Tenets, 9 June 1994, part 3

I must, in order to benefit all sentient beings who are my mothers and who are of old age in the sense repeatedly being in cycle in saṃsāra for a long time, that I must in order to benefit them, I must somehow at any rate try to achieve Buddhahood. Having attained such state of Buddhahood, may I then have the resourcefulness to be able to teach all sentient beings in accordance with their various mental dispositions, interests and so forth. And by giving teachings, may I be able to guide them on what needs to be discarded away, what needs to be practiced. And through that way, may I be able to remove all their sufferings and lead them to excellent unchanging happiness. In order to accomplish very well all these goals, all these aspirations, we’ll here very well do study reflection and meditative familiarization on the context topic, which more ultimately will lead to the context topic of the great vehicle path.

There is very beautiful line in the teachings which goes, By the power of hearing one becomes peaceful and subdued by the power of meditation one becomes less with impure thoughts. What the first part means is when one hears the teachings again and again, then the teachings, because they explain what leads to suffering and what would lead to be one to be freed from suffering. As well, the teachings explain how one can attain happiness and so forth. Therefore it is natural that whoever hears or listens to teachings again and again would become aware how one’s impure thoughts leads to sufferings in the process that through impure thoughts one accumulates negativities or bad karma, and through that sufferings as consequences happen. And by listening or hearing the teachings, one understands how through pure thoughts one engages into wholesome or virtuous actions through which one reaps happiness as a result.

And this then brings to a trainee, a practitioner, enormous awareness how, even on a daily basis, one looks at what is wholesome, non faulty, and what is unwholesome, faulty, in reference to one’s mental continuum and behaviors produced or behaviors motivated by them. So it is quite natural that the happiness which one wants, one would gradually, gradually be able to attain by a gradual increase of pure pure thoughts and virtuous actions and unhappiness, the suffering which one does not want, one gradually would be able to overcome by being able to decrease the impure thoughts and the non righteous actions produced or motivated by them. The line, first part, which says, by the power of hearing one becomes peaceful and subdued, that then can be understood with the previous explanation that when one stops the faulty activities or actions through the three doors physical action, verbal action and mental action then it is inevitable outcome that one’s excellent qualities through the three doors would increase. And as a result, such a person would be appearing or would become peaceful, subdued subdued in good sense as the gross harshness and violent behaviors of body, speech and mind are decreased.

So in that sense, some becomes subdued. As there is one verse advice teaching which says when I look at the mirror of Dharma, the reflection of my bad behavior which are formed, I become very sad. May I therefore be able to direct my behavior towards Dharma or wholesome? What that means is, as usually in orderly convention and doing, people look at mirror, but the mirror is used normally to look at where one’s flaws and other imperfections of the face and so forth can be picked on by looking at the reflection in the mirror. And then one applies the necessary repair and make up and so forth, and one becomes happy afterwards.

Like that, here, one receives teachings and listens to teachings, it is like where the wrong avenues which one may or might have or may be going to engage into are clearly exposed, like a Dharma or the teachings being mirrored. And this, when looked at instruction or a source of guidance, gives a trainee and listener here the very basis through which one can decrease one’s faults. Here faults means impure thoughts and negative actions and improve the non faulty, the excellent quality aspects of one’s mind. And through that way, hearing the teachings, it helps one’s mind directed towards wholesome excellent qualities to be acquired by the mind. Tonight then, we continue our previous Thursday evening’s topic And especially for tonight, we go through the topic of valid knowledge or valid cognition or valid perception, which is a topic coming under the mind, which in the context of object subject is one of the subject amongst the three parts.

The need to study and understand what is valid knowledge, what is valid perception, it is extremely important because we, after all, in following our spiritual pursuit, need to follow valid knowledge, valid perception. If we are able to follow valid perception, meaning our mind is able to follow valid perception, valid knowledge, this automatically makes the person who is endowed with that mind to as well follow valid knowledge, valid perception. And this means the person whose mind follows valid perception is on correct, unmistaken path. Such person follows a correct, unmistaken path. In the absence of gaining understanding of what is valid knowledge, the adverse consequences would be one’s mind would follow non valid knowledge, non valid perception.

This would automatically lead the person to mistaken path direction, and it would take to give an example, like falling off the cliff, where the cliff is so deep, and it would be difficult to regain and be back on non on non mistaken path again. It would be like example in even in orderly convention if we follow a person who is honest, reliable, does not cheat or try to play a trick on others, then we would would be safe, sound and safe, and whatever goals we need to achieve by following such person would be achieved. There will be no doubt about that. Whereas, if the person we are following is someone who is dishonest, tells lies all the time, and really tells shitty lies and so forth, then we will be we we we would be lead lead to a mistaken direction. We would never achieve what’s meant to achieve by following. What we aim to achieve would not be achieved.

So that’s even in general case how it works by following a mistaken or by following a non mistaken reliance. If we follow loving kindness, compassion, bodhicitta, mind of enlightenment and wisdom realizing emptiness, then because these which we follow are valid knowledge, valid perception, we would definitely be led to the state free of all mental shortcomings and complete with all excellent qualities the state of Buddhahood. Whereas opposite to that, if we follow truth grasping, attachment, hatred, pride, so forth, then because these are non valid, mistaken and misleading perception or knowledge, therefore we would be led to doing non virtuous actions through which there will be endless existence in the cycle saṃsāra in general, particularly in the three lower rebirths. Now regarding mind, which is synonymous with awareness, what and how it is defined? Let’s go look at its definition.

Awareness or mind is defined as clear and knowing. By clear, it implies or it is supposed to mean that through such an entity everything would appear. The environmental universes and the resident beings would appear to it. So that part is the clear part. And the knowing part is, as things appear, this entity, the mind awareness, can perceive, can know the things appearing to it.

Let’s put it in an example, say, if to the mind yellow color, color yellow appears, the mind also would know that this is yellow. If color red appears to the mind, then the mind would perceive, would know, would perceive the color red, so forth. So in this way, the knowing part covers that part and together, yes, that’s how awareness or mind is defined. So this is the mind, the awareness, when it is classified it is of two kinds, valid and non valid. This means there is a type of mind which are valid cognition, valid perception, valid knowledge.

And there are other types which are non valid perception, non valid knowledge. Regarding the etymological explanation of the of valid perception, valid knowledge. In its Sanskrit, original Sanskrit language, is, according to oral pronunciation, it’s called Pramāna, where the pra part means first, and mana part means coming to contact, which alternatively means to understand, to perceive, to know. Now put together, then this is what valid knowledge, valid perception is. And the first part, the pra part, is supposed to mean fresh or new and the coming into contact of perceiving part when joined means perceiving fresh, perceiving for the first time and that’s what valid perception means.

So then, valid knowledge is where it has the features distinct with it, amongst which the first feature is that it is afresh and new first. And the perception part, which is to go back to original language, the mana part, the come in contact part, that also implies infallible because in the original language it not only means coming in contact or perceiving, it also means infallible, unmistaken. So these are the two features. This is combined with the valid knowledge or valid perception. Basically, being a mind, a knower has all these three parts.

So valid knowledge or valid perception must have those three features to make it a valid knowledge that it is a fresh perception or first knowing and it is infallible, unmistaken and it is a mind, a knower, a knowing entity. So here we obviously are still following the Sautrāntika system and the valid knowledge, its understanding also in the present case has to be in accordance with this tenets system, the Sautrāntika tenets or Sautrāntika system. And in this system, if it is a valid knowledge, then it necessarily is fresh knowledge where the object has not been earlier known or perceived. If something has already been earlier perceived or known, then next time when the object is seen or perceived it cannot be a valid knowledge, valid perception, valid knowledge still. For example, with the table, let’s say the object table, it is something which we already have perceived earlier last few days ago.

Let’s say there was the table we perceived during the earlier Tuesday class time. And now this evening we are seeing the table again. We are perceiving it again. But this evening’s perceiving of the table is not valid knowledge because it has already been perceived last class time. So it is not a valid knowledge, valid perception.

And to summarize on this point, if it is a valid knowledge then it needs to be a fresh non mistaken knowledge. So that part more specifically explains the fresh or the first part. Then the second feature of the valid knowledge, valid perception is infallibility, non mistakenness, which means when the object is perceived, one needs to know the object thoroughly. One needs to know the object. It cannot be non knowing.

For example, an instance of not understanding, not knowing the object can be a case where we happen to see a stranger for the first time somewhere over there. And then we know that it is a person, but we’re not sure where the very he or she has come from, which country, which area, what’s the background and so forth. So our mind has not understood the person, and as it has not understood the person, our mind in relation to that person is regarding that person is fallible. It is mistaken. So it cannot be a valid knowledge, valid perception.

This then, to summarize what it means, if it is a valid knowledge, then it must know its object. Now the stranger after inquiring inquiring few other people who happen to know the stranger, then it would be possible that we can know what the person who the person is, which country the person comes from, what the background and so forth. For example, that could happen by way of the people and the Australian explaining to us by way of introduction that this person, he has come from such country and he is that person. So when that is explained, then we would know the person. And when we know the person, that instance, our consciousness, mind has become a valid knowledge in reference to that person because it is fresh knowledge that for the first time we have known the person, perceived the person, and it is infallible because we know exactly about the person.

So it is a fresh, infallible knowledge. If it is introduced that this person is from Australia, then one would know from then onward about the person. For example, if we are the ones who want to know about a particular person where well, to use the common pronoun, where he comes from, And if someone says, Oh, he’s coming from Australia, then within all of us, there is the knowledge that the person is from Australia. So within all of us, there is a new unmistaken knowledge born in reference to that person. I believe So there cannot be any mistake, fallibility with such mind knowing the person.

For example, from the person from each side, the person is an Australian coming from Australia. And from our side, the mind knows the person is from Australia. So the two are factually corresponding. And it is sure that there cannot be any mistake with such mind. The specific exponent tenet, which is the Buddhist lowest Buddhist tenet, they claim that senses are valid knowledge.

For example, they claim the senses are valid knowledge. This would require what is meant by sense. Well, let’s say with eye, eye sense, what appears outside the color, the colored substance, so that’s the exterior part. But inside, there is extremely refined, extremely pure aspect of it, which is the actual sense perceiving its reference object. Now the Vaibhāṣika says that part of the eye, which is the eye sense, is valid is a valid knowledge.

So that’s what they say, but here the Sautrāntika don’t agree with that because Sautrāntika explain if it is a valid knowledge, it necessarily has to be mind. It has to be an awareness. And senses cannot be a valid knowledge because mind or awareness, they are just form, physical entities, not mind. Of course, in the case of eye sense, forms or visible things appear to it, like things would appear in the mirror, but although things appear to the eye sense, but eye sense does not perceive, does not know the object. So it does not know a perceived object because the knowing part, the perceiving part, is a function exclusive to mind, to awareness.

And that’s the reason why here the Sautrāntika disputes the Vaibhāṣika in its claim that senses are valid knowledge. But of course there is the part that with senses in the say in this case I sense there is no doubt the part of things able to appear to it, but there is no perceiving or knowing part from the senses part. For example, as far as the appearing part goes, we can know by way of looking at the case of blind people. Once they go blind, things do not appear, and there is no subsequent perception by the mind following the eye sense. So there is no appearing part because the eye sense has gone faulty.

And in normal case, if there is the eye sense, then there is the basis of the perception of the form because there is the forms appearing to the eye sense. With regards to the valid cognition, valid knowledge, it is of two types direct valid knowledge and inferential valid knowledge. Regarding the first type, they are the valid knowledge where the object is perceived directly without any need to think or pursue any reasonings as a medium to perceive and know the object. For example, the direct valid knowledge can be the valid knowledge of the five senses eye, ear, nose, tongue, body where one does not apply any reasoning in order to perceive the object. For example, with eye, it sees form.

When it sees form such as color white, red, yellow, and so forth, when the perception or the knowledge is direct. Similarly, when similar or the ear perceives sound, it is direct. And nose, when it perceives smell. It can perceive whether it is a sweet smell or a turning-off smell, so forth. It doesn’t need to think about reasoning.

It directly perceives. And same with tongue, the different taste, whether it is delicious or non delicious, it doesn’t need to think about reasoning. It can directly perceive. Similarly, with body, tangible sensations, whether it is smooth or rough surface, it comes into contact, it perceives the smoothness and roughness, the coarseness directly without thinking or following any reasoning. So these are the instances of direct valid perception, direct valid knowledge.

Then we have the second type which is inferential valid knowledge, inferential valid perception where one needs to in order to perceive or know the object, one needs to follow after reasoning. That’s why the word inferential in original languages as well in Tibetan actually means perception by following, because it follows reasoning. Example, we can give an instance of what is an inferential valid knowledge where one has to follow reasoning. In the case of emptiness, is in the case of emptiness that emptiness is something one initially does not directly perceive, therefore one needs to apply reasonings to perceive it. To put into example, let’s say, the ego or I within my continuum, it is not inherently existing because it is dependent arising in the sense it is dependently originated phenomena.

So in that case, by applying the reasoning because it is dependently originated or dependent arising, one perceives the fact that it is emptiness, that it lacks the inherent existence. So such case where the perception is fresh unmistaken, but it needs to follow a reasoning, is inferential valid knowledge. Now in this case the mind which perceives the object is the valid knowledge and the object which is perceived by such valid knowledge is called the object to be perceived. So this is the difference between the two. Regarding the object to be perceived, it is of three types: manifest object to be perceived, hidden object to be perceived, and extremely hidden object to be perceived.

So there are those three types. Amongst the three, the first which is the manifest object to be perceived, they are where one does not need to apply any reasonings where the object is directly perceivable. For example, one would straight away be able to know that this is so, that is so, this is so, and would exactly directly perceive the object as it is manifested. And it does not require any medium, indirect means such as reasonings and so forth for it to be perceived. And then there are other object to be perceived where one cannot perceive the object directly, so one definitely needs needs to apply reasoning’s to perceive to perceive the object.

Now here, no doubt, this is being mentioned in reference to ordinary sentient beings, ordinary sentient beings, that in their case that they are object to be perceived which they cannot directly perceive but have to rely on reasonings. So there are such objects to be perceived where one needs to apply reasonings. And regarding applying reasonings, there are types of objects to be perceived through reasonings where one does not have to apply too many and too profound reasonings or sharp reasonings, but one can just apply a simple simple the word actually is gross or just approximate. Just simple reasoning. Through that way one can easily perceive or understand the object.

And then there are other types where the object to be perceived, although one applies reasonings, they are so subtle, difficult to perceive, that one needs to apply equally subtle and profound reasonings. Due to this way of difference, then we have the two next types of object to be perceived: the hidden and the extremely hidden. And these two alternatively can also be called the slightly hidden object to be perceived and extremely hidden object to be perceived. And altogether, those are the three types of object to be perceived, manifest, hidden or slightly hidden, and extremely hidden. And then regarding the slightly hidden object to be perceived with them one does not need to apply profound or subtle reasonings.

They only require gross reasoning gross in the more interpretively simple and just approximate our reasonings. And under this category we can have examples such as topics like impermanence, miserable nature of the true suffering, the selflessness of the person, and the emptiness of the true suffering, and in brief, the 16 aspects of the Four Truths, then these all can be understood by applying approximate reasoning, not subtle, not profound reasoning, and they are in that way slightly hidden object to be perceived. Regarding extremely hidden object to be perceived, An instance, for example, can be, say, our case, we are born with precious human rebirth, complete with the necessary qualities and capability to do correct meaningful spiritual practice. But as it is known that the result which one achieves to be born as precious human rebirth requires having in the past practiced morality very purely. That definitely would be the preceding cause to make a person attain precious human rebirth.

But the subtleness subtle and difficult to understand part is if it is asked, what point in previous lives did my previous rebirth practice pure morality? What type of look that person had, which country that person was, so forth. These details are extremely hidden, extremely difficult to perceive. Similarly, in this life, if one is with abundance of our wealth, then that means it is the result of having practiced generosity in the past. But then if it is asked at what point in the past, at which place, in what aspect of a person or rebirth one practiced generosity, those details are extremely difficult to know perceive.

So there is no way it is extremely hidden object to be perceived, extremely hidden knowledge to be understood. Only way the details about the time, place, manner of the person, so forth, who did the practice of generosity in this case, be by way of relying on the words of an enlightened being, of the words of a Buddha, that only through that one would be able to confirm that the generosity was practiced and the details to be known and so forth. In this way, there are these three types of objects to be perceived. Regarding the first object to be perceived, which is manifest object to be perceived, that is, the object to be perceived by direct valid knowledge. And the other two, the slightly hidden and extremely hidden object to be perceived are object to be perceived by inferential valid knowledge.

Now regarding the direct valid knowledge, what it is and how it is defined, first would be clearer if we just skip the second part and just define what is a direct perception. Well, the definition or the description of direct perception is knower or knowledge. So in Tibetan the word is same knower or knowledge. A knower which is free of concept. That is the definition.

A knower free of concepts. Concept is something which is not with the sense consciousness. Instead, it is with the mental consciousness. Or, you know, to paraphrase, concept is something exclusive to mental consciousness and not of sense consciousness as the five sense consciousnesses. And the concept by its nature is necessarily mistaken mistaken perception.

And by concept, we can give examples, say, the very mental consciousness abstraction, the mental consciousness abstraction, thinking this is human, this is a horse, and so forth. Such are concepts. And to interpret the concept is where the object is perceived mixed with time and place, not starkly or nakedly as it is. So that’s a concept. So it is a mistake.

And now that we go back to the direct perception, what it requires is it requires to be free of concept, first requirement, and second requirement it should be unmistaken. So it should be free of mistakes. And to be more precise, we can then have the redefined definition of direct perception as non mistaken perception free of concepts. So with the direct perception, it has to have the requirement free of concept and free of mistake. By the very phrase, free of concept means it is without concept, and by the very phrase, free of mistake means it has to be unmistaken.

So that is so far the defining direct perception. And now to define what is valid direct perception, all we need to do is to bring the additional part of a definition of valid perception. And earlier we know that valid perception or valid knowledge is defined as a fresh unmistaken perception. So in the case here now with the direct valid perception, it means a fresh unmistaken perception, free of concepts and unmistaken. So that’s the definition and obviously we must here be what’s called clear we must be clear here not to confuse the two valid direct perception and the other valid direct perception.

There is a difference. One is just a valid perception one is just direct perception and the other is valid direct perception. So presently it may be possible, some might get a bit confused but it will get better. Now regarding direct valid perception, it can have further it can have its own classifications or types such as direct valid perception of eye, direct valid perception of ear, direct valid perception of nose, direct valid perception of tongue, direct valid perception of body. So there are five direct valid perception of the senses as there are five senses.

So in a way we can say direct valid perception is further classified into five sensory direct valid perception, so there are five types. Now with regard to the five sensory valid direct valid perceptions, they are produced with the combination of the object and the senses. For example, with the eye direct or valid perception or in other words direct or valid perception of the eye. In this in its case, it is produced by the eye sense coming in contact or in combination with the object of the side. For example, let’s say with the example of flower, the eye sense perceives or to it appears the object which is flower and the two combined produces the direct valid perception of the eye perceiving flower.

So it is a combination of the object and the senses coming together where the actual direct valid perception is produced. If there was no flower, then there will not be birth or there will not arise the direct valid perception of eye perceiving flower that would not arise, that would not grow, it was not Although there may be flower, but if there is not the eye sense, the pure part of the eye which is the sense base for things to appear to eye. If that is not there, then it is not possible again to have a direct valid perception of the eye perceiving flower. So we then can conclude that it is only when the object flower combined with the contact with the eye sense that the actual direct perception of eye is produced. The sounds which are objectively perceived by ear sense sensory perception when coming in contact with the ear sense that the actual direct value perception of ear is produced.

And how that happens is firstly there has to be sound. Sound vibrating and then the ear sense when coming in contact with such vibrating sound produces the direct valid perception perceiving sound. Then with the nose, whatever types of smell, whether it is sweet, non sweet, whatever, they have to come in contact with the nose sense, and then the valid perception, perceiving smell of the nose would be valid perception of the nose, perceiving smell would be produced. Similarly, taste of tongue when the sense of tongue coming in contact with the delicious or non delicious object taste has to produce the valid perception of tongue perceiving taste. Similarly, our body, when it comes in contact with the surface, either smooth or rough or coarse, that would produce the valid perception of body perceiving touch.

So it is exactly the same with the eye consciousness, how in contact with the flower it produces the valid perception of the eye perceiving form. Same thing. So the name given for that is, with each of these, the direct valid perception of the sense perceiving sound were the first. Direct valid perception of this sense perceiving sound because in this case it is the sound which is being perceived. Because in the case of nose it perceives smell, so it has to be direct valid perception of the sense perceiving smell.

And then with the tongue it tastes or experiences sweet or whatever flavor of taste it is. So the description given of it is direct valid perception of sense perceiving taste. And then with body, because it perceives the types of various sensations, whether it is smooth, coarse or whatever. So the description given is the direct valid perception of the senses, of the sense perceiving touch. Is it confusing or it’s okay?

So it should not be a matter of confusion because with the five sensory perception after all they are just only talking about the objects of the five senses and the perception followed through that. And regarding the five objects of the five senses, they are generally, as we very often hear in the scriptures and teachings, described as the five attributes of the desire. What that means is, firstly, there are three realms of ordinary sentient beings’ existence: desire realm, form realm, and formless realm. And in the desire realm, it is mainly the attributes the object to be enjoyed are the objects of the five senses. So in that sense, the five attributes of the desire, that’s all these senses are being talked about.

These are called the sensory consciousnesses sense consciousnesses. Why they are called sense consciousnesses sensory consciousness, sensory perception is because it is through the dependence on the five senses the respective objects are perceived. Then different to these five is the mental consciousness, because with mental consciousness it perceives things or objects, or it understands. So the word perceived throughout the translation is interchangeable with understand, no same thing, although occasionally perceived seems to be a weaker word. So because with the mental consciousness it perceives its object not by depending on the five senses, which are form and substance senses.

Instead, it perceives its object by depending on mental consciousness itself, which alternatively or interchangeably is described here as well as depending on the mental sense, like as opposed to eye sense or ear sense. So it perceives its object by depending on mental sense, and that’s the difference. Sense consciousnesses are not stable basis because it is not possible through sense consciousnesses or through sensory perception to develop experiences and realizations of the path. The reason for that is because the realizations of the path and the experiences do not come about through that door of consciousness. Consciousness is not stable.

The whole lot of paths and realization loving kindness, compassion, bodhicitta, understanding of emptiness, so forth, they all are produced through mental consciousness. Mental consciousness is stable basis. Is and due to that, if we are to develop all these realizations in the path, the way to go about would be to produce them in the mental consciousness. Any questions? We’ll have a few minutes for that.

The sound being classified as subject is because it is an expression which conveys some meanings or some messages. And from that point, the sound is classified as one of the subjects. For example, Heart Sūtra, it is a sound and it has its object, emptiness, as its message to convey. So, yeah, it is a sound and it’s a subject because it has emptiness the message to convey as its object in that case. In the case of ear consciousness, it is considered as a subject perceiving sound as object because when Buddha gives teachings through way of discourses or sūtra, then those say, in our case, if we were listening, then we would be hearing the discourses.

So the sound does become, in this case, an object of the ear sense. So when Buddha gives teachings, these disciples would actually hear in their ears. Because in the case of color, color does not appear to color. It is only to eye the colors appear. So meaning, that’s how it won’t be a subject.

So what sort of messages would come out? Let’s say, if it’s a yellow color with the flower, what would