Tenets, 11 August 1994, part 2

Hi. Assumption is assumption is very frequent because even in the course of teachings happening here in the gathering hall, it is quite frequent. How it is frequent is, for example, when in the teaching to translate third person in the teaching when Rinpoche explains that pot or vase is impermanent, that it is selfless or it is without concrete identity, then by depending and following that sound of teaching where the explanation says the pot or the vase is impermanent and it is without self. You from your part just following that sound of the teaching you assume that the that the vase is impermanent and it is without self and you believe in that. So there is an assumption already.

Of course, is impermanent, and of course, vase is selfless without concrete identity and and accordingly from Rinpoche’s part in the teaching that is what is being introduced and explained that vase is impermanent and vase is without self. By following the sound of the teaching from your part if you believe in that on the spot then that is an assumption. No doubt no doubt that assumption is a thought leaning towards the fact. It is a thought leaning towards the fact, but where where it has gone wrong is that although one believes and although the thought is leaning or thought pertains to the fact, but from your part presently you have not realized or understood the vase as impermanent as well have not realized the vase as without self, without concrete identity and that’s why it is still leaning towards fact, it is an ununderstood thought, a thought which has not a perception which has not understood its object. That being said so, we can perhaps not rule out to everyone present here.

There could be still amongst you some who do realize when it’s being explained. So for them for them, of course, we will have to say, excuse me. So not everybody could be in the same category. When to you if it is being introduced that this is flower, and at that point when at the time of being introduced, if you perceive or look at the flower and see there is a flower that is a perception and it is not assumption. But if if Rinpoche explains the flower is selfless or without concrete identity, and if you believe in that, then that becomes an assumption.

Why there is the difference is because when you are being introduced that this is flower at that point of introduction from your part, you do really perceive the object of flower. So it is not an assumption. But the time when you are introduced or the time when you’re explained that the flower is selfless, then you don’t perceive, you don’t realize that. So that’s where the latter part was that you don’t understand that. So meaning there could still be some people who do realize and for them it’s a different case.

Having having not realized, having not perceived the selfless or about the flower if one believes in that, then that is assumption. When it is when it is introduced that this is flower and the time you perceive it, then that is not a deceptive perception. Perception is not a because you ascertain the object as flower and that is factual. But the time when you are introduced that the flower is selfless, at that time your perception is deceptive because you would not have assuming, you would not have realized or ascertained the selflessness about the flower. Of course there is belief, there is belief belief thinking the flower is selfless, but that selflessness about the flower has not yet been ascertained, has not yet been realized.

So that perception is deceptive. But if it is explained to you that if it is explained to you in the format of logical syllogism or logical format, such as let flower be the case, it is not with self because it is dependent arising phenomenon, because it is dependent originated phenomenon. So if that is explained, and based on the explanation, if although presently you do have the assumption thinking flower is selfless, but with that assumption if you continuously analyze and think about, reflect on it on that format of proof, on that format of proving the flower as selfless by the reasoning that it is dependent arising phenomena, then through thinking and thinking on this point and applying the reasoning in that way, that very assumption can bring about the inferential inferential valid knowledge realizing the selflessness about the flower that is possible. So although it is assumption, it can transform or it can bring about the inferential valid knowledge, understanding selflessness of flower. So the assumption believing the selfless believing in the selflessness of flower, if maintained continuously, then it can produce within one’s mind mind stream the inferential valid knowledge perceiving selflessness of flower.

That’s how it happens. So to repeat, then it would mean the assumption of perceiving selflessness of flower is the cause bringing about the inferential valid knowledge of perceiving selflessness of flower. Assumption, no doubt, is a a mind pertaining or mind corresponding to the fact, but it has not realized the object fully because, say, the assumption thinks the flower is without self, but it but it actually has not realized the flower as selfless because having not realized the object therefore assumption is given the description in the definition as a deceptive mind. Now the fifth amongst the minds. Fifth amongst the mind which have not realized its object is the inattentive perception, which is last of the seven types of mind, inattentive perception.

Literally, inattentive perception literally is called appearing but not ascertained mind. Appearing but not ascertained but in attentive perception is a good translation used by others and it’s good. So inattentive perception is the fifth one. Now, what is that type of mind? Well, it is a type of mind where to eat the object appears clearly, but the mind from its part has not ascertained, has not perceived, has not understood the object.

So it is an unascertained mind with regards to its object. Or the example of inattentive perception can be such as, let’s say, a very sweet music is being played with guitar at a distance. And when hearing the sound of the music by one’s ear, the ear consciousness focuses towards the music and being so sweet music one’s mental consciousness or in other words one’s mind as well leans towards attending to the music, listening to the music. So not only one’s ear is listening to music, one’s mind as well is distracted or focus towards the music. Now at the same time, although one’s eyes may be looking forward at in front of oneself, in front of oneself and things, forms, person, people may seem to appear to one’s eye consciousness, to one’s eye.

But because one’s mind is already distracted or focused towards music, so one’s eye consciousness is not able to identify which is the person that appears in front of one’s eyes, what is the thing in front of one’s eyes. So that very moment’s eye consciousness is an example of inattentive perception where things appear to it, but it has not ascertained them. Very attractive form stands in front of one’s eyes during which moment during which moment during which moment one’s eyes focuses on the attractive form and one’s mind as well mental consciousness is as well focused on the form. Now at that moment, if things are being said nearby or noises are happening around, one would not be able to ascertain them. One would not be able to place place them what those sounds are because one’s mind is focused towards the attractive form in front of one’s eyes.

So although so many talking and sounds are around around near one’s ears, one would just hear them. That’s where the that’s where the latter part was, the attenuation of the sound. So one would just hear them and so forth and not actually identify what those sounds are and so forth. So that moment’s ear consciousness ear consciousness in relation to the sound is the inattentive perception. So one is, at that moment, unable to clearly identify and perceive or know the sound, although the sound do appear to one’s ear consciousness.

So it is a perception where things appear but not ascertained. So it is an assumption or sorry. Inattentive inattentive perception. Therefore, in this way, wrong perception, doubt, assumption, and inattentive perception are the types of mind which has not realized their objects. Whereas the first three types of mind, direct perception, inferential valid perception, and subsequent perception are types of mind which understands their objects and they are understanding types of mind.

Now together to classify we can say amongst the seven types of mind, the first three are the types of mind which understands their objects and the remaining four do not understand their objects. When one attains enlightenment, there is only one type of mind left, direct valid knowledge, direct valid perception, there are none of the other six types of the mind. Even the inferential valid knowledge is not present, even the subsequent perception is not present, not to mention about the other four. So there is only direct valid perception present in an enlightened consciousness. In the mind streams of the bodhisattvas and in the mind streams of the arhats, the four destroyers of the lower vehicle, all seven types of mind are present.

And with us ordinary beings, as well, all seven are present. Not only all seven are present. Amongst the seven, the bad types are more in number, and the good ones are less. If a person has a house and in the house there are so many things, not only there are so many things, if there are all sorts of things, some good qualities, some bad qualities, and arrangements of the things in the house are so all over the place, not in their proper places, then such person’s house does not only look untidy, the person is unable to utilize the good things the person actually has, but is unable to find in the house and so forth. Therefore in such person’s case it would be appropriate that one make attempts to throw away the trash part of the house and arrange the good working nice quality things upon the proper places so the place becomes tidy and one is able to use all what one has.

That is the example. Now in the meaning context here that is how we need to do with our mind, we need to remove the unwanted impure qualities, impure aspects of the mind and improve higher and higher and with more and more quantity the excellent qualities of mind. Eventually by doing so, if one has removed all impure thoughts, then that one has removed all impure thoughts and acquired all excellent qualities, then that itself is the state of Buddhahood, that itself is enlightenment, that it that itself is the big deal enlightenment and Buddhahood because because enlightenment does not mean to attain a state where one has a horn on one’s head and a tail on one’s bum. And those who have so much attachment and clinging, then they would cling on to all the possessions. That is our trait.

No. Oh, I’ll stop here. Yeah. Yeah. We’ll have a few minutes for questions.

Is it correct that the enlightened mind doesn’t have a subsequent perception? Because every re-looking at the flower realizes it’s impermanent and therefore constantly changing. So every re-looking at the flower is a new fresh perception. The sign yeah. Well, the reason for that is with one mind everything is perceived at the same time, so that’s how it is.

But we can also elaborate on that point by looking this way. In the case of sentient beings direct perception is the first moment and the second moment of direct perception does not remain direct perception, it becomes subsequent perception. Whereas in the case of omniscient mind the second moment of the direct perception is as well direct perception. Now the reason why there is this difference is because at the time omniscient mind perceives object it perceives all phenomena which exist at the time of that perception, direct perception. Similarly, the omniscient mind during the second moment when perceives object, it perceives all objects which exist during that second moment.

So it newly perceives all phenomena which exist during that second moment of perception. In that way it would be helpful here to bring the difference in the terminology. The word existent in Tibetan is the word yod pa. Naturally formed is the word used for inherent existence, literally, naturally formed. So second moment of omniscient mind perceives everything that exists, that is existing during the second moment of the perception.

Now that’s the case with the Buddha and omniscient mind. Whereas let’s say with the ordinary person the subsequent perception only perceives the object which was perceived by the first moment and that mind of subsequent perception of ordinary person is not able to perceive any other objects which exist during that second moment. So yeah. In that way. And the reason why with omniscient mind there is no inference or inferential perception is because inference or inferential perception by nature is a concept, a conceptual and concept as you remember is defined as perception where the object is perceived with the blend of time and name or sound of the object.

So it is not a naked or a bare perception of thing. Whereas in the case of omniscient mind there is no concept, there is no blending, there is no perception of object blended with time and name. It is bare, the object on its own. So that’s why with regards to the inference there is no inference with omniscient mind. And as regards the other four types of mind there’s definitely none of them because all those four are mind which has not understood or which does not understand their object whereas in the case of omniscient mind or Buddha it would understand its object.

Well, it could be of variant types. If by the first perception of the object appears as a pink color then that is direct valid perception of seeing that object and next moment of perception if it appears in the structure of flower then that means there has been analysis done by the mind about the object. So there is already analysis on the direct valid perception about the pink flower and that of that analysis if it clarifies into different shapes then they become subsequent perception of the previous perception. Now there is of course difference like when one perceives an object first time then that is direct valid perception and then one even non deliberately but one’s mind may be actively analyzing what was perceived and the second moment in looking at the object again that becomes subsequent perception but while looking at the object there can be some there can be details about the main object appearing and those details can be new perception but that does not make the perception a direct valid perception because here it needs to be emphasized that subsequent perception and direct valid perception is in reference to the main aspect about the object and the finer details would not make the perception yet change into a different sort.

With regards to removing firstly the doubt could be with oneself or it could be a doubt by some other people. Therefore there are two doubts in relation to oneself and with others. As far as removing doubt of oneself goes, to remove doubt in one’s mind, well it would require to if it is scriptural meditational things topics then one needs to do learning, reflection, analysis through that way sort out all the complexity about the issue and so forth and through that way sort it out, clarify it and then meditate. And through that way, the doubt can be removed.