Session Four: The Self as an Imputation

In this session, we will discuss the deeper opponent that we need to apply to stop the continuation of the twelve links. This involves getting rid of our ignorance or unawareness of how we and everyone exist. 

Unawareness is defined as not knowing. This is how it’s described in the Abhidharma texts and Madhyamaka texts. Chandrakirti describes this as knowing in an inverted or opposite way. The two ways of explaining our unawareness are that either we don’t know how we exist or we imagine that we and others exist in a way that is completely inverted and the opposite of how we actually do exist. We need to understand voidness.

I find a difference between the terms voidness and emptiness. Although not an issue in many languages that don’t have two terms, in English, “empty” implies that there is a glass, for example, that is there and there’s nothing inside it. We empty the glass and we are still left with the glass. That is true in one of the tenet systems, but that is not the deepest system. The term “void” means no such thing. This is not describing something missing from something findable. “Voidness” is from the Sanskrit word for zero. In a sense it’s nothing because it’s describing what corresponds to out fantasy. Nothing corresponds to our fantasy. That doesn’t mean that nothing exists. 

The Conventional Self: An Imputation on the Aggregates

What is the self? There is the conventional self that does function. It participates in cause and effect. Conventionally, although we have to be careful about saying that something exists, we can definitely say that there is dependent arising and we experience results. In this way, there is the conventional self. However, it doesn’t exist as something external that flies into the sperm and egg and somehow activates it, and then occupies the body and mind as if it’s the house, and uses the body and mind as a machine and is the master over all of it. That type of self doesn’t exist at all.

How does it actually exist? This moves us into the topic of imputation. It is an imputation on the ever-changing aggregates. There is some type of consciousness, object of the consciousness, distinguishing within the field that the consciousness is aware of, experiencing this with a felling of happiness or unhappiness. Then, there are all the emotions both positive and negative, and all the mechanical mental factors, such as attention, concentration and interest. The aggregates are changing at every moment and each of them coming from their own causes and potential and changing at differing rates. What we experience is really very complex, isn’t it? The self is an imputation on the changing aggregates, with these changing aggregates as its basis.

First, it is important to understand that there isn’t someone imputing it. It is an imputation; that the type of phenomenon that it is. If we use an analogy, the type of phenomenon we are discussing will be clearer. For now, let’s use the analogy of a football game. What is a football game? There are the minutes and moments of play. There are many different players and each one doing something different in every moment. What is the football game? The football game is an imputation on all of this. Is there a game and are we watching the game? Yes. Did somebody win the game? Yes. That is an imputation. The football game isn’t non-existent, but we can’t pinpoint where the game is. Think about that analogy.

I am very sorry and a little hard of hearing and a little slow today. I simply couldn’t understand imputation. Could I ask you to try to explain once more please?

Yes, happily. Please let me know if you hear me. The analogy we are using to explain the meaning of an imputation is a football game. The football game is an imputation on the basis of all the moments during which all the players are running around and doing something. In each moment something different is happening and in each moment each player is doing something different. The football game is an imputation on all of that. Is there a game? Yes. Are we watching the game? Yes. Is the game any one moment? No. Is the game any one player? No. Does the game exist totally separate from everything that happens on the field? No. But is there a game? Yes. That’s the type of phenomenon that the game is – an imputation. All the moments of the game and all the players and their activity are the basis for the imputation. Based on all of that, there is a game. The game is dependent on all these parts, on all the players and each moment. The game doesn’t exist separately from it and it isn’t findable inside any of the activity; nevertheless, there is a game.

That’s analogous of the self and the aggregates. The aggregates are like the play. Each of the mental factors, the emotions, and the consciousnesses are the players. Some are working together; some are sitting on the side. The self is like the game. It’s an imputation on all of that. Is there a self? Yes. Is the self any one of these parts? Is it the mind, our body, our anger, our feeling of happiness or unhappiness? Remember, we throw out that net of “me” and “mine.” For instance, “I’m so miserable; I am a miserable person.” That is an example of identifying the entire game with that one player, the unhappiness. We are not only that. Is there a “me” separate from all of this? No. However, there is a “me.” That’s the analogy. That’s an imputation – imputedly existent phenomenon, literally.

The consequences of this are not so easy to understand. We can understand the analogy of the game and the players, but to transfer that to the self and the aggregates is not so easy and may cause some resistance.

I can almost manage that, but the meaning of imputation still escapes me.

“Imputation” is just a word. There is no good word for this type of phenomenon in English or in our Western languages. That is the problem. What we need to realize is that this isn’t something which is imputed by a concept or thought and all we have to do is stop imputing it and it’s not there anymore. It’s not that. That is something else. An imputation is a fact. There are certain phenomena that change form moment to moment. Some are forms of physical phenomenon, some are ways of being aware of things, and some are these so-called imputations. 

There doesn’t seem to be a word in Norwegian for this. They don’t understand the word “impute.”

This is very good. It’s good that you don’t understand the word “imputation.” Then you don’t have any wrong association with it. If we used the Tibetan word, there would be no difference. A word is only a word if it has a meaning. Otherwise, it’s just a meaningless sound. If the meaning is understood, it doesn’t matter what we call it. It’s only a convention and every language is going to have a different word. 

What is the technical term in Tibetan?

It’s an affecting variable, something that changes all the time and it then means that it doesn’t share five things in common with the mental factors. It gets very technical and complicated. We don’t need that because it will just confuse things more. Instead, we learn a new word, imputation. But the word isn’t the important thing. We need to understand the type of phenomenon that we are talking about. If we look at one of the tenet systems, the Sautrantika system, it makes it very clear that we are talking about something objectively there. There is a game. There is a person.

There are many other examples of imputation. For example, there is motion. With motion, all that happens is one moment at a time. A finger is here, next it is there, and now it is there. Motion doesn’t occur in any one moment, yet motion doesn’t exist separately from each of these moments. Still, there is motion. There are many examples like that. It is something objective, not a form of physical phenomenon and not a way of knowing, like an emotion or a consciousness. However, it’s objectively a fact, and it changes form moment to moment. The game changes from moment to moment. I change from moment to moment. You change from moment to moment.

That “me” is an imputation. It’s not something that flies in, takes possession of a sperm and an egg, presses the buttons and now has a new house that it lives in and controls. “It’s mine.” But, we imagine that it’s like that and that we can be known separately from the aggregates. When we know someone, what do we know? We know what a person looks like, for example, or what the voice sounds like on the phone. We can’t just know “you” separately. Even if we just know the name, it’s something, but obviously a person is not only their name. 

I am trying to understand imputation. There are all these things happening and then, in a simple way, is it what we make of it?

No, not at all. Nobody is imputing it. It is just a fact that there is a game happening.

There are three different terms, all rendered in Tibetan by the same term. This is why it’s quite confusing. We can differentiate this using three different terms: imputation, mental labeling and designation. If you don’t have these words in Norwegian, this is wonderful because then there won’t be any incorrect associations with this word.

Imputation

Imputation is referring to what is objectively there. No one imputes it or projects it. There is a game happening, using our analogy. There is a person. Everybody would agree. 

Mental Labeling

The mental label is mentally labeling it with a concept, a category. For example, we have the category of the game. We are fitting this particular event into that category. We have certain ideas about what a game should be. Based on that, we call it a good or bad game, and so on. That’s a conceptual category, mentally labeled onto many individual games that are objectively happening. The concept of a game is invented. Someone had to make up a game and the rules of a football game, didn’t they? It wasn’t something natural that cave people did. Someone made up this idea of a football game, right? Then we have the idea or category of what the game is with all the rules. Every time we watch all these people running around kicking a ball, we fit it into that concept and recognize it as a game.

Designation

Designation is when we give the word for it. We give a word to that category “football game,” and different languages will give different words for it. Because we give that name, we designate that category and for each individual objective event that is happening, we use that word. 

The category and the word are optional. These come from the mind. They are conceptual, but there is conventionally a game. Everyone agrees that there is a game and the game is actually happening. It arises on the process of cause and effect of all the people running around and kicking the ball and one group wins and one looses. It happens. 

Therefore, there are these three things that we need to understand and differentiate: imputation, mental labeling and designation with words. What they share in common is that they all are something on a basis. The imputation of the game is on the basis of all the players running around. Imputation of a person is on the basis of all the aggregates changing all the time.

Then there is the category of a person. For example, I see all many colored shapes in front of me. They aren’t just colored shapes because we have the category of “persons.” I see this group of colored shapes and fit them into the category of persons. If we didn’t fit this into the category of persons, would we still be seeing people? Yes.

For example, I could have the category of Norwegians. I could fit you all into the category of Norwegians. Do I have to do that? No. I could have various associations of the qualities of a Norwegian. Would I have to know the word “Norwegian”? No. I am still seeing people and not calling the rug on the floor a person. I hope not.

I find this very interesting, but as I don’t play football, I was thinking of a culture and how that is changing all the time. In Norway, these days there is a discussion of how to greet people. We have to have a handshake, even as a man to a woman. I remember when teaching in the 1970’s, it wasn’t fashionable to handshake and considered bourgeois. Now, one can even be fired if one greets inappropriately.

This is a very good example. What is a culture? There are all these different ways in which people behave. Everything is happening a different moments with many different people. Is there a culture? Yes. Is there a concept of a culture? We have a concept of what a culture should be, and if something doesn’t have the same characteristics, we fit it into a different box, a different culture.

It’s the same thing with personality. It’s another good example of an imputation. There is a personality; it’s not that there is no personality. It’s quite tricky and not very easy to understand obviously.

Just to clarify please, where does reification fit into this?

Reification means to make something a solid thing. It’s usually used in English for when we fit things into a certain category. This is a bit more complex to explain. We have a concept of a culture, for example. There are two aspects. One is just the conventional meaning for something, such as “dog,” “apple,” “person,” or whatever. Then, another aspect is that we make it into a thing with a big line around it. An example that might be a bit easier to understand is when we love or like someone. Do we love or like that person? There is an emotion that it is referring to. We have these categories and words with these categories; in this case we have the categories of “love” and “like.” Those are conventions that people agree upon. We use them and it functions, but when we reify, it means that we have locked it into a box and made it into a thing.

For instance: “I am looking for love.” Really? What are you looking for? Is it a thing encapsulated in plastic, wrapped up and there it is – “I found it.” When we talk about the concept of love, it’s just all the moments of different experiences, isn’t it? There is the concept of love, but it’s not a box or a thing. Reification projects that it is a thing. Does love correspond to something? Yes. Does the reified thing aspect of it refer to anything? No.

Those are the two aspects of any category. This is the problem with conceptualization. It always comes together with reification. The categories seem like boxes, because there a category with a definition in the dictionary. However, conventionally we need concepts. Otherwise, we can’t communicate with anybody. That’s what the word means; it’s a convention. We have to have words to communicate. Words, however, imply that it’s really there. It’s something that exists in the dictionary and there it is, a wrapped up. It’s not like that. 

Still, there are emotions like love and we feel something. Even a dog has emotions. When we speak of the middle way, Madhyamaka, we don’t go to the extreme of nihilism in that nothing exists. It’s not that we’re feeling nothing. We do feel something. The other extreme is reification: we are feeling love, we found it, took it and we feel it. Those are the two extremes, nihilism and eternalism or absolutism, the literal translation for this term.

Is it that when we throw out the net of “me” and “mine,” this is like putting it into the boxes and reification?

That is exactly what is happening. We are putting ourselves into that box, identifying “me” with just one feeling. We’ve thrown out the net of “me” onto that, and we reify it, the thing, “Poor me. I’m so miserable.” From this we get the whole syndrome of the twelve links. We are so miserable that we get drunk or take drugs. The whole twelve links follows. Still, we may be experiencing unhappiness. It’s nothing special. It has arisen from causes and conditions and it will change.

Regarding imputation, is it correct to say they are conventionally agreed upon and abstract?

With categories, like the game or “me,” the concept and the word are conventionally agreed upon. Is this conventional truth or reality? This gets very tricky. Conventional truth is how things appear to be true to a mind that is under the influence of ignorance or unawareness. We can examine if we can find a person inside or outside any of the aggregates, and we can’t find anything. Still, it appears to the mind under the influence of unawareness, grasping for true existence and the habits of that. It gets very complex. It appears to exist in this impossible way and it is taken as true.

There is a difference between conventional truth and mere conventionalities. Conventional truth appears to be solidly there although it’s not. What appears that way doesn’t correspond to how things exist. Things are mere conventionalities. When we examine and try to find the person, or true love or anything, even the rug, we can get down to the atoms and sub-atomic particles and we can’t find it. Nevertheless, when we are not analyzing there is the mere conventionality that functions. It’s very important to understand that voidness and dependent arising are like two sides of the coin.

Voidness means that there is a total absence of anything corresponding to our fantasy. In the fantasy, we are like ping pong balls. For example, there is you over there and me over here. That doesn’t correspond to reality, because if it did, we couldn’t relate or communicate to each other. Another perspective is that we are dependently arising phenomena. In other words, there is no plastic wrapper around me or you. There are all the aggregates changing over here and over there and the air carrying sound and so on, and all the elements of this building. The communication arises dependently on all these parts functioning. Because of the fact that things don’t exist wrapped in plastic, things function.

The understanding of voidness by itself is incomplete. We have fully understood Buddhist teachings only when we understand the harmony between voidness and dependent arising. This is clear in the sutras. Things arise dependently on causes, conditions, parts and mental labeling. We can only establish that each of us is a person because there is the concept, category and word of a person and they refer to something. There is no label, for example, inside an emotion that says it’s love, is there? There’s no little tag, like a name tag sewn in the back of a shirt. There is nothing inside you that establish you as – what is your name?

Katrinka.

What establishes you as Katrinka? The name establishes you and the category. It’s helpful to have series of photographs of yourself from infancy until now. They all look very different. How can we say they are all “me”? What makes them all “me”? Is there something inside that we recognize as “me”? Are they all photographs of “me”? Yes, they aren’t photographs of someone else, but there is nothing on the side of the photograph that we can point to, like the nose or the foot. It is “me,” but we can only establish it or prove that it’s “me” by the name and the concept. It doesn’t make me “me,” but it is how we establish or prove that it is “me.” It’s very subtle.

What establishes that there is such a thing as love? It’s that there is a concept of love. How did these things come about? Do animals experience love? Yes. But how do we get the concept of love from the all the differing experiences that we have? Try to imagine how cave people got together and agreed that this common experience is going to be a specific emotion, and they gave a name to it. How did that happen? There’s hostility, anger, and all these very fine divisions. They were established by some category and somebody gave a word to it. A group of people agreed and established a convention. Does it refer to something? Yes, because we feel things. However, they don’t exist in boxes in our heads as if “love” or “like” come out of those boxes. 

That is reification. It’s the same reification with “me,” that each of us exists in a box and we have to get our way, and everyone has to pay attention to “me” because how we feel is so important that we have to post it on Facebook, or Twitter to let the whole world know. Everyone in the world is really interested in what “I” had for breakfast today. Then, if we don’t get enough likes, we are unhappy.

This is all within the teachings on the twelve links. The ignorance or unawareness about ourselves or others is what causes our uncontrollably recurring rebirth. We have to understand that what we think doesn’t correspond to reality. We need to make this differentiation between the two aspects of a concept. There is “me” that refers to someone, but there is no fixed concrete person. That is what doesn’t correspond to reality. For example, to think, “She is always like that; she always does this,” and have all sorts of judgments about someone. Even with the judgments like “nice,” what is “nice”? A group of cave people got together and decided what nice meant and gave a word to it. They assigned a meaningless sound as a word. That’s how it happened, isn’t it? It’s quite amazing.

I have a question about karma. Recently there have been hunters shooting and hunting moose right at the retreat center making it very difficult to practice there. I find it hard to be impartial about this. What kind of karma does this create?

Are you asking in terms of the hunters, the animals or yourself?

It is in terms of myself.

There is a difference between anger and what follows. Anger is an emotion and thereby a mental factor, right? It’s not karma. Karma is referring to the compelling impulse based on the anger, which would draw you into yelling at the hunters, throwing a rock at them, shooting them or just thinking really nasty thoughts about them. If you have those karmic impulses that lead you into acting, speaking or thinking like that, then it produces karmic aftermath as you will build up negative potential from that. There is a difference between getting angry and merely discriminating that this type of hunting with cars and guns is terrible, and feeling sad about it for the moose and the hunters and the karma they are building up. 

Based on the anger, you then yell at them etc. You might want to speak to them about no shooting at the retreat lands, but there is a difference between speaking calmly and speaking with anger. When we speak with anger, then as with all disturbing emotions, we lose peace of mind and self control. We say all sorts of things that are not very helpful. If we can remain calm and not speak out of anger, we are better able to address the situation. If the hunters are legally allowed to shoot there, there is not much that can be done.

It wasn’t done legally. They crossed the road to the access to our retreat center. I called the police, and they said they would investigate. We have another event scheduled there, but might need to change the venue. To formulate my question, what kind of karma is it that we have this situation of shooting and killing animals at the retreat center?

A retreat center doesn’t have karma. Only people experience karma. The fact that people are shooting animals at the retreat center arises dependently on cause and conditions, not karmic conditions and causes. These might include the fact that it is in the woods, in Norway, the fact that there are animals, that there are hunters, and the fact that there is no electrified fence around your center that would keep the hunters away. It is dependent on all of that and also the mentality of the hunters, it arises that there are animals getting shot on your property.

Regarding the ripening or aftermath of karma, it would concern whoever chose this location and established the retreat center. Why is it they chose a place where there is hunting for a retreat center? You need to differentiate what is happening on the side of people, and on the side of a piece of property and also why you choose to hold courses during hunting season at the retreat center. That also is part of it; the retreat doesn’t need to be there if you know there is going to be hunting. However, for some karmic reason, you have chosen to have a retreat then and there. It’s like that, isn’t it? That’s karmic.

I have a question about karma ripening when we are trying to break a bad habit. For instance, when we feel the impulse to throw out the net and then see ourselves in the process, and the negative thoughts come, but then we realize and stop it to not go to further actions. Will it still build up negative karma, if this negativity comes up and we are able to recognize it and stop it?

What is the first thing that happens when we are trying to break the habit of, for instance, smoking? First, we feel like having the cigarette. That’s the arising of a desire or a wish. That arises from the tendency to want a cigarette, from that desire and habit. What we try to do when working with karma is to recognize that there is a space between when we feel like having a cigarette and when the compelling impulse is there and when we actually grab and light the cigarette. We feel like yelling at someone, but there is the space between that and when we actually yell. To feel like yelling is not necessarily negative. It’s coming from habit. What is negative is when we act on it. In that space in between we try to develop discriminating awareness, or as usually translated, a bit vaguely, wisdom. We need to discriminate whether something will be helpful or harmful to actually take the cigarette. Based on understanding or simply self-control we stop or we don’t take it. 

With that, we can have motivation. We realize that this is going to harm me, or with a baby, it would be harmful to smoke in front of the baby. There are different types of motivation. It can be that it is against the law to smoke inside the train, for example. We need to make that space between when we feel like doing something and that compelling impulse with which we do it. Often that compelling impulse is so strong that we act immediately on what we feel and we say anything that comes to our heads.

But, say you are able to calm yourself, is it still building up that negative karma to have that aggressive feeling?

Remember, there are three types of behavior. There is physically doing something, verbally saying something, or thinking something. Thinking, again, doesn’t have to be verbal. We don’t even have to say verbally this is a terrible person. Negative thinking to yell at this person or cause harm is a destructive action of the mind and builds up karmic aftermath.

A good example is worrying. What a habit that becomes? It’s such a strong habit; and the more that we worry, it becomes stronger.

But if we have the thought and we don’t put it out there, have we done something to cleanse it?

Yes, absolutely, but still we had the negative thought. Still, we have the negative thoughts. The first step is not to let it lead to implementing them and actually yelling at the person. Then, we try to stop the negative train of thought sooner and sooner. Still, even in that short moment, it is still a destructive thought. Then, we apply some sort of opponent. We start to think with compassion toward the person and understand that the person acts that way because of confusion. We oppose it and counter it, and this lessens the force of the karmic aftermath.

Could we have another way of explaining imputation? After the last explanation, I got a feeling that the imputation might be something of an idea or an instance.

I was trying to differentiate the idea of a game from the actual game. Imputation is not an idea. The idea of a person and an actual person are two things to be differentiated. Those are actually different. If we have an idea of a friend and define that person, let’s say, as the perfect partner. We have this idea of what a partner should be, or what a friend should be. Notice that we have this word “should.” Then, we have the friend or the partner and we look at them through the concept or idea of what a partner or friend should be, and the person doesn’t live up to it so we get very angry at them. This is the big problem with these concepts because what comes together with fixed ideas and boxes with all these exact characteristics is that people and things then have to fit into those boxes. This, of course, makes a problem. 

However, is there a friend or a partner? Yes. What establishes them as our friend or partner? It’s because we have agreed that there is a certain thing called a partner or a certain thing called a friend by convention. Therefore, “friend” refers to this person; but this concept or idea of the ideal friend or partner, that doesn’t correspond to anything. That’s like the prince or princess on the white horse in fairy tales. 

One needs to differentiate between these two. There are our ideas or concepts, these categories which are fixed. The problem is that they are fixed. For example, we then think, “I am not good enough,” because we have this concept of “me” and how “I should be.” When we don’t fit into that fixed idea, we get angry with ourselves, as in, “I’m no good.” That doesn’t mean that we don’t have intentions to improve. We do, but without the boxes. 

The boxes have a useful function because they allow us to talk and communicate to others. They aren’t totally useless; however, they imply that things exist like they say in the dictionary, fixed and solid. There is another technical term for this, “the implied object.” The implied object doesn’t exist.

Are there imputations hiding that?

The way that an imputation appears to us is what hides that. A football game is happening. That is an imputation, but how it appears to us because of our habits or so-called grasping for truly established existence, because of the habit, the mind makes it appear as a solid category of a game. From this, we get that it is a terrible game and “my team is losing,” and we might get really upset about it. It appears as if it is a terrible game in that way. Is it a game? Yes. Is it happening? Yes. However, how it appears as the most exciting thing – the world cup – it is crazy. It’s just a bunch of people running around in a field kicking a ball. That’s all it is. Is it a game? Yes, conventionally we call that a game. Someone coming from another planet, without the concept of a game, might wonder what these creatures are doing. 

It is the same with a concert. There are all these instruments playing something different in every moment. Still we say, “I went to a concert; I listened to the concert.” Did we listen to the concert? Yes. It wasn’t that nothing took place or that we didn’t hear anything. But what is a concert? It was a terrible concert or a great concert. This is the most fantastic concert in the world and we are so sad to have missed the concert. We make it into such a big deal, as if it were a thing. That’s the reification of it and also of “me,” the one who missed it. 

Where is the imputation?

The imputation is the concert. It is an imputed phenomenon. It is a phenomenon; what type of phenomenon is it? It is an imputation. It is not a form of physical phenomenon. The concert isn’t the actual sounds of the instruments. It’s not a way of being aware of something as if it were the hearing of it. It is neither, but nevertheless it changes from moment to moment. The concert changed from moment to moment.

Don’t expect this to be easy and don’t expect to understand it instantly. These are very profound points in the Dharma that require a tremendous amount of meditation. When we get stuck in trying to understand something, we need to open our minds to more, which we do by doing positive things. This is the so-called building up merit. Build up more positive force, and it’s not that we have to do something to “earn” it and now we “deserve” it. By thinking more of others, by getting outside of “me,” and how we don’t understand, then it becomes easier to understand. It’s very important to realize that when we get stuck; and we will get stuck. Nobody said it was easy.

Could you say a few words about generation and completion practice? How do the pieces of the puzzle fit together with the twelve links when we are doing ngondro practice?

These are two different things. There are the practices of the generation and completion stages in the highest class of tantra, and there is ngondro. When we are doing the prostrations, our knees are going to hurt; we are going to get tired; we are going to feel like not doing it. It’s “nothing special” and we just do it anyway; however, to do it with negative thoughts certainly makes it not very effective. When we are having negative thoughts about what we are doing, stop the practice and work on getting rid of the negative thoughts before continuing. I think that’s important. Are we going to experience doing all the prostrations with great happiness and joy? Most of us won’t. So what? Really try to set the intention and motivation beforehand that we are doing these prostrations to build up more positive force. In scientific terms, we are building up more positive neural pathways.

Think about this; from beginningless life, how our neural pathways are so deeply embedded. In order to be able to build up more positive neural pathways or habits requires a tremendous amount of repetition. If we have repeatedly been miserly and not giving and don’t want to be bothered zillions of times in the past, to build up generosity by offering a mandala and by offering everything to be able to help everyone, of course we have to repeat it 100,000 times. We have to repeat it many more time than that in order to build up a different automatic response, or a different neural pathway. 

If we understand what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, then we can minimize the danger of not liking what we’re doing. Contacting awareness comes before feeling happy and unhappy. Do we find doing prostrations pleasant or unpleasant? It all depends on our attitude, doesn’t it? There isn’t anything inherent to make it pleasant or unpleasant. Even if it’s painful, we can experience that pain with happiness. An example is when we are doing physical training with weight lifting or any sport. Our bodies really ache at the end of the physical practice and we are happy because we know that it means we are making progress.

With the first link, in terms of ignorance, don’t grasp at this whole thing of a solid “me” doing “my ngondro” and, “I’m so wonderful and so advanced. Everything is going to be so wonderful when I complete the 100,000 and all my problems will go away.” All of this is nonsense. When we think in terms of “me, me, me” doing these prostrations, or “poor me, I have to do this and my knees hurt,” then the whole sequence of the twelve links follows. It is the attitude about “me” and our feelings while doing these practices that really are crucial to make it a more positive action. 

This isn’t easy and why ngondro isn’t really for total beginners. It is possible to build up very negative habits in terms of resenting having to do this, feeling sorry for ourselves or feeling arrogant, as in “I’m so holy, holy, doing this.” It’s not so helpful. As I said before, one needs a certain level of maturity and emotional stability to practice the Dharma. Also, we need a certain level of understanding of what we are doing and why. It needs to be sincere; and then ngondro is wonderful. Be realistic about it in that it is going to be difficult and painful and not be pleasant at times. Then, we think, “So what?” because we know it’s beneficial and the rest doesn’t matter. So what?

Is it correct to think that the self is an imputation on the aggregates?

That’s correct; the self is an imputation on the aggregates. But the self isn’t something that comes from out there and is imputed on the aggregates. That also is incorrect. Don’t make the self into a ping pong ball that comes and instead of inhabiting and using the aggregates it just sits on top of them as an imputation. That also is a misconception and has to be deconstructed. The whole process of understanding voidness is a process of deconstruction. One has to be careful not to deconstruct too much and be left with nothing or not to deconstruct too little and still be left with something that we think corresponds to reality, while it doesn’t. That would be like this ping pong ball sitting on the aggregates as an imputation. That would be under-refutation.

I was very happy that you don’t use the word “ignorance” for the first link and use the word “unawareness.” It seems to leave room for more compassion.

That’s literally what the word means in Sanskrit and Tibetan and that is exactly why I prefer it.

Also, I have been thinking about the holograms and how the mind and the senses make objects seem so believable. If I see something, I can touch it where I see it; or, if I drop a glass, it lands and breaks.

The way that it is described is with the word “aspect.” We experience an aspect of the object. “Aspect” can be confusing, so I tried to describe it as being like a mental hologram. When the dish drops or we touch something, there is an actual contact; however, what do we experience because of that contact? There are the electrical impulses through the sensitive parts of the skin and the neurons and so on going to the brain, and there is a mental hologram of the physical sensation. What is mind? Mind is not a thing. We are talking about mental activity going on in each moment. In that activity, there is the arising of some hologram; we have some cognitive engagement of seeing, hearing, thinking and all the mental factors of liking and not liking, happy and so on. There is an arising of a hologram of that. 

When we talk about the object and the consciousness and all the mental factors coming from one seed, as in Chittamatra, the Mind-Only School, it’s just saying that it’s all non-dual. It’s all one phenomenon that is happening. That doesn’t negate that there are actual external physical things actually happening. It doesn’t mean that another person only exists in our heads. However, what we experience is a mental hologram of what that person looks likes. As an imputation on that, there is a person and there is a name. This way of describing the mental activity is just describing what we actually experience and what is actually happening. 

There are different theories; in a sense it is just coming from karma. This is the entire discussion between Chittamatra and Madhyamaka: is it also arising dependent upon the external phenomenon. This gets very complex and we won’t go further into these tenet systems at this time. What we experience and how we experience it is like a mental hologram, which is actually the case scientifically. In terms of what is happening with the brain, seeing something and imagining that we are seeing something both are the same; they produce a mental hologram. It’s a difference in how focused it is when we imagine. That’s what occurs with seeing and thinking as well. 

What are the causal factors? How much is coming from karma and how much is coming from the external phenomena is the essence of the debate within the different tenet systems. 

Is our progress sort of demonstrated by how much we see things as imputations and not reality?

Whether it is an imputation or a basis for imputation, neither is self-established. We have introduced another term here. How does the self not exist? The most basic understanding is that it doesn’t exist as something as defined in the non-Buddhist Indian schools, something that is static or unchanging, meaning not affected by anything else; it has no parts and can exist independently of the basis. With the example of a football game, there would be just one thing, the game, and it wouldn’t change from moment to moment. It wouldn’t have parts, so there would be nothing to do with all the players. It would exist separately from what occurred, as in “I went to see the game.” That’s the first thing that we refute.

The next thing is that it can be known by itself, even if it’s an imputation, without some aspect of the basis being known. What is your name?

Margate.

I’m talking to Margate and seeing her. We can’t see her without seeing her body. We can’t just be talking with her on the phone without the sound, and the imputation on the sound is that it is Margate. That’s the next level that we refute.

Then there are many more subtle levels, and the most subtle is that it is self-established. We refute that there is something inside “me” that makes it “me” by its own power independently of anything else. For example, we feel that there is something inside an emotion that makes it love, independently of the concept of love and the definition that someone made up in the dictionary.

This is the case with everything. Within these various aggregates there is love, attention, happiness and unhappiness and all of this. What in the world is that? If we think about this moment of experience, is it made up of these little pings pong balls of all these aggregates? Not really; we just experience it. If we want to analyze it, we can do so with all these different parts and so on.

Are all these parts present and operating? Yes, there’s emotion, attention, concentration and things like that. When we don’t examine or analyze, it’s all happening. However, when we try to look for all these little pieces, we can’t find them.

It seems as though the pieces are self-established. For example, “I have terrible concentration,” or, “I have so much anger, “I feel so much love.” It’s as if there was something there inside these ping pong balls of love, or concentration that makes it by its own power into these things without the concept of love or the word love. That is what doesn’t correspond to reality. There isn’t something inside “me” that makes it “me.” There isn’t something inside the photographs spanning a lifetime that make it “me.” What would it be? We can’t find anything.

It’s important not to get frustrated. These things aren’t easy to understand and even if we understand them, it’s not easy to accept that they are actually true in terms of “me.” There is still “me,” but in the context of the twelve links, don’t identify with any of the parts and the things that are happening in terms of feelings and what we experience. Identify means to identify some ping pong “me” with that and be stuck with that and forget about everything else, all the other aggregates and everything over a whole lifetime. That is the problem. Are we sick now? Yes, we might be. Does that mean we have always been sick? There are many other things happening besides being sick; and actually, what is sick? It is the concept of sick when in fact it is just feelings and a runny nose and such. We call that being sick. We took the meaningless sound of “sick” and had a concept and now we have “sick me.” 

The more we work with this, the more we can see how widespread it is. It’s not just about me and you in the context in the twelve links that is acceptable to the Hinayana and Theravada tenet systems as well. However, from the Madhyamaka perspective, this applies to everything. We have this ignorance or unawareness about how everything exists. 

It isn’t that there is something in one of the aggregates that is the defining characteristic for “me.” One might say that it is in consciousness, but even that isn’t the case. Where is it in consciousness? We can’t find that either. Is there a defining characteristic? Yes, we can distinguish one person from another. But that is just when we don’t examine or analyze. When we examine and analyze, we can’t find the defining characteristic. However, there is a defining characteristic; otherwise, we couldn’t differentiate one thing from another. We couldn’t live. 

These are the things that one needs to think about and work with. It requires a great deal of familiarity. It’s not something that we get, just like that. It requires patience and building up positive force to open our minds more which we do by working for others.

We think whatever understanding, whatever positive force comes from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for everyone to reach the enlightened state of a Buddha for the benefit of us all.