Supplementary Material: The Three I’s
Rinpoche: Is there a question?
Student: Yesterday Rinpoche mentioned that there are three different I’s: the merely labeled I, the inherently existent I, and the general I. I didn’t understand the different I’s. Please clarify the difference between the general I and the merely labeled I.
Rinpoche: This is my guess. [For the merely labeled I,] you see somebody, in particular, as merely labeled. It is particularly specifying that, the merely labeled I, and then you look for that. Then the other one [i.e., the general I] is that you have no idea of “merely labeled,” there’s no recognition that it is merely labeled, it is just I, the view of the mind. Then there is the real I, what you feel to be the real I, what you believe is inside this body existing from its own side, something very truly existent. The other one, the general I, my guess is that you don’t say “merely labeled I.” You don’t specify it with that title. You are not looking at it in that way, as merely labeled, so it is the general I. It might be something like that. It is not really clear.
(Rinpoche engages in a discussion in Tibetan with Geshe Gelek, resident teacher at Kadampa Center, North Carolina)
Geshe Gelek thinks it is the I that covers all the past and future lives, all the past, present, and future lives, the I that covers all, that is the general I. When you think of the I from beginningless rebirths up to enlightenment, it is the I that covers all the lives. I think basically it is how the individual person views [the I] when you talk about the I. I think it is how it is viewed by the individual person. But you can still debate it.
Anything that appears to us sentient beings, whatever appears has to be [appearing as] truly existent, whatever appears to us sentient beings, except when we are in meditative equipoise, the wisdom directly perceiving emptiness. At that time there is no hallucinated appearance, but other than that, when you rise from that, you have a hallucinated appearance until you remove the subtle defilements. The truly existent view ceases when you remove the subtle defilements of ignorance, which is the conception of true existence. When that is ceased you do not have that [hallucinated appearance] anymore; a buddha does not have dualistic view, the view of true existence. But because of that, [for us] the truly existent I appears, it is always there, that appearance is always there for us sentient beings. Someone who has not realized emptiness would hold that as truly existent – there is the appearance and then you hold that to be true. After realizing that as empty, then there would not be the conception holding it as truly existent, the simultaneously born conception of true existence. Even on the eighth bhumi [i.e., up to the eighth bhumi] you have the simultaneously born conception of true existence. But the clinging to true existence, there is a difference after you realize emptiness and before you realize emptiness. There are skies of difference in the way of holding or apprehending an object, skies of difference. It is like when you cross sand, and sunlight hits the sand, then you look back and have a vision of water, a mirage. [You have the appearance that] there is water, but you have the understanding that there is no water there because you just came from there. There is the appearance of water, a mirage, but you have the realization at the same time that there is no water there. You are totally holding that water is not there. Similar to that, here there should be a difference like sky and earth when you realize emptiness – holding totally to true existence should not be there. But before that, this strong clinging or holding to true existence is there. Then how that person who hasn’t realized the emptiness of the I would think is that that person would believe or apprehend the I is truly existent. I think it would be like that. Zhenpa, strong clinging. We have to analyze this.
[The first is the I] by specifying the truly existent I, [the second is the I] by specifying the merely labeled I. [Those two I’s are] by specifying those. Then there is the general I, which does not have any specification – you do not say “truly existent I.” The Ranggyupa (Svatantrikas) and Telgyurpa (Prasangikas) don’t believe in a truly existent I, but the Vaibhashikas, Sautrantikas, and Chittamatra schools, up to that, believe in a truly existent I. Of course, [for the Chittamatrins], the merely labeled kundag is non-truly existent, but then the zhenwang – that which depends on others, on causes and conditions – and the yongdrub, the ultimate reality, they say are dendrub – truly existent.
Then the Svatantrika and Prasangika [Madhayamakas] have different meanings of true existence, but, generally speaking, both do not believe in true existence. So, specifying “the truly existent I” and specifying “the merely labeled I” [are two of these], then there is the I which is not specified with these labels. On this book, there is the “truly existent book” or the “merely labeled book,” then for the general book, you do not specify either of those.