Investigation Via Meditation.
Determining that selflessness is a result of the rationale.
- The ascertainment that if the I exists in the manner it is understood, then it must be either the same entity as the mental and bodily aggregates or a separate entity from those aggregates is the second of the three fundamental stages in meditation on personal selflessness.'
- If the I exists intrinsically, it must be either the same entity as the aggregates or a distinct entity.
- Entity similarity and dissimilarity are mutually incompatible; if two things exist, they must be identical or dissimilar.
If the I is discovered to be neither essentially the same as nor fundamentally distinct from the mind and body, then the I does not inherently exist.
- One may conclude that the I does not inherently exist as it seems by using the seven-fold argument.
- If non-inherent existence permeates, or happens with, every instance of not being intrinsically the same as or different from the aggregates, such an inference cannot be formed.
- To put it another way, a yogi must understand that whatever is fundamentally neither the same as nor distinct from its basis of categorization does not exist inherently.
- One must come to the clear conviction that a third option of tangible existence does not exist.
- When this happens, one begins to question one's own existence in the same manner that one begins to doubt an old friend.
Identifying the reasons' existence in the subject
In summary,
(i)'I' do not inherently exist because I I am not the aggregates,
(ii) I am not an entity other than the aggregates,
(iii) I am not the base of the aggregates,
(iv) I am not inherently based on the aggregates,
(v) I am not inherently possessing the aggregates,
(vi) I am not the aggregates' shape, and
(vii) I am not the aggregates' shape.
After recognizing the inherently existing I and determining that it must be either the same as or distinct from mind and body, the third stage in emptiness meditation is to establish the first reason as a characteristic of the I, demonstrating that the I is not mind and body.
Many arguments are offered here, and each should be carefully examined until one emerges that challenges the idea that the I is made up of mind and body."
- I Demonstrating that the I is not comprised of the intellect and body
- The statement of an I would be meaningless if the I were made up of mental and bodily aggregates.
- The aggregates would simply be referred to as".
- The I is not the aggregates since the selves would be many if the aggregates were many, and the aggregates would be one if the I was one.
- The I is not the aggregates since the I would be created and disintegrated in the same way that the aggregates are.
- The I is not created essentially, and it does not dissolve naturally, since if it did, recollection of previous incarnations would be impossible.
Because the two I's from separate lives would be fundamentally distinct, they would be unrelated.
- Because there would be no transfer of the potencies acquired through activities because the Fs of various lives would be unconnected to each other, the I is not naturally created and does not essentially dissolve.
- Because the I would meet with the consequences of acts not done by itself, the I is not essentially created and does not naturally dissolve.
If, on the other hand, the potencies acquired through acts were transferred, the consequences of those deeds would be experienced by an I who was completely distinct from the I who did the deeds.
Demonstrating That The I Is Identical To The Intellect And Body
- The I is not a separate entity from mind and body since it would lack the collective characteristics of creation, dissolution, enduring, shape, experiencing, and realizing things if it were.
- The I is not a distinct entity from the mental and bodily aggregates; if it were, the name I would be meaningless.
- The I would be a non-product, because non-products aren't subject to change, while the I does.
- Because there would be no object to be perceived as I if the I were a distinct entity from the aggregates, there would be no object to be apprehended as I.
- The I would be a non-product, similar to nirvana, or a non-existent, similar to a sky flower.
If the I were a distinct entity from the aggregates, it would be apprehendable apart from them, just as the character of form is apprehendable separately from the character of awareness.
However, this is not the case.
Demonstrating that the I is not the foundation of the mind and body.
The I isn't fundamentally the foundation of the mental and physical aggregates, like a bowl of yogurt or snow that blankets and surrounds a forest of trees, since if it were, the I and the aggregates would be two separate things.
In the first rationale, this has already been rejected.
- Demonstrating that the intellect and body are not the foundation of I
- The I is not fundamentally founded on the aggregates, as a human living in a tent or a lion living in a jungle is, since if it were, the I and the aggregates would be two separate things.
In the second rationale, this has already been rejected.
- Determining that the I does not have mind and body by default
- The I does not naturally own the aggregates in the same way that a person does not inherently possess a cow, since if it did, the I and the aggregates would be two separate beings.
- The I does not intrinsically own the aggregates in the same way that a person owns his body or a tree owns its core, since it would make the I and the aggregates the same thing.
In the second and first reasonings, these views have already been rejected.
Demonstrating that the self is not a combination of intellect and body.
Because the aggregates constitute the foundation of the designation I, and an item named is not its basis of designation, the I is not simply a composite of the aggregates.
- The I is not the aggregates' composite because the aggregates' composite does not exist essentially; if the aggregates' composite existed inherently, the composites would be many like the aggregates, or the aggregates would be one like the composite.
- Also, if the aggregate composite were a separate entity from the aggregates, it would be distinguishable from the aggregates and lack the aggregates' character, but this is not the case.
Establishing that the I is not a physical form
Because form is physical, the I is not the shape of the body.
- If the I were just physical, it would not be aware.
- Furthermore, the form of the body does not exist fundamentally since it is made up of the shapes of the body's limbs.
- Without more thought, one understands that the I does not exist fundamentally.
Non-inherent existence results if a phenomenon is in none of these seven connections with its bases of designation, and now it's clear that the I, body, and mind can't be in any of these seven relationships.
- As a result, the I does not exist as a physical entity as it is often thought.
- Before gaining a grasp of emptiness, novices must first get familiar with the logic over a lengthy period of time.
- Reasons, on the other hand, do not need infinite establishment since if every reason had to be established by another reason, the primary thesis would never be realized.
- The reasons have been established to the point that they have been proven by experience.
If a person lacks this experience, other options, such as examples, must be considered in order to acquire the required experience that defines the reasoning.
List Of Research Sources
- The Great Exposition of Tenets by Jam-yang-shay-ba.
- Annotations by Nga-wang-bel-den.