Special Insight by Khenrinpoche Lhundrup Rigsel @ LDC P1/Oct 6

[KR starts with advice on how to motivate when listening to the nights teachings. One should set up the motivation of attending teachings in order to attain liberation and enlightenment for the sake of all living beings, rather than only for ones personal happiness. This is because all living beings, like oneself, seek lasting happiness and wish to avoid suffering]. One begins by thinking of sentient beings with sincere compassion and how much they wish for happiness but they are unable to obtain even ordinary happiness to their satisfaction, let alone uncontaminated happiness. Thus we should take on the responsibility to lead them to the lasting happiness that they seek, by oneself alone. However, if one asked oneself Do I have the power to do this? one would realise that one presently doesnt have the power to free even one single living being. Who has this power? The Buddha has the power to liberate all sentient beings. Thus one should resolve to attain Buddhahood in order to benefit beings and resolve never to separate oneself from this altruistic thought. However, although one may have such a supreme intention, there is something preventing us from achieving Buddhahood. This obstacle is not knowing the reality of things and events or in other words, the obstacle is fundamentally, ignorance. Therefore, for the purpose of overcoming ignorance, one resolves to listen to the teachings on special insight. Generally speaking, in order to achieve special insight, one must first achieve the calm abiding state = stabilised concentration = samatha (Sanskrit) = shiney (Tibetan). Last year, Ive briefly discussed the method of attaining calm abiding. This year Im going to explain about special insight. Purpose of special insight Calm abiding and special insight is found not only in Buddhism but also in other religions. However the special insight that other religions follow is completely different from what we are going to talk about here. For other traditions, they may reach the level of gaining realisations that enable them to see the different levels of cyclic existence from the Desire Realm to the Form to the Formless Realms. In fact, some practitioners mistakenly think that they have achieved liberation when they reach such high states of meditation but in truth, they may have only reached the peak of samsara. In contrast, here we are trying to gain special insight on selflessness or the true nature of reality, which is the proper means to be free from samsara, gain liberation and full enlightenment. When explaining about special insight on selflessness/emptiness, it is useful to know that in Buddhism, there are 4 philosophical schools on what selflessness is. The study of the views of these 4 schools is called Tenets. Within these views are the discussions on gross and subtle levels of selflessness and each school presents these concepts differently. So here, Im going to give a brief explanation of the 4 schools. [The 4 schools are Vaibashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and Madhyamika (within the Madhyamika, there are 2 branches = Madhyamika-Sautratika (M-S) and MadhyamikaPrasangika (M-P).

The lower schools on the doctrine of selflessness are the Vaibashika + Sautrantika; the higher schools are the Cittamatra and the Madhyamika schools. Within the Madhyamika, there are 2 branches = M-Sautrantika (M-S) and the M-Prasangika (M-P), with M-P holding the highest view.

The lower schools only discuss the selflessness of person, whereas the higher schools discuss the selflessness of person and of phenomena]. With regards to the selflessness of person, all the 4 Buddhist schools assert: the selflessness of the person means the person is empty of being permanent, unitary (single) and independent. This view relates to gross selflessness. a person is empty of being self subsisting (i.e. a person is not independent of the aggregates) and empty of being substantially existing (i.e. for the self to appear, the self requires other factors) - This view relates to subtle selflessness. (Only a subschool of the Vaibashika, namely the Vatisputra rejects this view).

With regards to the selflessness of phenomena: the Cittamatra (the Mind Only school) talks about selfless non-duality = that the subject (the one perceiving) and the object are empty of being different substances because they are both produced from a single predisposition/mental imprint. the Madhyamika holds the view that phenomena (which includes aggregates) do not exist inherently/intrinsically.

The view of the lower schools are helpful because they are complimentary factors which help us to understand the ultimate view of reality and in that sense are not contradictory. They act as preparatory views which help us to advance to more subtle points. We can think of the explanations of the different schools as steps on a ladder. Selflessness of the person - That a person is empty of being unitary (single), permanent and independent (accepted by all the 4 schools). Of these 3 aspects, realising impermanence is the most subtle. Non Buddhists however, believe that the self is permanent (free from being produced and will not disintegrate), partless (not depending on parts) and independently-existing (not dependent on causes & conditions). Some even hold a view that self is a soul that never changes. But if we analyse whether there is such a permanent, partless, independent, never-changing self, we will discover that there is no such self. Hence we can differentiate between Buddhists and nonBuddhists through this comparison of views. After realising the impermanence of the person, one then moves on to the more refined view of selflessness i.e. that the person is empty of being self subsisting and empty of being substantially existing. This is the view which holds that the self or person is dependent on the aggregates for its existence. When afflictive emotions arise such as anger or attachment, if one were to analyse, one will see the I that one is holding onto. That I will appear as totally independent of the

collection of aggregates. Not only the I appears to us in this way. We actually believe that we exist in that 2/ way. This is an innate form of grasping which everyone has i.e. mistakenly believing that the self is independent of the aggregates. Once we come to the understanding that there is no self that is independent of the collection of aggregates nor a self that is not dependent on the continuation of the aggregates, we will conclude that the self arises dependently on the aggregates. All the 4 Buddhist schools agree with this view. When the Buddha performed the 1st Turning of the Wheel, the intended audience were the followers of the Hinayana = the Vaibashika and Sautrantika schools (who hold the view that persons are empty of substantial existence i.e. for the self to appear, there must be other factors present, for example the aggregates). To repeat, these two lower schools only assert the selflessness of person and do not discuss the selflessness of phenomena. Only the two higher schools of the Cittamatra and the Madhyamika discuss both the selflessness of person and the selflessness of phenomena. Selflessness of phenomena According to the Cittamatra (Mind Only school), the selflessness of phenomena means the emptiness of duality i.e. subject which apprehends the object and the object itself, are empty of being different in nature = they are non-dualistic. Object and subject are produced by a single predisposition/mental imprint left in the consciousness. If one believes that the object and subject are produced by such a single predisposition and yet are different in nature, this would create the mistaken view of duality. The Mind Only school therefore holds the view that there is no external object as being totally different from the mind. Consequently, as everything is due to the activation of the predispositions of the mind (mental imprints) or the ripening of such mental imprints, this understanding will help us to overcome views about there being an externally existing enemy and hence, no reason for anger to arise. It is because we hold the view that that there is an externally existing enemy that anger arises to create problems. According to the Madhyamika, selflessness of phenomena is that which has no inherent/intrinsic existence (i.e. that phenomena is a dependent-arising). The special insight that we are going to discuss here will be that which is in accordance with the Madhaymika view. Within the Madhyamika, there are 2 schools = M-Sautrantika (M-S) and the M-Prasangika (M-P). The M-P is the highest school which adopts the views of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti, upon which Lama Tsongkhapa based his explanations on emptiness. In M-S, they believe that there is no truly existing phenomena but there are inherently existing objects. For M-P there is no truly existing nor inherently existing phenomena.

Questions & Answers (next page)

3/ Questions & Answers Q: Having explained the highest view of the M-P (during the 2nd Turning of the Wheel), why did Buddha go back to teach the Cittamatra position during the 3rd turning of the wheel?

Ans: During the 1st Turning of the Wheel, the intended audience were the Hinayana practitioners (Shravakas/Solitary Realisers); during the 2nd Turning of the Wheel, the intended audience were the Mahayana practitioners (from which the M-P scholars arose); during the 3rd Turning of the Wheel, the disciples were for both Mahayana and Hinayana. [Post-session clarification: After the Buddha taught the highest view of selflessness of person and phenomena (as adopted by the M-Prasangika) during the 2nd Turning of the Wheel, doubt amongst practitioners arose because during in the 1st turning of the wheel, it appeared that things were inherently existing; yet during the 2nd turning of the wheel, it was taught that things are not inherently existing. Hence the seemingly contradictory views and doubt. The Buddha removed this doubt by explaining non-duality & mental projections as per the Cittamatra view because this then forms the basis of the highest (M-P) view that phenomena arises dependently upon causes & conditions, parts (of the phenomena) and mental projections.

Q:

Lama Serlingpa and Lama Atisha: Serlingpa was the master and Atisha the disciple, yet Serlingpa held the Sautrantika school (lower school on selflessness) and Atisha held the M-Prasangika view. A comment on this pse? Lama Atisha sought out Lama Serlingpa for the bodhicitta teachings. At that time when Lama Atisha received the instructions from Lama Serlingpa, Serlingpas view of selflessness was that of the Sautrantika. Although they had differences in the philosophy re-emptiness, their bodhicitta practice was the same.

Ans:

Q: Ans:

Arhats adopt the lower schools view of selflessness? If someone is an Arhat, he/she is already following the view of the Prasangika. It is said that if one does not follow the view of selflessness according to Nagarjuna, there is no way to attain nirvana/Arhatship.

4/