Tenets, 10 March 1994, part 3

Firstly, we briefly will do meditation on kind thought in line with the precious bodhicitta motivation. Please think in this way, I must remove sufferings of all sentient beings, countless as the extent of the limitless space, and I must bring them to an excellent happiness, an unchanging happiness. Or to be able to do that, I will study, reflect and meditatively familiarize on the path through which I must attain the state free of all weaknesses of mind as ordinary being and attain all excellent qualities of the mind. In essence, the state of Buddhahood becoming a Buddha. For all this purpose, I will start here with meditation.

So please meditate in that way. Also from our previous Thursday evenings looking into the topics, we laid out the basic format of this lowest Buddhist tenet into three parts: the base path and the result. And in the base so far what covered was the field, the field in relation to what is object out there because base can be classified into two topics: the field which are object and the subject mind and the person having the mind. So base can be classified into two parts: the object and the subject. And so far in the Thursday evenings, the first lowest tenets are understanding about base we had to do was about the object part, such as within the objects there are two truths and then the five fields: the field of the appearing form, the field of the principal mind, the field of the secondary mind, the field of the unassociated compounded things or phenomena and a field of uncompounded things.

For example, those five fields are something which comes within the classification called the object within the base topic, because those five fields are something which are about the object things out there, nothing to do with the subject mind or the person. Therefore, whatever covered was about the objects. Now from this evening we shall look into the second part within the base, the subject part. In the subject, there are three main classifications: person, consciousness and sound. And these three are what is discussed or looked into in the topic called the subject part.

By person it means, for example, humans, for example, desire realm beings or the celestial beings or, for example, animals or other species of sentient beings like those in the lowest realms, the tormenting realms, and such as those in the mentally anguished realms, so-called hungry ghosts, interpretively translated. And in brief, by person we would mean by person it would mean being referred to a being, a sentient being. With regards to the person itself, well, there needs to be a description what actually can make a qualification for a basis to be called as a being. And to look into that first let’s say here obviously it is the perspective according to the specific exponent school, the Vaibhāṣika, the lowest Buddhist tenets perspective. And as we all know that this tenet can have as many sub schools as 18, but in accordance to the present line of commentary instruction we are following here, they all can be grouped into three principal sub schools, which we did go over in couple of evenings, Thursdays ago, and they were the Central Region tenets, are the subschool of the Central Region and the subschool of the Western Region and the subschool surrounding the Central Region.

Now without going to specific what’s called details which sub school believes what when it comes to a person briefly we can say in this lowest tenet a person is defined in one theory as the five aggregates. In another theory a person is defined as the congregation or the aggregate of the five aggregates. And then yet another theory within this school says the person is mind. So we can see already they are all so much disagreements. In essence, person is classified in the group of subject because by subject here the term needs to be understood as one which knows.

For example, an example of person which is a subject is a human. Human is a subject because it knows about things. For example, a person can know what’s happening around, a person can know instructions in the scriptures, a person can know what is red color or what is blue color and can understand or know about things. So in that way a person is knower and in that sense it fits the qualification subject in knowing one which knows. And earlier the object part which we went over in the previous evening, by object it means something that has to be known, so the object of knowledge.

And the subject is the one which knows the object, the field of what is to be known, so in that sense. But the very topic of what actually is a person or being is a topic of great complexity because already each Buddhist tenet explains what a person or being is in accordance to its own understanding. For example here in the Vaibhāṣika, the law school explains by and large the aggregates, the five aggregates, whereas the Discourse school, the next higher explains a person is a mere continuity of consciousness. Mind only school explains a person is the only basis which to interpret means in Mind Only school they believe there is yet another part in the mind which is eternal and it is all-basis, it is basis for all imprints to be laid. So such all-basis is the person.

And next up higher is the Svatāntrika or autonomous middle way school which explains that a person or being is the consciousness, the mind itself. And now the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika is called the consequence reasoner and the highest Buddhist tenet in it. In its perspective it says all these being explained by the lowest tenets or the lower tenets are not person. Instead it explains that on the basis of the five aggregates there is a merely labeled ego or I or identity. That merely labeled ego, identity or self is a person so we can see that each Buddhist tenets explains differently.

Therefore, in the consequence reasoner or Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika’s perspective it would find that the person being defined by the lower Buddhist tenets are all wrong descriptions. But then it also understands that if what each of the lower tenets explains a person is, if it is not explained in that way then they end up in a circumstance or situation where they don’t find what a person is. So because that’s the difficulty, so it understands that’s the reason why although it’s mistaken explanation but still they have something to say what a person is. The lowest Buddhist tenets are specific exponent, their explanation of the person, that the person is the five aggregates, is very approximate and very far away, nowhere near the close explanation. Because if it says that the five aggregates are the person, then let’s say the form aggregate, then it would be extremely what’s called wrong thing to say because the time the person dies, the body is cremated, the form aggregate is gone, so it can’t be a sustainable theory.

But still we must see must see the the marked difference compared to the non-Buddhist because after all, even though, say, the Vaibhāṣika explains the person as the aggregate and within it sub schools some say it is the congregation of the aggregates. But in basic uniform understanding, all Buddhist tenets have this understanding that it is on the basis of being labeled that what a person is. And on that very uniform basis that it is on the basis of being labeled on the five aggregates that some schools such as Vaibhāṣika, the lower school explains it is the five aggregates which by which they mean it is labeled on the five aggregates and some sub schools are mean by the congregation of the five aggregates, they mean the near congregation of the five aggregates on which the label is given as a person. And the mind only school, on the same understanding, explains it is the only basis or aspect of mind, which is a person, but they still have this uniform acceptance that it is a labeled thing. So in that way we can see it is like something acceptable, it has its qualities.

Well, we have this fact that the five aggregates are the basis on which the label as a person is given, but also we have this fact that the five aggregates are are the basis onto which the person takes rebirth, or life after life. Let’s say there are five aggregates, which are the basis on which the rebirth is taken. And one who the entity which takes the rebirth is an ‘I’ or the ego or the self or identity and that is called as the person. For example, that ego or self takes rebirth on the basis of the five aggregates and then in next rebirth again on the basis of the five aggregates, meaning the five aggregates are onto which the ego takes the residence, so in that sense takes the rebirth. So it goes on in that way and this very fact indicates that indicates that there is a ground to say that person is separate from the aggregates.

And in that way we can see that the aggregates and the person should be separate entities. The person is the one who accumulates karma and due to accumulation of karma, the person receives sorry, the person takes, the person takes upon the aggregates and this is what is explained, meaning this is what is taught in the instructions about how the rebirth takes place. What is labeled on the five aggregates and through that labeling or what notion one gets such as the notion I I I’m going, I’m I’m I’m doing this, I want to do that. So that whole becomes the consequence and that is the person. And in that way, briefly, a person is a ego or I or identity, so same meaning.

The term actually literally means I. So person is merely the I which is on or which is labeled on the basis of the five aggregates. In a way, to investigate into what the I, the ego is and through that way to identify what the ego or self is can be beneficial thing because by identifying the self or the ego one can keep a check on its behavior by, for example, one can check whether it is engaging into attachment, hatred or into indifference of neglecting others benefit or welfare. Or one can check whether it is engaging into non virtuous actions or into virtuous actions. So it can be a good thing.

So to interpret the implication is it can be a good thing to do because by keeping track of by making the attempt to look into what the self or I is, one can as well find the whole realm of one’s meaningful activities as well as destructive activities and through that way can have a guard on one’s state of mind and behaviors and so forth. We accumulate all sorts of karma and so many karmas. All sorts of karma because we accumulate good karma, meaning virtuous karma, we accumulate bad karma, non virtuous karma, we accumulate neutral karma. But karma itself is a karma, the action itself is a secondary mind, it’s a aspect of mind. And it is impermanent in its nature, therefore it is subject to momentary disintegration, momentary perish.

And because it is subject to momentary perish, it is an entity which terminates. But there will be a question and there will be a fact where then will karma continuously remain valid to which the consequences and results will be issued? Well, as answer, well, although karma perishes, but it leaves its imprint, and where it leaves its imprint is it leaves its imprints on mere mind, oh sorry, on mere I, on mere I. And by the very fact that it is able to leave imprint on mere I, that it becomes possible for the karma to ripen and so forth. An analogy can be like the I, the mere I is like the paper, and imprint of karma is like the stamp, where the stamp, if it’s put on the paper, the mark would be left there validly to be seen, so it is like that.

As all virtuous karma or non virtuous karma are left in the form of imprint on the I, therefore it is subject to continuous existence until it ripens due to meeting with conditions and so forth. This is so because the imprint being left on the I and being left on the I, what happens is when the person dies, the I leaves the aggregates and goes on in continuous flow to next rebirth and again it continuously flows on to next rebirth. So the eye is continuously flowing and because I is continuously flowing, the imprint left on the I also is continuously flowing until the imprint is ripened. Therefore we can say in this way that the imprint being left on the mind, on the I indicates it becomes valid for the karmic imprint to flow and the consequences and results to be experienced. We accumulate all sorts of karmas, virtues, non virtues and and the imprint is left on the I.

Now if the karma are powerful then the results would drop in within this lifetime, And if it is medium degree of karma, then the results would be ripened in the next rebirth. And how that happens is the karma leaves the imprint on the I and the time the I transmigrates to next rebirth, in next rebirth that medium degree degree of karma, happens. And if it is a low intensity of karma, then the imprint would be left on the I, but the experiencing and the ripening of the results would be much later than the next rebirth. But still, because there is a continuous flow of the karmic imprint due to the continuous flow of the I, the experiencing becomes valid. And from that point we can say if a person has been doing virtuous actions, then happiness to be experienced can extend to long number of rebirth after rebirth.

And in the opposite case if a person has been doing non virtuous actions are many number and of various degrees then the unhappiness, the suffering to be experienced as result can extend to many rebirths. If the I terminates at the time of our death and it does not flow continuously thereafter, then that would imply that whatever karma we accumulate would also terminate at that time. There would be no continuous existence of karma. And that would mean, if we have been doing all our life with great deal of hard effort, our spiritual practices through which we have been accumulating great merits, then all those merits will be wasted at the time we die. The results would not ripen because there is no continuous flow of the imprints and so forth.

And then similarly, if a person or we have been doing non virtuous actions all through our life, then it would imply we are not subject to experience the consequences. And this whole thing would then mean that there’s no point, no meaning in trying to not do or commit non virtuous actions and attempting best to do virtuous actions, the whole spiritual practices and everything would become fruitless. But because the person as in the sense of the ‘I’ does not terminate at the time of death, instead it continuously flows, Therefore it is valid, it becomes valid that the karmic imprint, whether it is virtuous or non virtuous, continuously flows. So in that way we can see it becomes meaningful for one to engage into those practices of not committing non virtuous actions and commit and trying to do virtuous actions. And this then also would indicate that if one has been doing virtuous actions, the happiness to be ripened to be ripened would still remain valid to be experienced unless unless one has moments of anger which would negate which would cancel out cancel out the karmic virtuous karmic imprint.

Imprint. And similarly, if one has committed non virtuous actions, if one has committed bad karma, then the suffering to be experienced would continuously remain valid in that way. So that’s the what’s called fact and that’s how it is. We all do like happiness and we all dislike suffering, therefore we must engage in necessary practices and factors through which happiness can be acquired and not engage in factors which would bring about suffering. As to the factors and the practices through which one can acquire happiness, such as doing spiritual practices and engaging into formal meditative familiarization on virtuous aspects of mind and so forth.

If one does that, then happiness can continuously be experienced in all future rebirths to come. And at the same time, if one does not engage into non virtuous actions, particularly which all can be included roughly into the 10 non virtuous actions, then one has engaged in not acquiring the causes for suffering. And because there’s no causes, it automatically would mean that one would not have sufferings to be experienced. So in that way one can have happiness in all future rebirths and not have suffering. And this is true because if one has the causes of happiness then by way of cause and effect, eventuality, the happiness would issue.

And if one does not have the causes for suffering, by the same eventuality we can say sufferings would not issue, would not be experienced. And this very point would then give us the inspiration and encouragement, the conviction that really we must engage into the practices and courses through which happiness can be acquired and sufferings are not to be acquired. In this way, if one understands the features and the necessary information about what a person is, what a being, what a person is, then this would inspire one to who does the accumulation of karma, who commits karma, who creates karma and also it would give understanding who experiences the results and consequences of karma. And this understanding in turn would give one the inspiration to be active in one’s spiritual practice of doing virtuous actions and giving up the non virtuous actions. And this is a personal opinion on this point that to speak in third person Rinpoche believes that there is this benefit.

The next topic within the subject part is consciousness to be understood synonymous or same meaning Consciousness is the very thing through which the person knows, understands, realizes and does all other activities. For example, if consciousness knows an object, then the person that makes the person knows the object. If the consciousness realizes, then the person this leads to the person as well realizing. At the same time, by that way, if the consciousness or if the consciousness behaves wrongly, then the person behaves wrongly. And in the same way, if the consciousness behaves well, then the person behaves well, and that’s the consciousness part.

Through that way we can give the summary that consciousness is that entity which governs the whole activity of the person. So that’s the next topic. Consciousness can be of various types by looking it from different angles, in the sense by analyzing its functions and aspect through various ways. For example, like the very description that it is a virtuous consciousness, it is non virtuous consciousness, it is neutral consciousness. In the same way there can be other ways of looking at what a consciousness can be of types.

And one such classification and ways of looking at consciousness is seeing the consciousness as possibly of either of two types: either it is a valid perception, to use the common translation, either it is a valid perception or it is non valid perception. So consciousness can be of either of the two. By valid consciousness it means a consciousness, a mind, a consciousness which perceives and which perceives, which knows an object fresh unmistakenly. By this it means a valid consciousness, a valid mind is a mind which knows about something for the first time and its knowledge about the object is unmistaken. And any other consciousness or states of mind apart from that are grouped into the non valid perception.

And that now is the brief difference between the two. And again, to emphasize the point, the valid perception would mean a new knowledge of mind which perceives the object fresh unmistakably, which realizes that object unmistakably fresh, or which understands whichever one can look at. So that is valid perception. Valid perception can be of two types: direct valid perception and inferential valid perception. Second one being literally called the subsequent the valid subsequent perception, interpretively as inferential valid perception.

Now direct valid perception is a valid perception. So in the handbook it is called as valid knowledge because that’s a little word, but perception is more like an unconfusing, so preferable way to say it. So direct valid perception is perception of the object unmistakenly and for the first time but directly. For example, it is perception of object unmistakenly for the first time directly seeing that this is it, that is it, that is then, this is it and so forth. It is unmistaken in its knowledge or perception of the object.

Whereas the inferential valid perception is a valid perception which needs to apply reasoning to ascertain the object of knowledge. For example, it comes to the understanding the object that this is it because such and such it applies a correct reasoning and through applying correct reasoning it comes to the valid perception, valid knowledge about the object. So in the second case we have knowledge or perception of the object unmistakenly, fresh for the first time, but which follows reasoning. And by following reasoning it comes to the perception or knowledge of the object. And because of that, literally it is called the subsequent perception.

So and together they form as the valid subsequent perception. And then the direct valid perception can be of the type such as the direct valid perception perceiving form, direct valid perception perceiving sound, direct valid perception perceiving smell, direct valid perception perceiving taste, and direct valid perception, perceiving sensation or physical feelings. Because and they are direct they are the further classification of direct valid perceptions because in their case the perception or the knowledge of the object is done in a way where one doesn’t have to think about reasonings or any other medium, instead it is direct contact with the object, the perception or the knowledge is obtained. For example, with the direct valid perception perceiving form, with that it directly by seeing the objects such as white color, blue color, red color sees and perceives them unmistakenly, directly, freshly, directly. So it is a direct, valid perception, perceiving form.

And then direct, valid perception, perceiving sound can be where without thinking of reasoning, just by hearing the sound directly in contact, one would know it is a sweet talk or not sweet talk or whatever. And then the direct valid perception, perceiving smell can smell, perceive a sweet smell or so forth. And then the direct valid perception, perceiving taste can perceive or know of different tastes and can have, due to that, have the remark, it is good. And as soon as there will be all those, should I mimic? And all those things.

So that whole meaning, so it is just like a description of the whole remark and the ability able to taste comes from that direct valid perception. And then direct valid perception, perceiving sensation is the direct contact with the object such as smooth surface or rough surface and through which one perceives it is a smooth surface, smoothing, or it is rough surface and so forth. So in this way, and these are the examples of one types one type of direct valid perception. Direct valid perception can also be of mental direct valid perception and one example would be such as a direct mental direct valid perception, which comes as due to the power of meditative concentration. For example, a yogi, a practitioner of method and wisdom combined, in that sense, can go into meditation and gain a power of meditative concentration to which the person, the yogi, can gain the manifest knowledge or to use the clairvoyance, can gain the clairvoyance knowing others’ minds.

And in that case, a yogi through that clairvoyance can directly see what other people’s mind at the moment is thinking and so forth. Let’s say if there is such a yogi here, then a yogi can look into such and such person’s mind and can directly see, oh, this person is thinking this way, that person is thinking that way. So there is such direct mental, direct valid perception. If a new person comes to the room, can know then one can know what this person is saying, is exactly what the person has in mind. So through that way can can know whether the person is telling complete lies or not.

Anyway, such state of mind is called as manifest knowledge, knowledge of understanding manifestly hidden things. And manifest knowledge can be of various types and there are many types and this is one such type. Anyway, those types of valid perceptions are direct valid valid perception. The other types type of valid perception is the inferential valid perception. And inferential valid perception can be, in essence, a valid perception induced by following a correct reasoning.

Such valid perception can be done and can be acquired by doing meditation and reasoning’s or analytical reasoning’s reflections on topics such as the four truths of realized beings. And within the four truths, in the case of true suffering, one can meditate on its four aspects that how true suffering is impermanent, how true suffering is bound to be miserable, how true suffering is selfless without concrete self, and how true suffering has emptiness aspect about it, as it is not inherently existing. So in brief one can go through the 16 attributes or 16 features of the four truths, and then one by going through that and applying reasonings, can develop inferential valid perceptions on those points. We can go into one example amongst these 16, say, impermanence, and in the course of applying that, one can look this way, the aggregates of the body, so the term can be applied to the body. The body is impermanent.

Why it is impermanent? Because it is produced by causes causes and conditions. And one can apply this very reasoning again and again, and through this way, again and again, there will come a point that one can directly realize the impermanence of body through the applying of reasoning of production. By the very reasoning of production, one can prove that the body is impermanent. And when one realizes that, then such realization is a realization produced through reasoning, by following a reasoning.

Therefore it is a realization or perception, valid perception of produced by reasoning and in that way it becomes inferential valid perception. And then we had in the Tuesday evening, how how I is proven as emptiness, empty or lacking inherent existence. We can do similar meditation on that very topic, how our I is emptiness. We can apply the reasoning. It is emptiness in the sense it is not inherently existing because it is dependent arising.

And by that applying of reasoning, one can come to the perception, realization of the I being emptiness, not inherently existing. And such realization would be inferential valid perception. And then as ordinary being generally speaking, when it comes to perception or knowing of the objects, the objects themselves can be of various types. For example, there are objects which are manifest objects and manifest object means something which ordinary beings can know or perceive them without need to apply reasonings. Therefore there is no difficulty at all to perceive, to see, to know such objects.

For example, objects like colors of blue, red, white, yellow, of all form, sound, smell, taste and so forth. These are even by ordinary beings perceived directly and without applying any reasoning. There is no difficulty in perceiving, in knowing these, and they are called manifest objects. But then there are other types of objects which needs, in order to perceive or know them, one needs to apply reasoning such as impermanence, such as mind bound to be miserable aspect of certain entities, or about selflessness. For example, with the aggregates or ordinary beings, personality composite, in that case to understand it is impermanent, one needs to apply reasoning, otherwise one would not be able to directly, without any difficulty, straight away realize it is impermanent.

So such second types of objects are called hidden objects. In this way, the second this second type of objects of knowledge is is something which needs to apply reasoning in order for it to be perceived or known, and in that way it is called hidden object. But then there’s yet another types of object of knowledge or perception which, although applying reasonings, correct reasonings, one would not perceive, know or realize the object. And for such, on top of correct reasonings, one need to apply words of the Buddha by putting the case of what is to be ascertain that because also the Buddha has said so about the story, then this must be the right conclusion. And in that in that method, the object is perceived to be so as it should be, not only through reasoning, but by in fact, but by situation of Buddha’s words on the basis that Buddha’s words cannot be deceiving.

So the infallible nature of Buddha’s words is brought as a further additional method to perceive the object. And this third type of object, type of perception or knowledge, are called extremely hidden ones. And in this way we have those three types of objects of knowledge for ordinary beings: the manifest object, hidden object and extremely hidden objects. Well then what are the objects of perception or objects of knowledge which falls into this third category, the extremely hidden ones? Well, they can be such as the fact that our dear rebirth as a human is the result of having done practice on morality or good ethics in the past life.

So it can be such objects of perception, knowledge. Because it is true that good rebirth as a human is produced by having done practice on pure ethics, on morality. But if we are asked how that is so, and if we are further asked by more detailed question, who was that of your part in the previous life who actually did the practice of pure ethics? At what point in the past, in what places did the practice of the pure ethics happen? Because if that’s the ask, then it would be difficult to answer that that that one confidently knows about these facts, one would not know.

So if one is asked this, then one would not be able to know it. So that’s where the little bit of laughter part was. And similarly, other similar objects of extremely hidden types are that in this present life we not only are born as human, but we also have relatively good material facility for Dharma practice. So such abundance of facility has to be a result of having practiced generosity in previous lives. But again, if we are asked, When in the path did you do the practice of generosity?

To which person did you give away things of need to the person? In the past life, we would not be able to answer. So the only way we can support such assertion that morality does produce good rebirth and generosity does produce abundance of necessary facility is only by applying how much reasoning we can, but more importantly, with the additional support that because Buddha in its teaching has taught such and such that it cannot be fallible. So we only can resort ultimately to Buddha’s words that this is so. So this is these are such objects of extremely hidden types.

These are more subtle than emptiness. Compared to them, emptiness becomes very rough object of study. And then the third group of subject are the sounds because and that’s so sounds are a type of subject because it is through sound one also knows about the object. And let’s give the example by the very expression and by producing the sound flower one then expresses about an object and through that one understands that the object is a flower. So we have a situation where the flower being spoken about to is the object and the sound, the very sound flower is the one which speaks about the object.

And through these two, one comes to perception, one comes to a knowledge about something. So similarly, we have example of table. By the very expression of the sound table, it talks about the object and there is the understanding produced, the perception or knowledge produced about the basis meaning the table. So similarly, any other sound or name we express name and sound same we express can be seen as a subject because they talks about certain objects and in that way produces a perception. Okay.

Thank you. And we will stop here for the evening and few minutes for any questions if you have. I might miss this a whole lot. I’m having some difficulty between in in understanding the difference between consciousness that is one of the five aggregates and the I that upon which karmic imprints are carried Mhmm. From rebirth to rebirth.

Are they fundamentally different? Mhmm. Or is the one contaminated by rebirth? You know, I mean, by by being by coming into existence on the basis of contaminated aggregates, does that become sort of the gross consciousness? Mean, is that is that true?

Yeah. Yeah. Well, there are various explanations what the I actually is. For example, it’s true that one types of Buddhist tenets explains that the I is the consciousness, and the mind only school explains the I is consciousness, but it explains a different type of name the all-basis. Whereas the Autonomy School or the Svatāntrika, Lower Middle Way School explains the ‘I’ is the mental consciousness, but in their understanding that mental consciousness is not same with other mental consciousness, instead it is a mental consciousness which takes rebirth.

Sorry. It’s not the same as the mental consciousness in the five aggregates? You know, we may say they are same because meaning the consciousness which is the basis of person is the same with the consciousness within the five aggregates. So we may say the two are same. The reason is because for those who accept consciousness as the person, in their case they don’t see consciousness as apart from the five they don’t see it as separate from the consciousness within the five aggregates, because the reason is there is a description of each aggregates given an analogy where the consciousness is given the metaphor or analogy as one which eats.

Now, this means, for example, to start with, amongst the five aggregates, One aggregate is given the example or analogy as the container. And the filling aggregate is given the example as the main stable food within the container, say the rice, form, feeling, recognition. Now the recognition aggregate is given the example as vegetable, which goes as a topping on the rice. And then the formation, or karmic formation in some translation, the formation part is given the example as the activity of eating, but not the person. And the consciousness is given metaphor or analogy as the one which does the eating.

So in that sense so that’s to be so that’s an example. So the meaning covered is the karmic, where the karma takes its residence and what the process of karmic experience, ripening and who does the who actually does the ripening upon whom the ripening takes place in that sense. Yep.