From “Meditation on Emptiness”
by Jeffrey Hopkins (1983)
Chapters 3 and 4, herein summarized
Ch3. Meditation: Identifying Self
The five stages in meditation on emptiness… outline the progress of one newly developing the powers of meditation:
- How a beginner develops experience with respect to the view of emptiness (herein)
- How to cultivate a similitude of special insight based on a similitude of calm abiding
- How to cultivate actual special insight based on actual calm abiding
- How to cultivate direct cognition of emptiness
- How to meditate on emptiness during the second stage of Highest Yoga Tantra
FIRST STAGE OF MEDITATION ON EMPTINESS
How a beginner develops experience with respect to the view of emptiness
The thee basic essentials in meditation:
- identifying the object negated in the view of selflessness
- ascertaining that selflessness follows from reason
- and establishing the reason’s presence in the subject.
The initial object of meditation is the selflessness of the “I”.
The reasoning used is the sevenfold reasoning as set forth by Chandrakīrti.
1) Identify the object negated in theory of selflessness
[The] I appears at times to be physical and at times mental.
From “Manual of Instruction on the view”
“…The I does not appear to be just a nominal designation, but appears as if self-established. Through holding that the I exists the way it appears, you are bound in cyclic existence.”
The appearance of a concrete I [when] analyzed, [is] found to be non-existent, and overcome, resulting eventuality in a direct realization of emptiness which the subject, the wisdom consciousness, is merged with its object, emptiness, like fresh water poured into fresh water.
Ch 4: Meditative Investigation
2) Ascertaining the selflessness follows from reason
If the I exists the way it is conceived, then it must be either the same entity as the mental and physical aggregates or a different entity from those aggregates.
3) Establishing the presence of the reason in the subject
The seven-fold reasoning, in brief and outlined:
“I do not inherently exist because of 1) not being the aggregates, 2) not being an entity other than the aggregates, 3) not being the base of the aggregates, 4) not inherently being based on the aggregates, 5) not inherently possessing the aggregates, 6) not being just the composite of the aggregates, and 7) not being the shape of the aggregates.
- Establishing that the I is not mind and body
- “The I is not the aggregates because” just as the aggregates are many, so the selves would be many, just as the I is one, so the aggregates would be one
- ”” the I would be produced and disintegrate just as the aggregates are
- Establishing that the I is not different from mind and body
- The I is not a separate entity from the aggregates because if it were, the I would be apprehenable apart from the aggregates
- Establishing that the I is not the base of mind and body
- The I is not inherently the base of the mental and physical aggregates… because if it were, the I and the aggregates would be different entities (already refuted: 2)
- Establishing that mind and body are not the base of I
- Already similarly refuted (3)
- Establishing that the I does not inherently possess mind and body
- Already similarly refuted (1,2)
- Establishing that the I is not the composite of mind and body
- The I is not the composite of the aggregates because the composite of the aggregates does not inherently exist; if the composite of the aggregates were inherently one with the aggregates, the composite would be many like the aggregates, or the aggregates would be one like the composite
- Establishing that the I is not the shape of the body
- The shape of the body is physical, not conscious and does not inherently exist as it is composite
[The] I and body and mind can have none of these seven relationships. Therefore, the I does not exist as a concrete entity as it is perceived.