Tantric Techniques (6 page)

The above modes of reasoning are suitable and easy for beginners to develop. However, if you have been disciplined through discriminating wisdom, a little more elaboration will decide the matter. Therefore, consider the fallacy of the selves becoming many. Chandrak
ī
rti’s
Supplement to (N
ā
g
ā
rjuna’s) “Treatise on the Middle”
says:
a

If the self were the aggregates, then

Because they are many, there would be many selves.

Just as the aggregates are five, so the “I” would also become five, or just as the “I” is no more than one, so the aggregates could not be five.

This reasoning may seem extraordinarily simple-minded, but the requirements of such pointoutable, analytically findable existence—not the requirements of mere existence—are the anvil. The meditator is attempting through this analysis, not to describe how she or he ordinarily conceives such an inherently existent “I,” but to subject it to the hammering of reasoning based on
consequences

a
VI.127ab.

28
Tantric Techniques

of such inherent existence. Because the ordinary sense of concrete selfhood is the object on which the analysis is working, the experience is fraught with emotion.

The second additional reasoning revolves around entailment that the “I” would have inherently existent production and disintegration, in which case it would be discontinuous. The Fifth Dalai Lama’s very brief description of this reasoning comes to life when teamed with the fourth reasoning below:
a

Similarly, N
ā
g
ā
rjuna’s
Treatise on the Middle
says,
b
“If the self were the aggregates, it would have production and disintegration.” Because the five aggregates would be inherently produced and would inherently disintegrate, you would have to assert that the “I” also is produced and disintegrates in that way.

The third additional reasoning also depends upon a belief in rebirth; for me, it reflects the type of reasoning in reverse that many use against rebirth. Its concern is not explicitly with the “I” and the mental and physical aggregates that are its bases of designation but the relationship between the “I” of this life and the “I” of the last life. It is: If they were one, then the sufferings of the former life would absurdly have to be present in this life.

The “I” of the former birth and the “I” of this life can be on-ly either one or different. If one, through the force of their being inherently one, the sufferings of the “I” in the former life as an animal—such as stupidity and enslavement for others’ use—would also be experienced on the occasion of the “I” being a human in this birth. Also the human pleasures of this life would have been experienced as an animal in the former life. Contemplate such consequences.

The last additional reasoning expands on the fault of discontinuity between lives, suggested earlier in the second reasoning but not pursued. If they were different, which by the rules of inherent existence would make them totally, unrelatedly different, remem-brance of former lives would become impossible. Moral retribution would be impossible. Undeserved suffering would be experienced.

a
A longer explanation of this reasoning is given in Hopkins,
Meditation on Emptiness,
183-185.

b
XVIII.1.

S
ū
tra Mode of Meditation
29

Such difference would make a mere-I, the agent that travels from lifetime to lifetime, engaging in actions and experiencing their effects, impossible. The Fifth Dalai Lama says:

Similarly, Chandrak
ī
rti’s
Supplement
says:
a

Whatever are inherently separate are not Suitable to be included in one continuum.

If the “I” of the former life and the “I” of the next life were inherently different, they would be totally, unrelatedly different. Thereby it would be impossible to remember, “I was born in such and such a former birth,” just as Devadatta does not remember that he was born in a former birth as [his contemporary] Yajñadatta.

Furthermore, your accumulating actions for birth in a happy transmigration would be wasted because another would enjoy the fruition of the effects in a life of high sta-tus, and you yourself would not experience it. Why? The agent of the actions and the experiencer of the effects would not be included into the single base of a mere-I [that is to say, a nominally existent “I”] and would be unrelated.

Therefore, if an action accumulated in a former life brought help or harm in this life, you would be meeting with [the effects of ] actions not done [by yourself ]. If help and harm did not arise [from deeds done], there would be no sense in abandoning ill deeds and adopting virtues in this life because their effects would not ripen for the future “I.”

Through contemplating such, you will gain ascertainment with respect to the third essential: ascertaining a lack of true oneness [of the “I” and the aggregates].

Oneness of the “I” and its bases of designation—the mental and physical aggregates—is impossible.

Fourth essential: ascertaining that the “I” and the aggregates are not inherently different

The meditator has been so disturbed by the analysis of oneness that he or she is ready to assume difference. However, the rules of

a
VI.61cd.

30
Tantric Techniques

inherent existence call for the different to be unrelatedly different, again the assumption being not that persons ordinarily consider the “I” and its bases of designation to be unrelatedly different but that within the context of inherent existence, that is, of such pointoutable, solid existence, difference necessitates unrelatedness. The Fifth Dalai Lama says:

Now, you might think that the “I” and the five aggregates cannot be anything but different. Chandrak
ī
rti’s
Supplement
says:
a

There is no self other than the aggregates because,

Apart from the aggregates, its conception does not exist.

The inherently different must be unrelated. Therefore, just as within the aggregates you can identify each individually—“This is the aggregate of form,” and so forth—so after clearing away the five aggregates, you would have to be able to identify the “I:” “This is the ‘I.’” However, no matter how finely you analyze, such an “I” is not at all to be found.

Many forms of Hinduism are seeking to find the self or ultimate reality that is left over when all else is removed; therefore, they would loudly exclaim the contrary: Something
is
found separate from mind and body. But would this be the “I” that goes to the store? Would this be the “I” that desires? Hates?

Still, the question is not easy to settle, and it does not appear that easy answers are wanted. Rather, the Fifth Dalai Lama emphasizes that deeply felt conviction is needed:

It is not sufficient that the mode of non-finding be just a repetition of the impoverished phrase, “Not found.” For example, when an ox is lost, one does not take as true the mere phrase, “It is not in such and such an area.” Rather, it is through searching for it in the highland, midland, and lowland of the area that one firmly decides that it cannot be found. Here also, through meditating until a decision is reached, you gain conviction.

You have to bring the analysis to the point where there is an impressive non-finding.