Tenets, 16 June 1994, part 3

Amongst all these countless aged and mother sentient beings, as countless as the limitlessness of this kind, there is not anyone who has not been my mother and dear ones in the past. Presently, in my case, I have encountered the teaching leading to enlightenment and overcoming of mental shortcomings. I have encountered lamas or the teachers who unmistakenly show the instructions. Therefore, it is now my responsibility, right responsibility and right situation that I should repay their kindness. As to repaying kindness, what it would mean looking at their situation, they are without happiness and they are destitute of it and they are full of suffering.

So paying their kindness back in most meaningful way would be to make attempt and really make it happen that their sufferings are removed and they receive happiness. With regard to removing their sufferings and leading them to happiness, presently I just have this kind thought on aspirational level only, so it is mere kind thought. Therefore, I must really acquire the actual means by which I really can make that happen. The only means through which the removing of other sufferings and bringing them excellent happiness is by attaining firstly by one’s self the state of Buddhahood. An example would be Buddha Śākyamūni, who by attaining enlightenment is able, even for the benefit of one sentient being, to manifest in countless suitable forms through which give appropriate instructions, Dharma teachings, and remove their sufferings and lead the sentient beings to enlightenment.

That is how it is done. Likewise, in our case, if we attain the same state of enlightenment, free of all mental shortcomings and acquiring all excellent qualities of mind, we also can be of similar maximum benefit to sentient beings. Therefore, in order to be of maximum benefit to others, we must attain, at any rate, the state free of all mental shortcomings and complete with all excellent qualities of the mind. How would one attain the state free of all mental shortcomings and complete with all excellent qualities? Firstly, it is important and necessary to recognize what are the forms, what are the mental shortcomings and what are the excellent qualities.

Having recognized the two, to each of the mental fault or mental shortcoming one needs to apply its respective excellent qualities, the countermeasure, the excellent qualities of mind, and through that way gradually, gradually decrease, eliminate all mental shortcomings and increase the excellent qualities of our mind. To be able to do that, as one firstly needs to recognize, to know the two, that means one needs to have extensive learning. Based on extensive learning, then one would have extensive reflection and then perform meditation to follow. So here too, please think that I, because of such reason, would very well, at best of my ability, learn, reflect and meditate. Explained ahead, in order to remove sufferings and the impure sufferings and the shortcomings of the mind, one first needs to identify them.

First, well, in order to attain the excellent qualities of the mind, firstly one needs to identify them. Therefore, it will come to the point, the natural asking of question, which then would actually do the knowing of what is mental shortcoming and what is excellent qualities. As regarding that, it is the valid knowledge, valid perception, which knows the faults and which knows the excellent qualities. Having known through valid knowledge, then one needs to unmistakenly, with effort, put into practice what one has identified, what one has known. By that way one would be able to overcome all mental shortcomings and attain all excellent qualities of the mind.

Through that way one then attains Buddhahood, the state of omniscience. For example, if we have good and sound eyes, then we can very well walk on the road and arrive at destination safely. If our eyes are not sound, say if someone is half blind or both blind, then not seeing the road, one would not reach the proper destination. Yet on the other hand eyes has limited ability to know about things. Only the extent it would know would be visible objects that appears to it, like other sense objects to do with form, sound, smell, taste and touch.

The eyes only can just know about what is visibly to be seen. It cannot precisely, as well in variety, know the multitude of phenomena that are out there. To go to liberation and state of omniscience, we cannot go with these eyes, the sense eyes, the ordinary eyes. The eyes which we need for that would be wisdom eyes. Regarding wisdom eyes, it refers to wisdom produced by learning such as firstly one would do learning of the teachings, the scriptures and so forth, and wisdom would be gained by that way.

So there is wisdom through learning, and then whatever one has learned, one ascertains whether it is reliable, factual, and so forth through deep contemplation or through reflection. And through that way one attains wisdom of reflection. And whatever one has ascertained through reflection, one meditatively familiarizes with that direction or topic to make it part of one’s mind. So that way one attains wisdom of meditation or wisdom of meditative familiarization. These are the three with which one needs to go to liberation and omniscient state.

By nature, these three wisdoms are inclusive to valid knowledge, valid cognition. And it is through the valid cognition, valid knowledge, one has to traverse up on the path to liberation and enlightenment. Regarding valid knowledge, in our last Thursday evening we looked at its two basic classifications. There is the direct valid knowledge and second, the inferential valid knowledge. And we also went in last Thursday evening the definition of what is a valid knowledge or valid cognition.

There we defined it as a fresh and infallible knowledge. We also covered the definition of what is meant by direct valid knowledge, that it is defined as fresh and infallible knowledge free of concepts. Now, tonight we look into the classification of direct valid knowledge, although one we covered last week was the sensory direct valid knowledge. Generally, there are four direct valid knowledge, sensory direct valid knowledge, own knower direct valid knowledge, mental direct valid knowledge, and yogic direct valid knowledge. There are these four.

What is own knower valid knowledge? By the way, as an interpretive note, own knower in popular translation is perhaps called as the self cognition, but that is as a reference in case there are some other what’s called literature where the word is used in that way, self cognition. So what is an own knower? Regarding it, first there is a description of it as an inward mind directed inward. This obviously makes us to describe what is meant by inward.

Well, inward, firstly, what is inside that itself needs clarification, and there’s two ways of describing what is internal, inward, what is inward or internal. One way of description is whichever is subject to feeling is inward or internal. Whatever is subject to feeling is internal. For example, we have with feeling, feeling of pleasant of pleasure, feeling of pain or suffering, and neutral feeling. So whatever is inclusive subject to such an experience is here from one way of looking at is internal.

By this we would say table is not an in internal thing because if we heat it and so forth, it doesn’t feel anything at all, no experience of feeling at all. Whereas if we cut our finger or strike it with needle, then there is a feeling of pain, burning and so forth. That is a feeling. Similarly, in those group where it is not subject to feeling. We can have an example of the nail and hair which, when cut, don’t give any feeling of pain, pleasantness, so forth all.

So that’s one way of looking at all what is meant by internal inward. Another is described as whatever is subject to consciousness, subject to mind. Whatever is to be felt by mind that is internal. With regard to the description of own knower, there it starts with an inward directed mind. Now regarding how a mind is directed inward, as to that, the followers of the theory believing there is a consciousness called own, knower, explained that the mind or consciousness has two parts: one which knows external things only, and that is directed outward, toward the part of the mind.

And within that state of mind there is a part of the mind which knows itself only, and in that way it is directed inward toward the mind itself only. We can look at an example like if the consciousness of the mind observing flower, to say an example, then one portion of the mind only views that object, the flower. Yet, the other part of the mind looks at the mind itself. So it only looks at itself, and that is the inward facing part of the mind, which is called the own knower by the followers of that theory who believe in that. And together when we put that part into the definition of own knower valid knowledge, then it would be a fresh and infallible knowledge where the mind is directed inward.

So that would be the definition of it. Now because own knower valid knowledge is a division of direct valid knowledge, so the definition together would mean a fresh and infallible valid knowledge free of concepts which is directed inward. How we can relate the definition of direct own knower valid knowledge in terms of a particular context, for example. Well, let’s say when eye consciousness sees a form, then the very first moment of that eye consciousness seeing the form first time directly is one such case where we call it as the direct own knower valid knowledge. Similarly, the ear consciousness, when it perceives sound, the very first moment of perception is called the direct own knower direct valid knowledge.

Like that with every consciousness, by those who assert that there is an own knower part of the mind would say that with every direct valid perception, the first moment there is a part which is direct own knower valid knowledge. Let’s look at one example. Let’s look at an example if suppose yesterday we went to a garden and if we did see beautiful flowers, as well as beautiful lawn, then today if we happen to recollect the beauty of flower and the lawn, the grass, then would be the memory, the recollection today, thinking, Oh, yesterday I saw such a beautiful flower, the grass was so good, and so forth. Those who believe in the theory that there is a part of mind called own knower explains that to be able to recollect events of past is caused due to the mind having a portion called own knower. How that is explained is, yesterday, when at the time of seeing the flower by our consciousness, there is part of the consciousness which sees or perceives the mind itself.

So the very fact that the mind was able to look at it and perceive it, or what it was doing at that time, was able to make the mind able to recollect its perception later on in the future, and that’s how it is explained. So to conclude that point, would mean that those who accept on our attributes the cause to be able to have memory and recollection to own knower a consciousness called own knower. So that is one of the direct valid knowledge, the direct valid knowledge of own knower or to put it tersely own knower direct valid knowledge. The second is the sensory direct valid knowledge. Regarding what is a sensory direct valid knowledge, well it is direct valid knowledge of each of the five senses.

There is a direct valid knowledge perceiving form by eye, so that is direct valid knowledge by eye consciousness. Is direct valid Similarly, of ear perceiving sound, that direct valid knowledge of the ear sense is the sensory direct valid knowledge. In this way, with each of the senses we can say there is a direct valid knowledge. Regarding its definition, what is a sensory direct valid knowledge? We can define it as fresh and infallible knowledge which is produced by its exclusive cause sense organs.

So it is defined as fresh and infallible valid knowledge which is produced by its exclusive cause, the sense organs. What that part clearly indicates is only the part which is exclusively produced by its exclusive cause sense organ that is to be attached to the previous actual definition of direct valid knowledge. So together at the end we put free of concepts. Regarding the sensory direct valid knowledge, in context, mean, given an example, what would mean is perceiving form fresh, directly by valid knowledge is a sensory direct valid knowledge perceiving form. Likewise, perceiving sound fresh for the first time new.

Valid knowledge is a direct valid knowledge. So with each of the five objects or the five senses, when they are perceived for the first time correctly, validly, that is a sensory direct valid knowledge. Next is the mental direct valid knowledge. It is the definition of it is that its definition exclusively has the part, like earlier, which is produced by its exclusive cause, mental sense. And when attached with the direct valid knowledge part of definition, it would be fresh and infallible knowledge free of concept which is produced by its exclusive cause, mental sense.

And this becomes the third direct valid knowledge, number three. An instance of mental direct valid knowledge would be the first moment of knowing others mind. Generally there would be clairvoyance power attained by one’s mind where one would be able to read or know others’ mind. So in such case, the very first moment when others’ mind are perceived, understood by one’s mind, that is one such case. So that would be enough on the third hand.

It would be good if we just go by just one example each. Next would be the yogic direct valid knowledge. And here the definition part is a bit long, so firstly maybe it’s better to have it like a full sentence and then write it down. And it is a bit long and it is defined as wisdom directly knowing, subtle impermanence or selflessness of person through the meditative concentration, having the combination of calm abiding and special insight produced exclusively by such causes and which is fresh and infallible valid knowledge, free of concept is that definition. So if we go back, if you don’t mind, the wisdom which directly perceives or knows subtle impermanence or selflessness of person through the concentration where there is the combination of calm abiding and special insight produced by such causes, if it is fresh and infallible knowledge free of concept is the it.

So the other part is to be attached. In a way, to paraphrase, it would be good as although in Tibetan it goes backward, like in English you can perhaps reverse fresh and infallible knowledge, free of concept, produced by its exclusive cause, and then calm. And what is the exclusive cause? Well, it is the wisdom, directly perceiving subtle impermanence or selflessness of a person through the meditative concentration having the combination of calm abiding and special insight. I think that’s better.

Good? In this way, we can have the instances or examples of yogic direct valid knowledge as the on one example, direct valid knowledge, knowing the subtle impermanence for the first time. And so, to paraphrase, the first moment of the knowing of subtle impermanence by direct valid knowledge is one case. Likewise, the gross selflessness of a person being known directly by valid knowledge is another example. Similarly subtle selflessness of person being known directly by valid knowledge is another example.

By that way, we can infer that yogic direct valid knowledge is attained only if one becomes an ārya, someone who has directly realized emptiness, because it is only with an ārya, a superior person who has realized emptiness, that there is the direct knowing or direct realization of subtle impermanence. Also, it is only with a superior or an ārya that there is direct knowing or direct realization of gross selflessness of person. Likewise, it is only superior. There is of the subtle selflessness of a person. The first three direct valid knowledges are something that is commonly found or is common to both ordinary beings and superior beings, the aryas.

There is the distinction between ordinary being and a superior being. Superior being is, I’ll explain, as someone who has directly realized impermanence, who has as far as directly realized gross and subtle selflessness of person. By that very nature, superior being’s mind is exalted is superior compared to those who have not realized those things. Because of such reason, practitioners who have gained these realizations are called ‘ārya’ in Sanskrit language superior or exalted beings. Once one becomes superior then one would not anymore create new karma to be born in saṃsāra, to be born in cycle of suffering.

The reason for that is because a superior is someone who has directly realized selflessness of persons, or alternatively simply called the selflessness, so there is no cause to create new karma. Whoever becomes such becomes also a Sangha, and that is the actual reference of Sangha. If one has made up to that level where one has realized selflessness, If one has made up to such level where one has realized selflessness, then one may take one lifetime to become an arahant or foe destroyer, someone who has completely destroyed all impure thoughts. Or if one doesn’t attain arahant for one lifetime, it may take two lifetimes. At the most, it should not take more than three lifetimes.

One may be born once or twice in saṃsāra, but those rebirth would not be because of impure thoughts and karma or ignorance based actions, because there would be no karma newly created. And because of such, if there is to be rebirth once or twice or three at the most, it would be because of karma one has already created earlier during the time of ordinary being. Well, the reason why a superior attains arahanthood in that quick period of time is because of having attained yogic direct valid knowledge. Yogic direct valid knowledge is attained through the prior assistance of training of the other three direct valid perception, that it is through the assistance of the sensory direct valid knowledge, through the mental direct valid knowledge, and through own knower direct valid knowledge, the yogic direct valid knowledge is produced. Those three the causes sorry, those three are are the means through which the yogic direct valid knowledge is generated, is produced.

But the main means is the inferential valid knowledge, that it is through this one attains the yogic direct valid knowledge. Regarding what is inferential direct valid knowledge, we went through that as just a mere list in the earlier classification that when valid knowledge is divided, it is of two kinds: direct valid knowledge and inferential valid knowledge. Now, in this way we know that it is through inferential valid knowledge mainly as means one attains yogic direct valid knowledge. Then it would come to the point what then is an inferential valid knowledge. Regarding that, well, to start with firstly, valid knowledge is classified into two: direct valid knowledge and inferential valid knowledge.

And it is the second type of valid knowledge what is being referred here, the inferential valid knowledge. What then is inferential valid knowledge? The definition or the description of it is a fresh and infallible valid knowledge which arises from its base the correct reasoning. So that’s the description here. Is that alright, the definition?

So a fresh and infallible valid knowledge which arises from its base, the correct reasoning, a fresh and infallible valid knowledge, which arises from its base the correct reasoning. In the definition, the part which says its base, that indicates that the inferential valid knowledge depends on certain cause as its base. What that base is? That is explained in the next part of the definition: correct reasoning. That it is through correct reasoning.

By relying on correct reasoning, one produces inferential valid knowledge. In the defining of inferential valid knowledge we have a part called perceiving valid knowledge. Why it is called perceiving valid knowledge? In this context, the perceiving part is supposed to indicate it is conceptual knowledge, not a direct knowledge. And the reason for that is if it is an inferential valid knowledge or inferential knowledge, it is a conceptual knowledge, not something directly but in concept through relying on a medium of reasoning.

So that’s perceiving. I’m not sure what the word perceiving in this case would be translated normally. The word actually is clinging, but clinging has not the right connotation here. So to ornamentally translate, we might say, or retaining perception, a fresh and infallible retaining perception which arises from its base the correct reasoning. Yes, so that might be the way to go.

Anyway, in brief, in that case, at a perceiving, returning, it is supposed to indicate it is not a direct perception, but a conceptual perception. With the four types of direct valid knowledge, there is no need from the part of the person to think about and to put reasoning in order to perceive their respective objects. How those four types of direct knowledge are produced is through a way of when the causes and conditions for producing direct valid knowledge are gathered, then the direct valid knowledge arises by way of that. There is, in that way, no need from the part of the person to think or to put reasoning. Here in the case of inferential, valid knowledge, it is different because by the very word inferential in the original languages means followed perception, followed understanding, followed knowing, by which it means after following a correct reasoning, the perception, the knowledge is produced.

And in that way we can say with inferential valid knowledge one needs to think about the reasoning, the person from its part has to think about the reasonings and may even have to do meditation to understand the specific point or the specific thing to be perceived to be understood. So there is an obvious need to think about reasonings. The reason why we need to think about reasonings in order to perceive the object of inferential valid knowledge is because the object to be perceived, to be known itself, is difficult to be perceived. How that is so is in earlier one of the Thursdays we went through three types of objects to be perceived: the manifest object to be perceived, slightly hidden object to be perceived, and extremely hidden object to be perceived, where the latter two are the object to be perceived by inferential knowledge by applying reasoning. As far as the manifest object of perception goes, they are easily to be perceived.

One doesn’t need to think or put reasoning because they are so manifest, so obvious to be perceived. With inferential knowledge, it is of three types: inferential valid knowledge by the power of fact. Second,, inferential valid knowledge because of renown. Third, inferential valid knowledge of belief. There are these three. Then we shall stop on those points for tonight.

And if you have any questions, we shall have a few minutes for that. The inferential knowledge, because of the power of fact, inferential valid knowledge of belief. Regarding the second and third. Its exclusive cause would be first to have clairvoyance or the word actually for knowledge, clairvoyance.

And to have clairvoyance here in the present context would require a special insight. To have that, one would need calm abiding. With regards to yogic direct valid perception, there are two types of causes: distant causes and close causes. With regards to the close causes, it needs special insight and calm abiding. With regards to its distant causes, they are the inferential valid knowledge.

That’s right. The second moment onward did not become direct valid knowledge. But regarding that, in last week we went through the difference between what is mere direct perception and what is direct valid perception, or in another word, what is mere direct knowledge and what is direct valid knowledge. Those two differences can now be brought here to relate what the second moment onward becomes. Well, the second moment onward becomes mere direct knowledge, but they don’t become direct valid knowledge.

And the reason for that is to go back to the definition of the valid knowledge where it is valid knowledge, it has to be fresh, the first time knowledge. Therefore, that’s right here we then clearly can see the difference between the two: direct perception, direct knowledge and direct valid knowledge. I explained yesterday to interpret during the retreat where memory is not a separate word in Tibetan from mindfulness. During the retreat, the mindfulness was described as mind retaining without forgetting the object of familiarity. By that definition, that is memory Mindfulness has to have three features The first feature is the object has to be an object of familiarity.

What that means is already one needs to have repeated familiarization with the object that is going to be recollected or to be in one’s mindfulness. So one has to again and again get used to the object. Second is that it is retained, And third, not forgotten. The second and third, although ought to be found as just one of the same or two types of the same thing, same entity, retaining without forgetting. So if one has this, then it is possible that the object would recur in one’s mind, and in that way it would be in one’s memory.

So as the emphasis of the three, the main emphasis is the object has to be familiarized again and again. Let’s say if we meditate on impermanence, then if we meditate in consistent way where we meditate on impermanence today, we meditate on impermanence tomorrow, through that way it becomes familiarization with the awareness of impermanence. Through that way, by being familiarizing, what one is familiarizing would not be forgotten out of one’s mind, it would recur again and again. In this way, as a practitioner, not only that happens there will come a time one would directly realize impermanence. When there is lack of familiarity, then there will not be recollection.

For example, it often happens with conversations, and inclusive of that, explanations and so forth. Let’s give one example. Here, the class has been happening, but due to not having familiarity, later on when one gets back into one’s room, one tries to remember what was taught on this topic, what was taught on that topic, one would not be able to recall. So that’s what happens. And the latter part, I think, was more to say, maybe that perhaps happens.

On the spot during the teaching, if on certain points by thinking or it is of some meaning, with that if one thinks once or twice on the point, then it is possible later, getting back at one’s place, one would recall the point. Because one has talked about it a few times, say a few times, and with some intensity, some strength of thinking, say one would have thought about the point once or twice strongly. And that indicates one was familiarizing with the topic. Buddha would say with the teachings, listen well and strongly retain in mind. That’s the what’s called approximate what’s called lines of citation.

And this would be a regular advice given mostly at the beginning of the teachings by the Buddha, as a skillful means that the trainee, the disciples, would be able to recollect the topic explained later on. Now going back, let’s look at listen well. By that, it would mean if we look at, say, a container, if it is turned upside down, then that would mean one is not listening well. Like, one is not listening well with one’s ears attentive, where nothing would go inside. As with the case of container turned upside down, nothing would remain in or go into it if anything is poured to be inside it.

Concentrating one’s mind on one direction without thinking of many other things need to listen in that way. In the part, listen well, the well part emphasized is where one although attending to what is being explained through lending one’s ears, but one may not still receive So we can swap the second point, where the second would be to retain well, which means although one may lend attentive ears, but one may not be retaining what is being explained. And the example is the container, although turned upward in the right way, may have cracks and holes, and whatever is poured into it would not be retained. Retained well would, corresponding to this example, whatever is explained and what one is listening to, not only attentively but also through one’s mind, retain it in one’s mindfulness awareness.