Tenets, 10 March 1994, part 2

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 a 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, 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.

Now and that that that now is the brief difference between the two. And again to emphasize the point, the valid perception would mean new knowledge of mind which perceives the object fresh unmistakenly, which realizes that object unmistakably fresh or which understands whichever one can look at. So that is a 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 valid perception is a valid perception. So in the book it is called as valid knowledge because that’s a little word but perception is more like a unconfusing so preferable way to say. 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 and and 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 a 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 together, they they form form as as the valid sub subsequent perception. And then the direct perception can be of the type such as the direct perception perceiving form, direct perception perceiving sound, direct valid perception perceiving smell, 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 in their case the perception or the knowledge of the object is done in a way where one doesn’t have to think about reasoning 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 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 taste and can have, due to that, can have the remark that it is good, and so forth. And all those things, so that whole meaning — so it is like a description of the whole remark and the ability 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, smooth thing or it is rough surface, and so forth.

So in this way, these are the examples of one types one type of direct valid perception. Direct valid perception can also be of mental direct valid perception. One example would be such as a direct mental direct valid perception which comes as a as due to the power of constant meditative concentration. For example, a yogi, 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 let’s say if there is such a yogi here then the yogi can look into such and such person’s mind and can directly see on 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 a straight lie or not. Anyway, in such state of mind is called as manifest knowledge, knowledge of understanding manifestedly and hidden things. And manifest knowledge can be of various types.

There are many types and this is one such type. Anyway, those thoughts 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 induced by following a correct reasoning. Such valid perception can be done and can be acquired by doing meditation and reasonings or analytical reasonings and reflections on topics such as the four truths of the noble 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 of our entity 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 one can develop one can develop inferential valid perception, inferential valid perceptions on those points. We can go into one example amongst the 16 say impermanence and in the course of applying that one can look this way, aggregates or the body so the term can be applied as the body. The body is impermanent. Why it is impermanent? Because it is produced by causes and conditions and one can apply this very reasoning again and again and through this way they will applying 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 produced by reasoning, and in that way, it becomes inferential valid perception. Then we had and then we had in the Tuesday evening how I is proven as emptiness, empty or lacking in its own existence. We can do similar meditation on that very topic how I is emptiness and 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 or reasoning one can come to the perception realization of the I being emptiness not be not inherently existing and such realization would be inferential valid perception. And 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 object 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 for example, objects like colors of blue, red, white, yellow, or all 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 being bound to be misery or miserable aspect of certain entities or about selflessness for example with the aggregates, or ordinary beings’ personal 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 straightaway realize it is impermanent. So such second types of objects are called hidden hidden objects hidden objects.

In this way, the sec this second type of objects of knowledge is something which needs to apply reasoning in order for it to be perceived or known and in that way it is called hidden hidden object. But then there’s yet another types of object of knowledge and perception which although applying reasonings, correct reasonings, 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 a certain that because also the Buddha has said so about this topic that this must be the right conclusion. And 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 what’s called method to perceive perceive the object and this third type of object 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.

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 this rebirth as a human is the result of having 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, 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 asked then it would be difficult to answer 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 a human but we also have relatively good material facility for Dharma practice so such abundance of facility has to be result of having practiced generosity in previous lives.

But again if we are asked when in the past 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 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 subjects are the sounds, 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 product and 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 one which speaks about the object. So 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, perception or knowledge produced about the basis meaning the table. So similarly any other sound or 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. Perception. Okay. Thank you.

And we’ll stop here for the evening and few minutes for any questions if you have. I’m having some difficulty between in in understanding the difference between consciousness that is one of the five aggregates contaminated by rebirth, you know, I mean, the by by being by coming into existence on the basis of contaminated aggregates, does that become sort of the gross consciousness? I mean, is that is that clear? Well, there are various explanation 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 consciousness apart from normal mental consciousness and it’s given the name the ālaya consciousness whereas the Autonomy school or the Svatāntrika Madhyamaka school explains the I is the mental consciousness but in their understanding that mental consciousness is not the same as other mental consciousness; instead it is a mental consciousness which takes rebirth. It’s not the same as mental con as the mental consciousness in the five aggregates.

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 between 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 four five aggregates, form aggregate is given the example or analogy as the container and the feeling aggregate is given the example as the main stable food within the container say the rice like rice, 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 or formation part is the given the example as the whole the activity of eating but not the person and the consciousness is given the metaphor or analogy as the one which does the eating so in that sense so that’s to be in so that’s example so the meaning covered is the karmic the way the karma takes its residence and what the process of karmic experience ripening and who does the who actually does the ripening or upon who the ripening takes place so in that sense yep.

So in that way, it becomes one which eats because in the meaning sense, it is the one which experiences the meaning to come. When one is still in saṃsāra, that consciousness is a contaminated consciousness, but once one is freed from saṃsāra it becomes uncontaminated, non contaminated. Let’s say amongst the pure land, if it is the blissful pure land, the Sukhāvati pure land, then not to talk about the not to talk about suffering experiences. There’s not even the neutral experiences. Once one is born