we can ask our teachers about the more difficult questions to clarify our doubts. I believe that if we can clarify some of the key points and issues in Tsongkhapa’s explanations of the Madhyamaka view, we will gain a special and unique understanding of the deeper Madhyamaka principles and the correct view of emptiness. This is especially true when studying scriptures and treatises on emptiness; Tsongkhapa’s interpretations will help us gain an understanding that is more unique and easier to grasp than others’.

We have previously understood that we must contemplate the various sufferings of samsara, seek liberation from it, and, further, help all sentient beings be free from all samsaric suffering and give rise to unexcelled bodhicitta. The root of all this is the necessity of severing the root of samsara—the ignorance of self-grasping. To sever this ignorance, we must rely on the correct view of emptiness, the realization of no-self. Only then can we cut off the root of ignorance. Therefore, we must find a way to give rise to the realization of emptiness in our mindstream.

To give rise to the realization of emptiness, we must first hear the various emptiness scriptures taught by the Buddha. For most people, these scriptures can be difficult to access at first because their meaning is quite profound. Therefore, we may need to rely on the commentaries, explanations, and extensive treatises by great masters like Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita, and Chandrakirti to begin to understand. If someone finds even these commentaries difficult, they may need to learn further through Tsongkhapa’s related works, such as the Ocean of Reasoning, Illuminating the Thought, Great Commentary on Emptiness, Small Commentary on Emptiness, and Distinguishing the Definitive from the Interpretive.

Through this process of listening and contemplation, we can understand the correct Madhyamaka view, then proceed to practice it, and eventually give rise to the Madhyamaka view of emptiness in our mindstream. This is why we must study the content of Madhyamaka emptiness.

Two Types of No-Self and the Stages of Practice

We are now going to talk about emptiness, or the realization of no-self. We will briefly explain the no-self view based on Tsongkhapa’s teachings on Vipassana in his Lamrim Chenmo.

When we speak of “no-self,” we generally refer to two types:

• Pudgala-nairatmya (no-self of persons)
• Dharma-nairatmya (no-self of phenomena)

There is no difference in the way we grasp for a “self” between the no-self of persons and the no-self of phenomena. The only difference is in the object of focus: one is directed at the pudgala (person), and the other is directed at dharmas (phenomena, such as the five skandhas of a person). Otherwise, the manner or image of this grasping for a “self” is the same.

According to the Madhyamakakarika,

“First, one eliminates unwholesome actions; in the middle, one destroys the self; later, one abandons all views. The wise are skilled in this.”

This verse clarifies the stages of our practice:

• “First, one eliminates unwholesome actions”: This means that in the path of the lower and middle scope, we must first abandon the wrong views of not believing in karma and its results, so as to avoid creating unwholesome actions.
• “In the middle, one destroys the self”: This means we must first abandon the self-grasping of the person, which is the no-self of persons.
• “Later, one abandons all views”: This means we must abandon the grasping for all phenomena and give rise to the realization of the no-self of phenomena.
• “The wise are skilled in this”: This indicates that this sequence of practice is a skillful means. Therefore, we should start with the no-self of persons to abandon our grasping for the “self” of a person.

The “self” that we need to counteract and abandon—the self of a person and the self of phenomena (or pudgala-atman and dharma-atman)—is not fundamentally different in nature or essence. There is no subtle or coarse distinction between them. The way or the image of our grasping for the self of a person and the self of phenomena is identical. The distinction is only that the self of a person takes the pudgala (person) as its object, while the self of phenomena takes the five skandhas—form, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and consciousness—that a person comprises as its object.

So why do we usually choose to start with the no-self of persons? The key is that when we try to distinguish between the objects of grasping for the pudgala and for phenomena, we find that the object of the “self” of the pudgala is easier to understand. Compared to understanding our object of grasping in the five skandhas, the object imputed by the conceptual mind onto a person is more intuitive and easier to grasp. Therefore, we use the study and understanding of the content of pudgala-nairātmya as an entry point for the contemplation of the no-self.

Identifying the Object of Negation: Understanding the True Meaning of “Self”

If we want to learn about the no-self of persons or phenomena, we can use the correct reasoning of emptiness to abandon our grasping for the self of persons or phenomena. There are many such reasonings, such as the reasoning of dependent origination, the vajra-like reasoning, the reasoning of no production from the four extremes, and the four-point reasoning. We will also discuss the most important reasoning, the reasoning of being free from the one and the many.

Once we have recognized the self of persons or phenomena that we grasp for, we need to use these reasonings to abandon the grasping for the existence of this “self.”

Among these reasonings, the reasoning of being free from the one and the many is the easiest to understand the meaning of emptiness. Therefore, Tsongkhapa and his followers often prefer to use this reasoning to understand emptiness and abandon self-grasping.

The reasoning of being free from the one and the many has four key points, which we mentioned last time:

1. The key point of determining the object of negation.
2. The key point of determining pervasion.
3. The key point of ten categories of separation
4. The key point of eleven categories of separation

We will gradually understand how these points abandon the principles of emptiness.

First, we must enter the first key point of the reasoning of being free from the one and the many: determining the object of negation.

Determining the object of negation means first clarifying what the “self” we need to counteract is. Since we have been talking about “no-self,” we must be clear about what this “self” to be negated is. We must not confuse the “self” that experiences the results of good and bad karma in our daily lives with the “self” of self-grasping that we need to abandon.

The “self” we normally talk about—”I did this, I did that”—is a “self” that can be conceptually designated. This “self” is where the results of karma can be established and conceptually designated; it truly exists. But this is not the “self” we need to negate. If we treat this conceptually designated “self” as completely non-existent, we may fall into nihilism, straying from the correct Madhyamaka view and denying the very “self” that can be conceptually designated.

The “self” we need to counteract is not that conceptually designated “self.” Instead, we must recognize the grasping that holds that there is a real “self” existing on the basis of the five skandhas. That grasping is what we need to counteract. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between the conceptually designated “self” and the “self” of self-grasping.

As it says in the Bodhisattvacaryavatara, if we do not recognize the object to be negated, we cannot understand its non-existence. In other words, to negate the self-grasping that holds a truly existing or inherently existing “self,” we must first clarify what that situation or thing is. If you don’t understand it, you cannot counteract it. If you don’t know what the thing is that we are saying doesn’t exist, you will have no idea what “that thing doesn’t exist” means.

This is like saying, “There is no vase in this room.” You must first know what a vase is to understand the situation of “no vase in the room.” Similarly, to counteract the self-grasping of persons and phenomena, we must first understand, analyze, and determine what the “self” of self-grasping is. If you do not first confirm the self-grasping you are trying to counteract, it’s like shooting an arrow without knowing where the target is, or trying to catch a thief without knowing what the thief looks like. Therefore, we must first determine what the situation or meaning of the self-grasping “self” is before we can truly counteract it.

The Definitions of “Self” and “Intrinsic Nature”

What do we mean by “no-self,” “no-intrinsic nature,” “no-true existence,” or “no-self-nature” when we talk about all phenomena?

The Madhyamakakarika states that the meaning of “self,” “intrinsic nature,” and “self-nature” that we often talk about is what the Four Hundred Verses on the Middle Way refers to as “the non-dependence of phenomena on other things.” This means that a phenomenon, without depending on other things, can have an independent, autonomous, and truly existent essence or nature from its own side. That is what is called the “self” or “true intrinsic nature.”

No phenomenon can have such a nature, because all phenomena are dependent origination; they exist in relation to one another. Therefore, the principle that all phenomena have no intrinsic nature is this.

If something had an intrinsic nature, it wouldn’t need to depend on other conditions and would have an independent, truly existing essence or nature from its own side. Tsongkhapa explained this in the Praise to Dependent Origination. However, all phenomena are not like this. Therefore, all phenomena have no intrinsic nature—or are no-self or without true existence—and the key is that no phenomenon can be established from its own side or exist without depending on other conditions. This situation exists in both the pudgala (person) and all phenomena.

For the pudgala, for example, we have “innate self-grasping,” which is the grasping of an intrinsic nature. We feel that there is a kind of “self” that exists independently of the five aggregates, and we grasp that there is an autonomous, independent, real self existing in the place where the five aggregates have converged. This is the “self” we need to counteract.

We are not trying to completely eliminate the conceptually designated “self” that we use when we say, “I can eat, I am walking, I am doing something.” We are trying to counteract the grasping that takes the five aggregates as its basis and believes that there is a unique, inherently existing “self” that arises from its own side and doesn’t need to depend on other conditions. We should not counteract the “self” that can be conceptually designated, which is the basis for karma and its results. This point must be understood.

We cannot just recognize the “self” of self-grasping that we need to counteract as an abstract concept. This is like trying to catch a thief without a clear idea of what they look like, only saying, “The thief is someone in a white shirt.” You would never catch the thief. We must first understand the situation of the innate self-grasping we are trying to counteract and then develop a recognition or experience of it. Then, by following what the teacher or guru has taught, we investigate, contemplate, and truly find the image or situation of this innate self-grasping.

We should not just listen and then say, “The ‘self’ of innate self-grasping to be negated is this and that.” This can easily turn it into an abstract concept, and you will never know what the self-grasping you are trying to counteract is. You will have just heard that the “self” is something that doesn’t exist, and the “self” of innate self-grasping is something that seems to arise from the five aggregates, doesn’t need to depend on anything, and seems to exist from its own side. If you just use such an empty, abstract concept to understand it, without truly contemplating, recognizing, and experiencing it, the understanding of the “self” cannot arise in your mindstream. Therefore, we must repeatedly follow the teachings on the situation of innate self-grasping—how it manifests on our five aggregates, how it appears as an autonomous, independent, truly existing “innate self” that is not imputed by the five aggregates and doesn’t need to depend on them. This is what we need to repeatedly learn and recognize.

So, the “self” to be negated or counteracted must not be understood abstractly. You cannot say, “It’s probably just like that.” That is not sufficient. Many scriptures and treatises emphasize that the recognition of the “self” to be negated is extremely important. It may take months, or even years, to truly find the “self” of self-grasping that we need to negate. Therefore, if you do not first find the self-grasping to be negated, your practice of no-self may ultimately fall into nihilism, destroying the principle of dependent origination.

Some people practice no-self by contemplating a vase. They use a method of deconstruction, saying the mouth is not the vase, the bottom is not the vase, and so on, until they conclude that “there is no vase at all.” This can lead to falling into nihilism. Or, if you practice without proper guidance, you may create your own harmful way of contemplating emptiness.

So, to truly practice no-self, you must first understand what the situation of the self-grasping “self” that we need to negate is. This recognition of the object of negation is very important. Therefore, it may take years of repeated analysis, judgment, and contemplation of the “self” to be negated for it to truly arise in your mindstream. The situation of the “self” of innate self-grasping is very important.

The Difference Between Appearance and Grasping

The innate self-grasping we need to negate is the grasping that doesn’t just see the imputed five aggregates as a “self” imputed by our conceptual mind on the convergence of the five aggregates, but believes that there is a truly existent “self” with its own intrinsic nature on the basis of the five aggregates. This is what is called innate self-grasping.

So, we need to understand that the “self” we normally apprehend has two aspects:

• How it appears or arises in our mind.
• How we grasp or recognize the existence of this “self.”

This is the difference between appearance and grasping. We must first clarify these two to truly understand the situation of the innate self-grasping we need to negate. This is because we usually don’t carefully analyze and distinguish between these two, so we are unable to accurately recognize in our minds the grasping of the “self” of innate self-grasping as having an intrinsic nature.

Therefore, to first recognize the “self” of innate self-grasping, you must first understand the appearance of the “self” in our mind, as well as our grasping of this “self” as something that appears uniquely from the convergence of the five aggregates, does not need to depend on anything else, and has a truly existing nature. That is innate self-grasping. So you must be clear about these two to truly find the recognition of the “self” of innate self-grasping that we need to counteract and negate.

Three Ways of Recognizing the “Self”

Our grasping or our image of the “self” of a person or pudgala can generally be categorized into three situations:

1. The recognition of the “self” by someone who has developed the view of emptiness: They believe that the “self” is imputed by our conceptual mind on a basis of imputation and is not truly existent. In other words, a person who has realized emptiness understands that all phenomena are merely imputed by our conceptual mind on a basis of imputation. There is nothing truly existent or with its own intrinsic nature on the basis of imputation. This is like the common analogy of a magician. He makes stones appear as horses. He can see the horses, but he knows they are just stones in the appearance of horses, not real. Similarly, for someone who has developed the view of emptiness, they only see the “self” on the phenomenon as an imputation by the conceptual mind; they don’t think it is real.
2. The recognition of the “self” by ordinary beings without determining whether it has an intrinsic nature: This refers to the majority of ordinary beings who have not realized emptiness. They do not deliberately distinguish whether the “self” of a person has an intrinsic nature or not. This “self” is the conceptually designated “self” we normally talk about, which can be accepted as a valid cognition. In other words, the “self” we usually refer to—”I eat,” “I walk,” “I do something,” or the “self” that is the basis for the results of our good and bad karma—is based on this recognition of a “self” without distinguishing whether it has an intrinsic nature. This conceptually designated “self” can be established as existing in a conventional sense. It is also the basis for what we call the results of karma. And this principle of designation is very reasonable and logical. That is, the conceptually designated “self” must be without intrinsic nature for the results of karma to be established. If the “self” on which the results of karma can be established had an intrinsic nature, then anything with an intrinsic nature would not need to depend on any other conditions to exist alone, but this is not the case. Therefore, this valid conventional recognition of the “self”—which we don’t distinguish as having an intrinsic nature—can be the basis for karma and its results. According to the Madhyamaka Prasangika school, this is extremely logical. Because according to the Prasangika explanation, the conceptually designated “self” is without intrinsic nature, it can be the basis for the principle of various karmic results being experienced by this conceptually designated “self.” Otherwise, if this conceptually designated “self” had an intrinsic nature, the establishment of all karmic results would be impossible. In short, although we don’t usually define or distinguish whether the “self” we recognize has an intrinsic nature, this recognition of the “self” can be a valid conventional or a qualified designation and can also be the object that is the basis for all karmic results.
3. The grasping that takes the “self” as having an intrinsic nature: This is the grasping that believes the “self” has an intrinsic nature. This grasping and recognition hold that our “self” is not merely dependent on the convergence of the five aggregates and imputed as a “self” by our conceptual mind. Instead, it recognizes that this “self” on the five aggregates appears as if it doesn’t need any other dependence and can be its own unique, truly existing self. This grasping is a deluded mind that can be counteracted by correct reasoning to negate the grasping for “a truly existing ‘self’ with its own intrinsic nature that can exist independently without depending on the five aggregates.”

The Process and Importance of Abandoning Innate Self-Grasping

In the process of counteracting self-grasping, we need to rely on the realization of the emptiness of no-self. When you truly give rise to the realization of the emptiness of no-self, do you instantly negate and abandon all innate self-grasping? No, you do not.

After you have given rise to the realization of the emptiness of no-self and recognized the innate self-grasping to be counteracted, you still need to repeatedly contemplate it. By repeatedly training and practicing the view of emptiness, you can finally abandon innate self-grasping. The process is like this.

Therefore, regarding the second type of “self”—the valid conventional “self” that can be established as the basis for karma and its results without determining whether it has an intrinsic nature—and the third type, “a self that has an intrinsic nature,” we must distinguish the difference between them. If you don’t distinguish this difference, you may not be able to truly clarify what the innate self-grasping we are truly trying to counteract is.

Although this innate self-grasping is always hidden in our mind and body and accompanies us, it is often mixed with the second type of “self” (the conceptually designated “self”). So, we don’t have a very clear or easy way to find this innate self-grasping—the existence of that “self” grasped as having an intrinsic nature. It’s difficult for us to clarify it. If you can’t clarify it, you of course can’t properly counteract the innate self-grasping that we truly need to counteract.

Therefore, we must properly clarify how the innate “self” appears and how our grasping grasps it, based on what we are learning now. By properly analyzing and judging, and truly finding it, we will be doing the most important work in abandoning self-grasping.

The innate self-grasping we are trying to counteract is often mixed with the conventional “self” that can be the basis for karma and its results. So, we often don’t have a good opportunity to truly see what the situation of innate self-grasping is. It is only when certain conditions or circumstances arise that we are better able to clearly feel what this innate self-grasping is.

How to Recognize Innate Self-Grasping

This is especially true when we encounter very strong happiness or pain. For example, when someone slanders us. For instance, you didn’t kill someone, but someone says you’re the murderer; or someone says you stole something, but you didn’t. When you have that intense feeling of, “I am innocent,” or when a very strong anger arises and you say, “I didn’t do this thing.” At that moment, the “I” that appears in your mind so vividly and intensely as “I didn’t do that” is the “self” of innate self-grasping that we truly need to find and counteract.

This is very important. If you don’t truly recognize that the real “self” to be counteracted is this innate self-grasping and instead casually counteract the conventional “self,” you may fall into nihilism. The thing we truly need to counteract is this innate self-grasping.

This innate self-grasping needs to be observed. When you are in a situation of strong happiness, pain, or anger, you may need to set aside a little bit of your mind to observe this innate self-grasping. Usually, we don’t observe it. If you want to recognize this innate self-grasping, you need to use a little bit of mental effort to observe it.

Let me use another example. For instance, we are on an airplane that hits turbulence and suddenly drops. At that moment, the “I” that suddenly arises, thinking, “Oh no, I’m going to crash,” appears without any dependence. It is a very strong, vivid grasping for a “self.” The appearance of that unique, self-existing, and independent “self” is our innate self-grasping that we were born with. That very strong, fearful “I” is the innate self-grasping that we need to counteract.

So, in that moment, you need to use a little mental effort to feel, “Oh, so this is our innate self-grasping.” And not negate all conventional designations of “I.” This is a very critical point in our recognition of the object to be negated or counteracted, which is the “self.”

The Views of Different Buddhist Schools on the Object of Negation

The recognition of the innate “self” to be negated or counteracted is actually very difficult. Therefore, there are many differences in the object of negation among the various Buddhist schools.

• For example, the Chittamatra (Yogachara) school’s main purpose is to negate the true existence of external objects. It believes that all phenomena are created by the mind, so external objects don’t exist; external objects are not truly existent, they are only manifestations of the mind. This is the object of negation for the Chittamatra school—the non-true existence of external objects.
• Other schools also have their own recognition of the “self” to be negated. But other than the ultimate view of the Madhyamaka Prasangika school, which has the most ultimate recognition of the “self” to be negated, the other schools may fall into being either too broad or too narrow. That is, they may not be able to truly achieve the most complete and ultimate understanding of the no-self of all phenomena.

Of course, all this depends on our listening to and contemplating many scriptures and treatises. Only then can we gradually understand what is the most ultimate innate self-grasping to be negated. By listening to and contemplating these teachings that explain the appearance and grasping of the innate self-grasping to be negated and counteracted, we can slowly contemplate them. Finally, you will truly be able to recognize, “Oh, so the most ultimate innate self-grasping to be negated and counteracted is a situation of such an appearance,” and “This is how we give rise to the grasping of this innate self-grasping.” We will also slowly develop the most genuinely correct understanding.