{"collection":"Buddhism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/bud/tib/five-agg.htm","path":"bud/tib/five-agg.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/five-agg.htm","text":"[This document can be acquired from a sub-directory coombspapers via\nanonymous FTP or COOMBSQUEST gopher at the Australian National\nUniversity, Canberra on the node COOMBS.ANU.EDU.AU or from the ANU\nSoc.Sci.WWW Server at https://coombs.anu.edu.au/CoombsHome.html]\n[This version: 10 April 1995]\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nTHE FIVE AGGREGATES.\nBy Ven Thubten Pende\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nThis following teaching was given at Institute Vajra Yogini in\nFrance by Ven Thubten Pende, who is one of the most foremost\nscholars of Tibetan Buddhism. He is an American monk ordained for\nalmost two decades. He is the head teacher at Nalanda Monastery\nin France.\nTranscribed by Ven Tony Beaumont at Nalanda\nCopyright (c) 1994 of Thubten Pende and the Foundation for the\nPreservation of Mahayana Tradition. Any distribution without\npermission is prohibited by law.\nThe Foundation for the Preservation of Mahayana Tradition (FPMT)\nis an international network of Buddhist centers and activities\ndedicated to the transmission of Mahayana Buddhism as a practiced\nand living tradition. The FPMT was founded in 1975 by Lama\nThubten Yeshe and Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche. It is composed of\nmonasteries, retreat centers, communities, publishing houses, and\nhealing centers, all functioning as a means to benefit others.\nTeachings, such as the above presented, are given at many of\nthese centers.\nTo receive a complete listing of these about 80 centers across\nthe world, as well as news about the activities throughout this\nglobal network, please request a complimentary copy of the\nMandala Magazine from:\nFPMT Central Office\nP.O. Box 1778\nSoquel, California 95073\nUSA\nTel: 408-476-8435\nFax: 408-476-4823\nE-mail: 76072.47@compuserve.com\nTHE FIVE AGGREGATES.\nBy Ven Thubten Pende\nThis is the first of four lectures taking place this weekend,\nand the subject of this weekend's talk is the five aggregates.\nThere is a relationship with us, that's simply because we want to\nbe happy and we don't want to suffer. I heard the words of a song\nrecently which said \"I don't mind dying it's living that scares\nme.\"\nAll of us know the difficulties of life and we're trying somehow\nto minimize those. If what the Buddha said is true and this life\nis followed by another life and another and another and another\nthen the problems are multiplied. Fortunately there was not only\nbad news from the Buddha, but he also found a way of escaping\nfrom this suffering, and that is the main reason why we are here.\nSo the Buddha found that all of suffering is derived from a\nmistake in cognition and that the actual antidote to that mistake\nis the cultivation of a certain wisdom, and that wisdom is known\nas the wisdom realizing selflessness, and it is this teaching on\nselflessness that mainly distinguishes the Buddha's philosophy\nfrom all other world philosophies. Selflessness is referring to a\nquality which all things possess and this quality is an absence;\nit is an absence of an illusion we have mistakenly projected on\nall things.\nSo all of the teachings of the Buddha are either directly or\nindirectly trying to lead the student to discover what that\nabsence is. Teachings that are speaking directly about this\nsubject, fall into the category of the perfection of wisdom\nscriptures, and in those scriptures we find such statements like\"\nthe five aggregates are empty of self\". It is our task to find\nout what that means, so we have to first of all begin by finding\nout what the five aggregates are.\nIn general the five aggregates are a way of classifying the body\nand the mind. The two main constituents that make up any person\nare the body and the mind. Rather than merely saying the body and\nmind the Buddha mentioned five classifications, and when he was\nteaching this he was using handfuls of grain to say there is this\naggregate and this aggregate and this aggregate, five all\ntogether. The Sanskrit word is skanda, and what it means is a\npile, as in a heap or pile of rice, and those five are the\naggregate of form, feeling, recognition, compositional factors\nand consciousness.\nThe first three of these he mentioned in particular, because of\ntheir relationship with desire. In addition to mentioning that\nthe source of all our sufferings is in a misknowledge of reality,\nat other times the Buddha said that the source of all of our\nproblems is desire. However we should know that he was not\nreferring to all desire. For instance the desire to be happy is\nnot a source of problems. The desire to escape one's problems is\nalso not the source of suffering. So he was referring to a\nspecific type of desire, and that being a desire whose object\nappears as the source of happiness when in fact it is not. So it\nis a desire with respect to or, a desire towards an\nhallucination, and the means of eliminating that desire is by\ndiscovering that the object is an hallucination.\nSo what are the types of objects that this negative desire\narises towards?\nWell, one is bodies, our own and others. It's not uncommon that\na body can appear in an exaggerated way, causing it to seem as if\nit is the source of happiness, and not only the body but also all\nthe objects of our senses. So in order to discover the actuality\nof the objects of the senses then the Buddha taught, or The\nBuddha mentioned the aggregate of FORM.\nThen desire arises for those things that feel good. In fact the\ndesire that motivates most people arises from pleasant\nexperiences, such as with the thought \"This feels good therefore\nI want to never be parted from it.\" What a common thought! Where\nthe mistake arises is in this expression \"never being parted from\nit\", especially if this object is something impermanent, and that\nthere is no way that the contact can be preserved for- ever.\nConsequently the desire is setting oneself up for disappointment.\nTherefore in order to explore such feelings the Buddha mentioned\nthe second aggregate the aggregate of FEELING.\nAnother object to which people become attached with desire are\nideas. The disputes that scholars get into can get very heated,\nbecause these scholars become attached to their ideas and\ndiscriminations, regarding their own as superior and other's\nideas as inferior, causing them to desire for their idea to be\nrecognized as the supreme. This fuels the actions of speech and\nso forth that make the various disputes that one gets and can\ncome to such extremes as causing closed mindedness, losing the\nability to openly examine other's ideas. In order to explore such\ndiscriminations or ideation the Buddha mentioned the aggregate of\nDISCRIMINATIONS.\nThere are many other functions and emotions of the mind, so he\nheaped all of those in the classification known as COMPOSITIONAL\nFACTORS. In some texts the compositional factor aggregate is\ncalled VOLITION, and volition is one of the functions of the mind\nthat is contained within that class. This is an example of giving\nthe name of a member of the group to the whole group. VOLlTION\nwas chosen rather than any of the others because of it's\nimportance, and this is because desire for instance can only\nbring about experience once it is put into action, and the way it\nis put into action is through volition. For instance one can have\nthe desire to possess something, but it is only when one\ngenerates the actual will to get it that the action follows and\nsuch volition or will is what is known as karma. The word karma\nis used colloquially to refer to the experiences that occur to\npeople. Technically those experiences are known as the results of\nkarma, and technically karma is referring to the action which is\nthe cause of such experiences. Karma then is referring to\nvolition or will, as well as the actions of body and speech\nmotivated by such will, and once you have set the action in\nmotion then you're bound to the result, like the turning of a\nwheel. So as this is something important to analyze and come to\nknow the Buddha mentioned this aggregate of compositional\nfactors.\nThe last aggregate is the aggregate of CONSCIOUSNESS and this is\nreferring to the six consciousnesses, visual, auditory,\nolfactory, gustatory, tactile and mental, which are the main\nmeans we come to know the various objects that compose reality.\nSo this also is very important to investigate.\nSo that was a brief presentation of the five aggregates.\nIn the doctrine of selflessness there's said to be two types.\nThe selflessness of person and the selflessness of phenomena, and\nthe person is said to be the I that is designated in dependence\nupon any of the aggregates such as in the expression \"I am\nsitting here.\" That I is a person which is being designated in\ndependence upon the form aggregate, because it is being\ndesignated in dependence upon the body which is included in the\nFORM aggregate. Without the body you wouldn't be able to have the\nthought \"I am sitting here.\" The great Indian master Nagarjuna\nwho elucidated The Buddha's teaching on selflessness said that\nthe misconception of the self of a person arises by depending\nupon the misconception of the self of phenomena. By phenomena\nthere he meant the five aggregates, and for example because of\nmistaking the way in which the five aggregates exist, such as the\nbody, mistaking the way in which it exists then we mistake the\nway the I exists which is dependent upon those aggregates. By\nmistaking the way the I exists one mistakes the way others exist,\nand by mistaking the way others exist then such perverse thoughts\nas clinging and ill will arise. Due to the arisal of such\nemotional addictions there comes volition, the acting out of\nthose emotions, and due to such action one is bound to experience\nthe result, which creates a cycle or vicious circle of death and\nrebirth, over and over again.\nNagarjuna mentioned that, in his book \" The Precious Garland Of\nAdvice To The King.\" In there he tried to clarify what the\nmistake of self of person is, and what the mistake of self of\nphenomena is, in order to generate the wisdom of selflessness of\nperson and phenomena in order to put an end to this vicious\ncircle of existence.\nSo studying such a book has benefits, but in order to make sense\nof Nagarjuna's arguments you have to have some appreciation of\nthe world view that he held. For instance when Nagarjuna was\ndescribing phenomena he did so in terms of the four elements;\nearth water, fire and air. Such a presentation has not been\nemployed in Western education for a long time! Now, if you're\nlooking for elements you look in the Periodic Table which has\ndozens of elements, which requires having a certain love of\nchemistry to penetrate. So the presentation of things in terms of\nfour elements seems simplistic in comparison with the Periodic\nTable\nBut on it's own it has it's own elegance and if you understand\nit then you'll be able to understand the arguments set forth in\nthe Buddhist classics such as the \" Precious Garland\".\nIt is not necessary to read such classics in order to gain the\nwisdom realizing selflessness. For instance one can do it by\nrelying on the words of a master who has the correct\nunderstanding of selflessness and can present it in contemporary\nterms, but there is a benefit in being able to appreciate the\npresentations in those classic texts which is that such texts are\nthe scriptural authorities that masters have been relying upon\nfor generations and thus if your understanding, if you can see\nthat your understanding is supported by those classic texts\nyou'll have that much more confidence in your understanding. It's\nalways nice to know what the contemporary masters are relying\nupon to get their understanding. This helps a lot to avoid\ncultism, because such knowledge is not the personal property of\nanybody and if you discover that such knowledge can be generated\nby the study of a timeless wisdom then you know it is not the\nsole property of one individual whom you have to please in order\nto get drops.\nSo are you following me so far? Okay.\nSo now we begin the detailed presentation of the five\naggregates. The first is the FORM AGGREGATE. It consists of\neleven items.\nQ: What is the difference between volition and mental\nconsciousness?\nA : I'll give a quick answer now and later there'll be more\ndetails. So mental consciousness is included in the fifth\naggregate and volition is included in forth aggregate, and\nvolition is a function you find in all consciousnesses. Mental\nconsciousness has the function of volition, so you should see\nmental consciousness as something that is merely knowing it's\nobject whereas volition is a way in which that mental\nconsciousness relates to that object or functions with respect to\nthat object. More information comes later.\nI mentioned there were eleven divisions of form and I should say\nthat the source that I'm taking most of this information from is\nthe book \" Meditation On Emptiness\" by Professor Jeffrey Hopkins.\nSo if you're being frustrated by not being able to take notes as\nfast as I am speaking you'll find all the information in that\nbook.\nSo we have the eye sense organ, lets not use the word organ lets\nuse the word power, or eye sense faculty, or eye power or eye\nfaculty whatever you choose. Choose one of them rather than all\nof them, it takes too long.\nEye faculty, Ear faculty, Nose faculty, Tongue faculty, Body\nfaculty. That's five so far. Then there's visual form, sound,\nsmell, taste, tactile objects and the eleventh one is form for\nthe mental consciousness.\nSo then with respect to those first five what's meant by\nfaculty?\nWell if it's a form it's made up of particles. So we can say\natomically constructed. That's what we mean by form here and the\nfaculty here is a form that enables consciousness to have access\nto it's respective objects. For example the eye faculty enables\nvisual consciousness to function within the field of visual form\nor visual objects, and the ear faculty allows the auditory\nconsciousness to function within the field of sound. You have to\ndistinguish between the eye faculty and the eye ball in which the\neye faculty is found. Similarly with the ear faculty and the\nfleshy ear and so forth. These faculties are composed of\nparticles and are subtle, subtle in that not just anybody can see\nthem. Whether or not they can be seen by machinery I don't know.\nThe texts say that clever persons with certain types of super\nknowledge can see these forms and thus certain shapes have been\nattributed to them. Such as the eye faculty is shaped like the\nbud of a ? plant. Whatever that is. The ear faculty is shaped\nlike the knot of a birch tree. I'm mentioning this just to say\nthat these faculties have been seen by somebody who thought that\nthey could be distinguished by their shapes. They didn't stop\nwith the mere designation of a name. The nose faculty is shaped\nlike two hollow needles at the root of the nose. Then the tongue\nfaculty is shaped like many half moons the diameter of the tip of\na hair, each one is the diameter of the tip of a hair and are\nfound in the middle of the tongue. The body faculty is shaped\nlike skin or hide pervading the body.\nSuch faculties then have the function of enabling their\nrespective consciousnesses to access their respective objects.\nWhat consciousnesses ? The five sense consciousnesses.\nSomebody might have remembered that I mentioned there were six\nconsciousnesses in the consciousness aggregate. Therefore someone\nmight wonder does that consciousness have a faculty? Does that\nmental consciousness have a faculty? It does, because it has to\nhave that which enables it to access it's object. These faculties\nare necessary conditions for the arising of consciousness, and\nthe faculty is known as the dominate condition, because of giving\nthat consciousness power with respect to it's object, causing\nthat consciousness to operate only in that one field rather than\nanother field. For example due to the eye faculty visual\nconsciousness can only see visual objects it cannot see sounds.\nSo mental consciousness also has a mental faculty that functions\nas it's dominate condition, but unlike the five sense\nconsciousnesses the mental faculty is not form. That is unlike\nthose five faculties I've mentioned being form, the mental\nfaculty is not composed of particles.\nI hope I'm not going too slow for some of you, but as there is\nso much information here it would be better to go home with\nsomething, rather than only remembering a blur of sound.\nSo that mental faculty is a previous moment of consciousness\nsuch as a visual consciousness that enables the mental\nconsciousness to access visual objects. So therefore that visual\nconsciousness would be considered a mental faculty and dominate\ncondition for the arising of the mental consciousness perceiving\nvisual objects. All kinds of interesting things to discuss arise\nfrom such a presentation but there isn't enough time\nOkay so we have here in the case of the visual faculty the\nfunction that enables consciousness to access visual objects, All\nkinds of interesting things to discuss arise from such a\npresentation but there isn't enough time.\nOkay so we have here in the case of the visual faculty the\nfunction that enables visual consciousness to access visual\nobjects. So what are the visual forms that are the objects of\nvisual consciousness? There are two main types: shapes and\ncolors: white, blue, red and yellow; these are said to be the\ncolor of the four elements. Air is white, water is blue, fire is\nred and earth is yellow. There is another presentation of eight\nsecondary colors. It's a bit bizarre though, such as the color of\ncloud, the color of smoke, the color of mist, the color of\nillumination, the color of darkness, the color of shadow and the\ncolor of sunlight.\nThese two lists of divisions of color are obviously not\nexhaustive. So these are the color visual objects. Then there are\nshapes of which you have different kinds, such as long shapes\nshort shapes, such as a long board or a deep well. Then there's\nhigh and low, there's a shape known as square but it can refer to\nany polygon. That's also an example of the name of a part given\nto the whole. So although it's called square shaped it can refer\nto the shape of a dice, it can also refer to the shape of\nrectangular boxes and so forth. Then there's the round shape\nwhich can refer to anything egg-shaped and can also refer to the\nso called flat circle. There's the level shape, like the shape of\nthe surface of this floor. Then there can be the non level shape,\nsuch as the shape of a ploughed field that is irregular.\nShapes and colors is what visual conscious sees. The question\narises :\nCan you see that vase there ?\nAnd of course one would say \"Yes\"\nBut technically speaking what the visual consciousness is seeing\nis just the shape and color of the vase, and the vase is not a\nshape or a color. So because one has come to associate a vase\nwith such a shape then the visual consciousness can immediately\ngive rise to the thought thinking vase. This cognition thinking\nvase that employs the word vase and thus is being done with a\nconceptual consciousness is called \"seeing a vase', simply\nbecause of the close relationship between the seeing of the color\nand the shape of the vase and that conception thinking vase that\narises as a result of it.\nSo this is an example of giving the name of a cause to the\nresult. The cause being the visual consciousness and the result\nbeing a mental consciousness that is a conception. If this sounds\nvery mechanical and concrete it is. It is based upon the\nSautantrika view of Buddhist tenet. They have a very concrete\nview of the world. It's very logical and categorical. They like\nto keep their categories straight without mixing, and as we all\nknow nothing is that clear. But just as a person interested in\nparticle physics and quantum mechanics must first pass through\nNewtonian physics to get there, likewise it's very useful for us\nto see the world from the Sautantrika point of view before we get\ninto bizarre explanations of the higher schools of Buddhist\nthought such as the Prasangika. Just as quantum mechanics arose\nbecause when you explore the view of Newton and his mechanics,\nyou discover on extremely tiny things, and also on vast distances\nin other words, on the very limits of that view, there are some\nproblems. Likewise when you explore the limits of the Sautantrika\nview you see the need to jump to a higher view. I use the example\nof physics as if I knew something about it, but it was one of my\nworst subjects actually.\nSound is defined as the object of auditory consciousness, and\nthere's different ways of dividing it.\nOne way is sound that arises from elements conjoined with\nconsciousness and sound arising from elements not conjoined with\nconsciousness.\nThe sound that arises from elements conjoined with consciousness\nwould be the sounds made by a human being. Amongst sounds made by\na human being there's two types, articulate sounds and non\narticulate sounds. Articulate sounds are sounds that denote a\nmeaning such as words, and of articulate sounds there's two types\npleasant and unpleasant. A pleasant articulate sound might be\ngood poetry, an unpleasant articulate sound might be criticism.\nThe non articulate sounds don't denote any meaning in\nparticular, and there are two types; pleasant and unpleasant.\nA pleasant one might be the snapping of fingers, an unpleasant\none might be the sound of a hand slapping a face.\nThen amongst sounds arising from elements not conjoined with\nconsciousness there are two types; articulate and non articulate.\nThe definition is the same as before, one denotes a meaning and\nthe other doesn't. Of the articulate there are two types pleasant\nand unpleasant. What might be a pleasant one that's an articulate\nsound? There's the legendary dharma drum in the heavens. The\nbeating of it produces dharma discourses. An unpleasant\narticulate sound, now I'm going to merely guess here. Decide\nyourself whether I'm right or wrong, and that would be an echo\nthat is criticizing you. An echo's coming from a cliff, that's a\nsound arising from elements not conjoined with consciousness. So\nI think it possesses the definition. Then the non articulate\nsounds, pleasant and unpleasant. A pleasant one would be the\nsound of a well played musical instrument, and the unpleasant one\nwould be the sound of a not well played musical instrument. I\nused to be in an orchestra once and to hear a person just\nlearning to play the violin was just painful? Of course when they\nget good it's a different story but in the beginning........ So\nthat's sounds.\nThen the next is odors. These are defined as objects perceived\nby the olfactory consciousness. There's different divisions, such\nas fragrant odors and unfragrant odors. This refers to something\nthat smells nice and something that doesn't smell nice, and of\nthese there are two divisions.\nThose that are equal and those that are unequal. An equal odor\nwhether it is fragrant or unfragrant would be one that is equal\nwith everything else, it doesn't dominate. Whereas the unequal\none in the case of a fragrant odor would be a perfume that\ndominates everything else when you enter a room. In the case of\nthe unfragrant dominate odor, an example would be the smell of\ngarlic.\nSo we have all these different divisions; products of the Indian\nmentality, in particular Indian scholars, who sat down and tried\nto figure out everything that could be known and then put in it's\nproper category. So if you sat down to analyze odors it's not\njust a question of odors; it's a question of fragrant odors,\nunfragrant odors, subtle odors, strong odors etc.\nThen we come to tastes, an object of special fondness in this\ncountry. There are six types; and by the way taste is defined as\nthe object of gustatory consciousness. Sweet and sour, hot and\nsalty, bitter and astringent. What's that spice from Solu Khumbu?\nErma! Astringent would be the flavor of erma. Actually erma is\nsaid to have all the flavors. The astringent somehow dries your\ntongue, shrivels it up.\nSo these different objects including the tastes are made up of\nthe four elements. For example the sweet taste arises from a\npreponderance of the earth and the water element, sour from fire\nand earth, salt flavor from water and fire, hot from fire and\nwind, bitter from water and wind and astringency from earth and\nwind.\nWe then come to tactile objects which are the objects perceived\nby the tactile consciousness. There are two groups: the elements\nand the tangible objects that are arisen from the elements. The\nelements are as mentioned before earth, water, fire and wind.\nEarth is hard and obstructive; water is wet and cohesive; fire is\nhot and burning; air is light and moving, and the thing is you\nnever have one of the elements without another one. The smallest\nparticles are said to be made out of eight things. They're made\nout of the four elements, and they are made out of the visual\nobject, olfactory, the gustatory and tactile. There's no auditory\nparticle because sound is not something which can produce a\ncontinuum of itself as the other one's can. So the particles that\nmake up all forms are when you get down to the smallest particles\nare particles made up of these eight components, but those\nparticles will have a dominance of one element over another. So\ntherefore when you see a fire it doesn't mean that there is no\nwater element there. It is only that the fire element is\ndominating at that time. For example a fire's ability to support\na piece of paper or a leaf. For instance if you throw a piece of\npaper or a leaf in a fire it doesn't immediately float down, it's\nheld. That ability is the function of the earth element part of\nfire. Also the way that all the tongues of the flames of the fire\ncan all merge together, that's the water element of the fire. The\nfact that the fire can move is the air element part of the fire,\nand of course the fire is something that you can see, touch and\nso forth. Even though fire is defined in terms of the tactile\nconsciousness, it is still something that you can see, so that is\nsomething that is included in those other components of fire.\nNow how might water contain those other elements? A body of\nwater, how might that contain all the elements ? For instance\nwater can support a ship, that's it's earth element, and if you\nput a plant in water eventually it will decay and that's it's\nfire element. Water will flow down hill and that's it's air\nelement.\nWind's earth element can support all kinds of objects, such as\nleaves, and when the wind blows, your clothes will dry, that's\nit's fire element. The wind of a tornado moves together, that's\nit's water element.\nWhen you take two stones, certain stones and hit them together\nyou get a spark, that's the fire element in earth and the fact\nthat all the parts of a board hold together, the cells don't\ndisintegrate but hold together, that is the water element of\nEarth. Things like trees can move, that's the wind element or air\nelement. I didn't mean walking! they move when they grow.\nSo like that whenever you have the one element you have the\nother elements, you may find that one of the elements dominates\nthe other ones. There's other tangible objects too, besides the\nelements; such as smooth, rough, heavy, light, cold, hunger,\nthirst and they are said to arise from the four elements.\nSmoothness arises from a dominance of fire and water, roughness\nfrom earth and water, heavy from earth and water, light from fire\nand wind, cold from water and wind, hunger from wind or a\ndominance of wind, and thirst from a dominance of fire. These\nparticles can be seen and their color is depending on which\nelement is dominating, and the shapes depend upon the arrangement\nof the color particles.\nSo then what about these forms for a mental consciousness?\nThese are forms that are objects only for a mental\nconsciousness. One is called form arising from aggregation or\ncollection. The small particles that make up gross objects that\nwe can see and hear and so forth can't be seen by the senses,\nhowever our mental consciousness can know of such particles. For\ninstance I don't think anybody has seen an electron, but we know\nabout them don't we? So those would be form for a mental\nconsciousness and in particular this one form arising from\naggregation.\nAnother one is called space form, this one is difficult to\nappear to my mind, but it is similar to the space that appears to\na visual consciousness. For instance there is a space that\nappears to our visual consciousness such as the gap between\nourselves and some object across the room, and that gap is\nsomething that is changeable. It can change color for instance,\nit can get dark, it can get smog colored, in a city for instance,\nor it can be clear. So this is something that is a changeable\nphenomena and can be seen with the eyes, and likewise, when one\nis using only the mental consciousness you can see space. Such as\nwhen you shut your eyes and you imagine something far away. Then\naren't you cognizant of the space between you and that object far\naway as in the distance? So that one is not appearing to your\nvisual consciousness that's appearing to your mental\nconsciousness, that is the space form included as the object of\nmental consciousness and one should distinguish such space from\nwhat is known as permanent space. A permanent space is a negation\nof obstruction to extension. For example there is a space that we\ncan see in the middle of this room, and somebody might wonder is\nthere enough space to pass through, and you look there and you\nlook at the size of that person say, and you see that there is no\nobstruction there that should prevent the person passing. That\nabsence of obstruction is known as a permanent space. It is\ncalled permanent not because it will last forever, but rather\nbecause it is not a thing that changes from moment to moment. It\nis not some dynamic energy, it is a mere absence of obstruction,\ntherefore it is called permanent.\nThere's nothing permanent about the five aggregates! The five\naggregates are said to include all impermanent phenomena. But\nthere are other than impermanent phenomena, such as permanent\nphenomena.\nThen another type of form contained in the form for a mental\nconsciousness would be the form arising from a promise. For\nexample when a person takes a vow, it is said a subtle form\narises, which certain people with super knowledge can see. I\noften wonder what my form created from taking vows looks like\nafter twenty years. Maybe like a very holey rag!\nSo these forms do not just arise when one is making virtuous\npromises either. In dependence upon a butcher's physical and\nverbal actions in killing animals and the selling of their flesh\nalso such a form can arise.\nMaybe this may have some relationship with what are known as\nauras.\nThen there are imaginary forms such as the elephants of a dream.\nIt's a form but not really, because it's not actually made out of\nparticles, physical particles, so that's why it's called an\nimaginary form and it just appears to a mental consciousness.\nThen there's the forms of one with meditative power, and this\nwould be a form that some person with a special power can\ngenerate which others can see. There's different types here;\nthere's the type that only lasts as long as the meditator is\nconcentrating and then there's the type that can remain even when\nthe meditator is doing something else.\nOkay so that deals with the form aggregate.\nLet's take a break.\nTalk two\nSo I'd like to begin this afternoon with any questions that came\nfrom this mornings lecture.\nThere was a lot of information, so long as it's not a question\nlike could you repeat what you said this morning I would be happy\nto answer. Was it clear?\nQ: This morning Pende said that the first three of the\naggregates were linked to desire. Why is the forth one Volition,\nnot linked to desire?\nA: The fourth one is explained mainly on the basis of volition\nas I mentioned and I said that volition is the same thing as\nkarma, but in fact you can't say that all volition is karma, only\nthe volition that is under the control of ignorance is known as\nkarma. And thus as negative desire is a product of ignorance then\nthe volition which is controlled by desire is certainly this\nphenomena known as karma.\nThere is a way of course, a way of relating the fourth aggregate\nwith desire, but it is not entirely necessary, in that The Buddha\nwhen he was explaining the five aggregates, he did so in such a\nway as to point out how a person who has acquired the five\naggregates is bound to cyclic existence. A person is bound in\ncyclic existence by both the mental addictions and karma. Okay..\nSo for instance we can say that volition is controlled by desire\nthus when we investigate volition it is important to see how that\nis the case, and wherever the volition goes that's where the six\nconsciousnesses go, because that's the specific function of\nvolition, that is to take the consciousness to it's respective\nobject. Another question?\nQ: What do you mean by volition?\nA: Okay, that's coming up. We could even say it's the same thing\nas will power, or intention.\nQ: Why isn't the auditory object, sound, included in the same\nway that other sensory objects are?\nA: The answer given before was that sound doesn't produce a\ncontinuum of itself, but that was insufficient.\nSo here sound is understood as something that arises from for\ninstance hitting one object against another, but if those objects\ndon't come in to contact there is no sound produced, so in the\ncase of this one foundation particle, which is composed of eight\nparts sound isn't included in there because that object is not\nmaking a sound. That is, there is no separate particle in\naddition to those eight, that you could say is sound, but if two\nof those particles collided then it is possible that a sound\ncould be produced.\nQ: So if there is nothing which can produce the sound, it's the\nsame for the other objects like tactile objects or olfactory\nobjects, so if I don't see something, if there is not an object,\na visual object I cannot see it, if there is not a taste object I\ncannot taste it.\nA: Here, it's not that there is nothing that produces the sound,\nsound is produced. For instance when a particle strikes the ear\ndrum then sound is produced. Now the types of particles that are\nmoving through space that will strike the ear drum we call sound\nwaves. Now in this system it is thought that these foundation\nparticles as they move can bring about sound, but there is no\nparticular particle which is sound, whereas there is a particular\nparticle that is a visual form, and there is a particular\nparticle that is an odor and so forth. Those particles are said\nto be evolution, to be developments of the four elements. A\nvisual particle and so forth are somehow made up of the four\nelements, and so you can take some object and touch it, and the\nreason why you can touch it, is because of it's tactile object\nquality, or you can taste it and so forth, but when you listen,\nthe sound that you might hear is not due to a particle of sound,\nbut rather to the movement of all these other particles.\nThat's the best I can do.\nQ: How can it be that good desires don't give birth in cyclic\nexistence?\nA: So this mental factor of volition I said is called karma in\nthe case of being under the control of ignorance. In cases where\nwe read that in order to become liberated we have to cease karma,\nit does not mean that we have to bring to an end all instances of\nthis mental factor of volition. It means we have to bring to an\nend the dominance or the control of volition by these mental\naddictions, so volition having the basic function of taking the\nmind to it's object whatever it is, is also operating in the mind\nof a Buddha, because without volition the mind would not be able\nto make contact with any object. Thus The Buddha would not know\nthings, and The Buddha would not have a compassion which\nperceives sentient beings. So volition is a necessary function of\nconsciousness. If you want to know something, if it's not\nparticularly easy for your mind to know an object, then you have\nto have the wish to do so. That wish can be desire, we can call\nit aspiration, and that motivates that will to do it, to discover\nthat object. Then of course all the actions following that\nhopefully will bring you to the object that you want to\nexperience, and some objects are worth experiencing and others\nare not. When this wish, aspiration, or positive desire is\nbrought about by a wisdom consciousness of clear intelligence\nthen it is not going to get us in trouble. In particular if it is\nbrought about by a wisdom consciousness that perceives reality,\nthen it won't cause the type of volitional activity that brings\nabout the uncontrolled death and rebirth known as cyclic\nexistence.\nSo it is interesting to contemplate existence without any desire\nat all. Why would you do anything if you had no desire\nwhatsoever?\nThe only types of actions that would happen would be actions\nlike falling down. But of course if you had no desire whatsoever\nyou would never have stood up. Now because of such observations\nthere are those who thought that the path to liberation was the\nend of all desire, and thus engaged in the practice of total\ninactivity, which they sought to achieve by stopping their mind\nfrom generating any desire. In the process of doing that they\ndiscovered it takes some time to stop the mind from generating\ndesire. If they pursued this practice of total inactivity they\nmight starve to death before they reached the mental state of no\ndesire, then there had to be some desire employed to get up and\nget food and stuff, and that type of activity was not seen as\nactivity that was leading to bondage but was leading to\nliberation. So now the interesting question then becomes what is\nit that they are going to do to stop the mind of desire? For\ninstance if there is no desire whatsoever, which is the same as\nsaying no aspiration then what would the liberation that this\nperson is seeking look like? Would it be some kind of a state of\nutter non-existence? Because if there is no movement taking place\nat all then it would be just that. Perhaps our idea of this type\nof liberation is based upon our experience of deep sleep. That\nstate that we have no direct experience of but we infer from our\nmemory of when we lost consciousness and when we regained it\nagain this is not a perfected state, this is not the experience\nof Buddha. A Buddha is quite active, benefiting sentient beings.\nFor instance a Buddha has to want to benefit sentient beings, so\nwe have to cultivate that now as practitioners. So this is the\nproblem of trying to distinguish between the negative desire and\nthe positive desire, and it often happens that we refer to\nnegative desires as positive desires. It would be much easier if\nwe could just sort of block out all desire whatsoever, and say\nit's all negative. But would that be nearly as attractive as the\nultimate goal? Such an ultimate goal is the plan of most\nmaterialists. They are betting that after death there is nothing.\nThey can achieve that without even meditating one minute, it's\njust going to arise naturally when the breath stops. Of course\nit's interesting that there is nothing that we know that is like\nthat. It seems like everything always remains something, such as\nin theory of the conservation of energy, no energy is ever lost\nit just transforms into something else. But that belief of the\nmaterialist is just like any dogmatic belief. There's no evidence\nfor it, nobody has ever come back from the state of nothingness\nto say how it was.\nOkay any more questions. No. Then I have a question.\nIf it's a color is it necessarily an object of the visual\nconsciousness ?\nA: There are for instance the very small particles, they have a\ncolor but the visual consciousness can't perceive those, they're\nobjects of mental consciousness. Now the objects of mental\nconsciousness are called phenomena, visual objects, sounds,\nsmells and so forth are also phenomena aren't they ?\nSo does that mean that the objects of the mental consciousness\nare the same as the objects of the other five consciousnesses?\nThe answer to that is that the phenomena which are the objects\nof the mental consciousness is referring to all the other objects\nthat aren't included as objects of the first five sense\nconsciousness's, such as the color of the very small particle, or\neven the very small particle itself etc., other consciousness's\nand so forth\nQ: Can a mental consciousness perceive a visual form, a gross\nvisual form not just the subtle?\nA: Yes it can, I mentioned an example of it how a visual\nconsciousness perceiving a blue color can be a cause for a mental\nconsciousness.\nWhat do I mean by a gross object?\nDoes that mean something that's disgusting?\nNo not in this context. Although sometimes that's what I mean by\ngross, but in this context a gross object means an object that's\ncomposed of many particles, such as a table. It's made up of many\nparticles, and the basic particle that forms a table is that\neight fold particle. Then you can think that the hardness of this\ntable comes from the earth element, and that the wood all sticks\ntogether this comes from the water element. If you rub this wood\nwith another piece of wood theoretically fire will come this\ncomes from the fire element, and there must be some movement\nthere otherwise I don't think you'd get a nail to go in the wood,\nand that's the air element. You can see the table and that's due\nto the visual particles. I think you could even taste the table\ndue to the taste particles and so forth.\nNow if visual form, sound, and smell and so forth, if these are\nall made up of particles which are themselves developments of the\nfour elements why are the four elements contained as tactile\nobjects ? Why aren't they included amongst visual objects or\nodors or something like that?\nThis is because it is through tactile consciousness that we\nmainly know those elements.\nEarth is known through it's hardness and hardness is known\nthrough tactile consciousness. Water is known through wetness and\nthat is perceived by tactile consciousness. Fire is known by it's\nbeing hot and that's perceived by tactile consciousness, Air by\nit's lightness and that's experienced by tactile consciousness.\nSo without tactile consciousness there would be no way to know\nthose elements. So that's why they are included as objects of the\ntactile consciousness.\nSo if you keep those questions and answers in mind you should be\nable to pass the test on Sunday afternoon. I'm only joking.\nNow we leave the form aggregate behind and deal with the four\naggregates that are included in mind.\nFirst of all what I mean by mind is that which is clear and\nknowing. Clear describes it's reality being formless. Buddhism\nasserts then, that mind is not made of form, it is not composed\nof physical particles, therefore it can not be reduced to\nelectromagnetic energy. So therefore it is not the brain, it's\nnot neurons and it's not the electrical energy passing through\nthose neurons, nor is it a mere name referring to those objects.\nThere is one theory that mind is merely an Epi phenomena, which\nis just a name but it is referring to, for example, according to\nthis way of seeing a chair could be called an epi phenomena\nbecause what a chair in fact is, is the legs the seat and the\nback and that's what a chair is. But we talk about a chair as if\nit were a gestalt, something greater than the sum of it's parts,\nsomething other than the sum of it's parts. Likewise, when we are\ntalking about mind these people would say that all we're really\ntalking about is these electro- chemical responses going on in\nthe body, but they run into some trouble philosophically with\nthat position, because when we are talking about mind, we are not\ntalking about the body We are not talking about the electro-\nchemical responses going on in the body. Those materialist\nreductionists would like to eliminate the language of the mind\nfrom all language. They would just like to eliminate it, but they\ncan't, so they would like to say that type of language is in\nitself meaningless, it has it's own internal consistency, but\nwhat's really going on that accounts for experience and so forth\nis the electro-chemical reactions in the body. When you press\nsome body who adheres to this philosophy for some observable\nevidence that they base their philosophy on, they would give\nexamples of cases where through injecting certain chemicals in\nthe brain, or removing certain parts of the brain and so forth\nyou can bring about these different experiences like making a cat\nfear a mouse, a mouse being so brave that it will attack a cat.\nOr by brain damage you can eliminate memories of whole parts of\none's life, or through the electrical stimulation of different\nparts of the brain you can cause such things as gustatory\nconsciousness to arise, or various memories to occur.\nSo a person who adheres to the non physical nature of the mind\nwill say that such events are merely describing the relationship\nbetween the body and the mind, but not the identity of body and\nmind, that through stimulating a physical organ then a mental\nexperience can take place. Such a relationship is already\nasserted by Buddhism. For instance, as I said there are five\nphysical faculties upon which the five sense consciousnesses\ndepend. If those faculties are damaged in any way then the\nconsciousnesses will be affected, but they are also quick to\npoint out it's not only that the body affects the mind but the\nmind can affect the body. For example by visualizing certain\nchannels in the body and concentrating on certain visualized\npoints in those channels you can change the temperature of the\nbody radically. Of course that's an extraordinary example but\nthere are many ordinary ones. For instance the reason why we came\nhere was not necessarily a physical itch, but rather there were\nreasons in our mind for coming here. While there are certain\nmental diseases that are treated successfully with chemicals,\nthere are many mental disorders that are best treated by using\nthe mind itself. For example if you desire a BMW., say 240 Turbo\ndrive, black, tinted black windows with a lot of trunk space. If\nyou desire that, but you do not have the money to pay for it,\nthen the best solution is not to take Prozac or some other\nchemical agent, but rather it's to contemplate the difficulties\nyou would experience being in debt for the rest of your life, how\nthat would last longer than the life of the car, how having that\ncar will not solve all of your problems, that there'll still be\nyou driving it, alone, hungry, looking for some place to drive to\nand running out of gas.\nSo thinking like that can replace this image of that car being\nthe most important thing in the world, and although it may not\nreplace that desire it can work on it slowly. Whereas the\nchemicals may deal with that desire by causing some euphoric\nstate where you may think you don't need anything any more, or it\nmay cause a dullness in the mind where you couldn't bother\nyourself to generate such desires, but when you come off the\nchemical those desires once again arise, so at best they can be\nseen to be temporary solutions, and everybody recognizes that the\nbest solution would be a mental solution such as an insight that\nsees the reality of the situation.\nThat insight is gained through a thinking process. It's not\ngained by taking pills, or by a well balanced diet, with\nexercise. So that in itself shows the difference between the mind\nand the body. You can have a person who physically is very\nhealthy, but mentally is a mess. Likewise somebody who is\nmentally very clear, friendly, soft etc. but physically is a\nmess.\nThose are kinds of examples that illustrate the difference in\nnature between the mind and the body, and there's many others.\nSome of the more dramatic examples you find in the experiments\nthat take place in parapsychology, which are phenomena that can't\nbe explained by any physical laws, nor can their existence be\ndenied, but you shouldn't take my word for it, this is something\nyou have to study for yourself. For some people this is very\nobvious for others it's just a belief but it's not something that\nis supported by any conviction, in particular a conviction that's\nbased on sound reasoning or direct observation, consequently that\nbelief could be easily shaken, or at the back of the mind there\nmight be a subtle hope that at the time of death every thing\nceases, and one won't have to worry about all that bad karma one\nhas been accumulating. For while the mind is clear, ( meaning\nformless), it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists because it\nhas the function of cognition. It apprehends objects, an\napprehension which is known as knowing, or cognizing and it is\ndynamic, it is energetic, it is not a physical energy, but it is\nnon the less functioning obviously. So why not apply the law of\nconservation of energy to it. There's no reason why it should\nsuddenly stop while all other physical energies keep going in one\nway or another. Well you can make anything sound reasonable, just\nbecause something sounds reasonable that doesn't mean that's the\nway it is. Yet there are examples of people who seem to confirm\nthe existence of this continuum of mental energy, such as the\nchildren who remember former lives, and whose reports are\ncorroborated by authoritative researchers.\nAnybody ever heard of a great philosopher and mathematician\nnamed Pascal? \"Pascal's Wager\". Have you ever heard of Pascal's-\nwager ? You're going to. For the benefit of those who haven't\nheard of it, I think he was French, he said that if you prepare\nfor the next life and there isn't a next life then you'll have no\nregrets because you won't be around. If you don't prepare for a\nnext life and there is a next life you'll have big regrets. So\nthere's nothing to lose by preparing for the next life and\neverything to gain!\nSo what I mean by mind then is what is clear and knowing. You\nknow what knowing is right, the opposite of not knowing is\nknowing. Do you know the exact population of France this moment?\nNothing comes to mind does it. That's not knowing, there's not an\napprehension of an object, such as an appearance that can be seen\nby the eyes and so forth. Do you know the human population of\nyour house? Suddenly something comes to mind, so that's knowing\nInaudible......\nThe mental factors are mind that function to perceive the\nqualities of the object and respond in various ways to the\nfeatures of the object. Main minds and mental factors are related\nby being one substance, that is for any main mind there are\nmental factors which are of the same substance of that main mind,\nor we could say that mind in general, this thing which is clear\nand knowing has various functions one of those functions is\ncalled main mind and the other functions are called mental\nfactors. So if we take any moment of mind that moment's knowing\nof the object or the entity of the object is called main mind,\nand that moment of mind's knowing the various features that make\nup that object is called mental factors.\nThis two fold division of mind into main mind and mental factors\nis likened to a community. Within the community there is a\ndirector whose job is to know what's happening in general in the\ncommunity, and also in that community there would be a cook whose\njob it is to take care of the preparation of the food. So the\ndirector has to know something about what's going on in the\nkitchen but he doesn't have to know everything, that's the job of\nthe cook. That's an example I heard a long time ago when I first\nstudied this stuff. It's a little bit illuminating but not much.\nRather I prefer the explanation that if you have a moment of mind\nthen it's different functions are being divided into main mind\nand mental factors, so while you can distinguish main minds from\nmental factors or one mental factor from another in the way of\ndistinguishing one function from another function they're still\nall functions of the same moment of mind. For instance. ......\nThat main mind and it's attendant mental factors, have five\nsimilarities to them. The first is that they have the same object\nof observation, for example take the visual main mind and it's\nattendant mental factors that are perceiving blue color. The blue\ncolor is the object of observation so the visual main mind and\nit's attendant mental factors are all taking as their object of\nobservation the blue color.\nThe second similarity is similar aspect, the aspect means when a\nmind perceives an object then an aspect or an image of that\nobject appears in that consciousness, such as when an object is\nplaced in front of a mirror an image of that object appears in\nthat mirror, in the case of the example that image is called a\nreflection, in the case of consciousness that image is called an\naspect. It is said for instance if you take a piece of clear\ncrystal like one of those nice pieces that are cut with different\nfacets around them and it's clear, if you put that on some nice\nblue clothe then that crystal will appear to be blue in color.\nLikewise when a consciousness is perceiving it's object it takes\non the aspect of that object, this is not to say that when we are\nperceiving objects all we are perceiving is aspects in the mind,\nwe are perceiving those objects.\nSo the main mind and it's attendant mental factors have the same\naspect, they also occur simultaneously, therefore they do not\nhave a cause and affect relationship. A main mind and it's\nattendant mental factors will have the same faculty as it's\ndominant condition. For example a main visual consciousness and\nit's attendant mental factors both have the eye faculty as their\ndominant condition.\nThey are also said to be of similar substance, for example the\nfeeling mental factor that would be an attendant of a visual\nconsciousness would not be found in some other consciousness.\nThe reason for mentioning those five similarities is to just get\naway from the idea that main minds and mental factors can be\noperating independently of each other at different times, they're\nall of the same substance.\nThere are six main minds from visual to mental main minds and\nthose are what constitute the CONSCIOUSNESS aggregate, the fifth\nof the five aggregates. The mental factors are what compose the\nsecond third and forth aggregate.\nHow are we doing ?\nI know there's exhaustion, but so far are you following me?\nQ: Can you repeat the five please?\nA: Object of observation, Aspect, Time or duration, (the\nduration is simultaneous), dominant condition, similar substance.\nThere are fifty one mental factors, I hope you have a lot of ink\nin your pens, actually there's a lot more than that but fifty one\nwere mentioned to just give you an idea of these various\nfunctions in the mind. And these functions were identified\nprincipally from the perspective of what brings happiness and\nwhat brings suffering, and then from the perspective of someone\nin a meditative tradition. So from another perspective you may be\nable to find many other mental factors, and even from the\nperspective of this tradition there are other mental factors\nbeside the list of fifty one.\nThose fifty one mental factors fall into five categories.\nThe first is known as the omnipresent mental factors. The second\nis the object ascertaining mental factors, then the virtuous\nmental factors, then the next is the root afflictions, the next\nare the secondary afflictions and the last is the variable mental\nfactors. So there was five plus one.\nThere are five omnipresent mental factors according to either,\nthe Abhidharmakosha or Abhidharmasamuccaya. The Abhidharmakosha\nhas a different list of five similarities. What I'm saying is\nthat the presentation I'm giving here is based upon certain\ntexts. Not all authoritative Buddhist scholars have the same\npresentation. For instance the fifty one mental factors mentioned\nby Asanga in his text Abhidharmasamuccaya. His younger brother\nVasubandhu wrote a text Abhidharmakosha, and in that text he only\nmentioned forty eight mental factors. If I remember correctly one\ntext has a group of five similarities between main minds and\nmental factors that's different from the other ones, and one text\nsays there's five omnipresent mental factors and the other one\nsays there's ten.\nLord Buddha is the one who gave the monks vows, he's the source\nof the monk's vows, there are a number of different traditions\nthat have arisen over the years of such vows. For instance the\ntradition of the discipline that exists in Tibet is known as the\nMulasarvastivadan.\nIn Thailand the tradition is known as the Theravadan tradition .\nIn the Mulasarvastivadan tradition there are 253 vows for a fully\nordained monk, whereas in the Theravadan tradition there are 227.\nSo it seems like the Tibetans have more vows. So where did they\nget them from if it was all based on The Buddha? Well in fact all\nof those are contained in 227 of the Theravadan tradition. They\njust have a different way of enumerating them. So like that you\nhave these different scholars that have different ways of\nenumerating these things, so we can't say the differences\nindicate that one is right and the other is wrong, they usually\nhave their reasons for their own system.\nOmnipresent means that with every moment of mind there are these\nfive omnipresent mental factors operating, therefore one can know\nimplicitly that every moment of mind does not necessarily have\nall 51 mental factors operating, but it will have these five\nomnipresent ones.\nThere's feeling. When you hear the name don't immediately assume\nyou know what it means because we employ names that already have\ncommon usage in our respective languages but they have specific\ndefinitions in this context. Here the definition of feeling is a\nmental factor which is the nature of experience, individually\nexperiencing the fruition of virtuous and non virtuous actions.\nAll will become clear shortly.\nIt's objects are pleasure, pain and that which is neither\npleasure or pain. So feeling is the mental factor that\nexperiences pleasure, pain, and neutral experiences. Pleasure is\nthat which when it ceases you want to meet it again. Pain is that\nexperience when it arises you want to separate from it, and the\nneutral experience is one that when it arises you neither want to\nseparate from it nor to meet it again. Experiences arise from\nprevious actions that we have undertaken. It is the virtuous\nactions that produce pleasure and the non virtuous that produce\npain, in fact the words virtuous and non virtuous are used merely\nbecause one produces pleasure and the other produces pain. What\nwe want is pleasure or happiness, an action that brings that is\ncalled virtuous it's not because it was declared virtuous by an\nomnipotent being, it's just another word for good because it gets\nus what we want, whereas the non virtuous action produces pain.\nSo this emphasizes then that our experiences of pleasure and\npain do not come without causes, nor are their causes some\nunrelated entity. It's not that our pain or happiness is\nsomething that is bestowed upon us by some deity, rather they\ncome from our former actions, so therefore we ourselves are the\ncreators of our future experience, and the person who was in our\nprevious continuum was the creator of our present experiences.\nThere is no need to visit a clairvoyant and pay a lot of money\nto know what you were in your former lifetime and to know what\nyou're going to be in your next lifetime. Look at your present\nexperience and you'll know what kind of person you were in the\npast, look at your present activity and you'll know what kind of\nexperience you'll have in the future. It's chilling!\nSo, the knowledge, the certain knowledge that virtuous action\nbrings happiness and non virtuous action brings suffering is\nhighly esteemed, having that certainty is something which is\nhighly esteemed. It's praised as the basis of all auspicious\ndoctrines and it's called the correct view of all Buddhists.\nBuddhists vary in what they call the correct view of reality, but\nthey all agree that virtuous actions bring happiness. Buddhists\ndisagree about what they regard as the correct view of reality,\nreality is one of those subtle things and because it's so subtle\nThe Buddha gave very different accounts to the different\ndisciples who came to hear him and consequently you have\ndifferent philosophical schools, but they all agree that virtue\nbrings happiness and non virtue brings suffering. A happy life,\nat the end of which one could say, \"Not bad, it could have been\nworse\", is created by a virtuous action. The experiences that\noccur during the life, good or bad, are also created by actions,\nvirtuous or non virtuous. We can develop conviction in this, but\nit is very difficult to know exactly what all those actions were\n.\nOkay so let's stop there today. Let's just sit quietly for a few\nminutes, give it a chance to all sink in.\nSo while listening to the subject, it's important to listen in\nsuch a way that the teaching becomes in itself an antidote to the\ncauses of our problems. Among the numerous causes of problems we\ncan say there's two types: external and internal. The external\ncauses of our problems are all familiar to us, such as bad\nweather, obnoxious people, all of these kinds of things that we\nhear complaints about every day, we read about in the papers and\nsee on TV. and so forth. And if happiness was dependent on the\nelimination of these outer causes of problems then the whole task\nwould be hopeless, because there's no definite guarantee that any\nexternal condition will not become a cause of problems. For\ninstance our best friends, they can turn against us, a beautiful\nhome can become a prison, a tropical beach can become boring, a\nholiday can become a death sentence. There's nothing to trust in\nthe external circumstances.\nThen there are the internal causes of problems. These internal\ncauses of problems such as anger, clinging, and so forth,\njealousy, these sorts of minds. So long as we have such\ndisturbing uncontrolled states of mind, then there's going to be\nmisery, but if such uncontrolled disturbing states of mind are\neliminated then even poor external conditions can be easily\ntolerated. It's like the story of how shoes were invented in\nChina. There was an emperor who was raised in the plush\nenvironment of his palace, and he decided to go outside one day\ninto his kingdom to see what it was like, he was not wearing any\nshoes and while walking he stepped on something sharp. He'd never\nexperienced such pain before and it made him very angry. When he\nreturned to the palace he summoned all his ministers, and he\ndeclared that they should cover his whole kingdom in leather,\nthinking that by so doing he would be able to go for a walk\nwithout stepping on something sharp. The ministers realized that\nthis was hopelessly impractical and at the very least would cause\nbankruptcy for the whole empire. One particularly bright minister\nhad a good idea, he thought why not just cover the emperor's feet\nwith leather, it will accomplish the same purpose and be much\ncheaper. The emperor accepted this idea and thus shoes were\ninvented. The moral of this story is that if one tames ones own\ninner mind then no matter what external circumstances one might\nmeet good or bad the mind remains stable and at peace. The\nquestion is however, is such a thing possible? Nobody wants to be\nangry but despite that we all from time to time get angry, so how\nmight it be possible to eliminate anger? Similarly no one wants\nto experience a great loss and yet often it happens that people\ndue to being controlled by desire give up something of great\nvalue for something of less value, as if they were temporarily\ninsane. This is just the effect of desire. So although we only\nwant to profit and never lose, still such desire can arise and\novercome us.\nHowever such persons as the Buddha demonstrated that it was\npossible to eliminate these negative minds. So long as they are\nnot eliminated there will not be happiness. When they are\neliminated there will be happiness. One thing that is definitely\ntrue is that we all want to be happy and not to suffer, therefore\nat some time we have to pursue this path of eliminating the inner\ncauses of suffering, by whatever means. So long as we avoid that\nthen we will be contradicting our own inner wish. However even\nthe Buddha had to admit it's not easy, and it takes a lot of\ntime. For instance once He generated the spirit of Enlightenment,\nBodhicitta it still took three countless great aeons to become a\nBuddha. I don't know how many years constitute a great aeon, I\nknow that countless is the largest number in the Indian system of\ncounting. It might be similar to that mythological number in\nEnglish known as zillion which means huge, so a zillion times\nthree aeons, and that was after he had developed a spontaneous\nBodhicitta and was a real Bodhisattva. This was after He had\nspent lifetimes in pursuit of higher states of mind. Giving up\nkingdoms to meditate in solitude in the mountains, dressed in\ntree bark, internally generating a conviction in paths leading to\nliberation, conviction in karma, conviction in the existence of\nfuture lives, a dedication to the welfare of others, having more\nconcern for others than himself. So he was already a saint before\nHe became a Bodhisattva, and yet it still took an awful long time\nto become a Buddha.\nSo if you feel like it's an enormous undertaking you're right,\nand if you feel like it's too much to accomplish in this lifetime\nyou're also right. So generally what's done is that a person\nlooks at their worst fault and tries to minimize it, and if at\nthe end of the life you've had any success at all at weakening\nthat thought you can be satisfied, and that's a realistic\napproach to the spiritual path. If you think that you won't be\nsatisfied at the end of the life unless you've some remarkable\nattainments like clairvoyance, passing through walls, flying, or\nwith the attitude that is completely disillusioned with the whole\nof cyclic existence, Bodhicitta or the correct view of reality.\nIf that's what it will take to make you feel satisfied with your\nlife you might be disappointed. For instance if Bodhicitta is the\ngoal to achieve in this lifetime any time you desire something\njust for yourself you've failed. For instance in the lunch line,\nat the end of the lunch line there's the plate with all the fruit\non it and they're all oranges and apples but only one banana and\nif you have the thought \" I hope nobody takes that banana before\nI get there! \" You've failed ! Or when you walk into the cinema\nand all the seats in the middle are taken and you get upset\nyou've failed. So how miserable such an aspiration will make one.\nWe shouldn't put these time limits on ourselves. Generating\nrealizations is not like boiling an egg. You can be sure that\nafter four minutes you've got a hard boiled egg, but it's unsure\nhow many years of your practice is going to produce a\nrealization. We read in the biographies of former saints of\nsomebody who suddenly gains a high realization while chopping\nwood or by looking at a stone as they're walking on the road.\nThis might produce the wrong view that at any moment as you go\nabout your ordinary daily life a realization will dawn without\nhaving done anything to create it. We don't know how many\nlifetimes those saints in biographies spent practicing. You can\nbe sure there were a lot. Take the great yogi Milarepa for\ninstance. Before he met his guru Marpa he killed over thirty\npeople, and yet in that very life he became a Buddha. That might\ngenerate the thought that well I haven't killed anybody so I\nshould be able to become a Buddha too, easier, faster. Of course\nwhen you read Milarepa's biography you discover that he killed\nthose thirty people by practicing black magic. He could make\nanimals hallucinate. Can you stop a dog from barking just through\nthe power of your mind ? He could cause hail storms. Could you\nmake a cloud cover the sun for just one minute of shade? The\nmaster who taught Milarepa black magic regarded Milarepa as the\nbest disciple he'd ever had, and then when he entrusted himself\nto Marpa, Marpa worked him harder than a mule and yet Milarepa\nnever generated any contempt towards Marpa. He had some pretty\nunusual qualities that he was born with. How come he was born\nwith those qualities and not me ? In a former lifetime, the life\ntime before he was Milarepa he was a Kadampa Geshe, given up the\naffairs of that life, dedicated himself to studying and practice,\nhad generated at least the correct intellectual view of reality.\nSo even to do that he must have had some great qualities to bring\ninto that lifetime, which he must have cultivated in a former\nlifetime and so on.\nSo while we're listening to a talk on the dharma which is\ninformation that is by it's very nature stimulating the good\nqualities and opposing the bad qualities, then we should at least\ntry in this occasion as much as possible to cultivate the\nantidotes to the inner sources of our problems. There's all kinds\nof things that we have probably thought we should practice, such\nas practicing using ourselves as a resource for other's\nhappiness. That's not necessarily a very common aspiration but\nit's a very interesting one.\nWhen I was a child I used to pray all the time, not that I was a\nlittle angel or anything. I used to pray to get the things I\nwanted. I'd pray to get toy guns, and all those kinds of prayers\nthat kids usually make, and my prayers would often take the form\nof \"If I was God I would certainly give me these things.\"\nWell as I got older I stopped relying on such an omnipotent\nbeing and thought that it might be better if I became the kind of\nperson who could supply others with the things that they needed\nbecause if you see something that's missing why trust somebody\nelse to fill it? Why not do it oneself?\nSo the problem is that there's just not enough help.\nThere's so many problems in the world and there's just so much\nneed, and if you look around you see so many people who are\nrequesting help. So we could join them and be just one other\nvoice in that great Sea of Plea! Or one could be trying to become\nthe answer, that which fulfills those supplications, and\nincreasingly make oneself a better and better resource for the\nwelfare of others.\nWell a thought might arise that the needs or demands of others\nare endless and it might seem quite a daunting task to become\nsomething that can respond effectively. Well The Buddha is pretty\nincredible, but that's how one becomes a Buddha so a person who\nhas dedicated themselves to become a Buddha for the sake of all\nbeings has a great appreciation of his or her capability. So if\none's having the attitude, \"Oh I couldn't do that.\" then one is\nfar from generating the thought of becoming Enlightened. So even\nif it's just using the past Buddhas as a reason one can just\nthink well I can become a Buddha because they did, because once\nupon a time they were just like me and if they can develop such\nperfect qualities then I can too. When I was a teenager I was\ninvolved in sports. It was my path to liberation from studies and\nI remember before we would actually play an opposing team our\ncoach used to give us a pep talk, encouragement. There was one\nteam we were going to play against, they were a lot bigger than\nus, and in American football it matters if they're bigger than\nyou. I remember something that he said to encourage us, he said \"\nYou can beat these guys, they're no different from you they put\ntheir pants on one leg at a time just like you.\" The Buddhas were\nat one time just like ourselves, they'd get completely carried\naway by their delusion just like we do. They'd be only concerned\nwith the happiness of this life just like us, but despite all\nthat they were able to achieve such an exulted accomplishment, so\nwe can do the same thing. The very teachings we have at our\ndisposal are the same teachings that they rely on, as far as the\nexplanations and techniques that are available, nothing is\nmissing. It's not as if there was once a certain type of\ntechnique to achieve Enlightenment and now there's not.\nEnd side 1 tape 3\nIn fact there may be more techniques available now than there\nwere in the past, so from the outside everything is there. Now\nall we have to do from our side is generate the determination and\nkeep it. It's not easy, but so long as we don't generate such a\ndetermined attitude, or if we let go of our determination then\nwe're only undermining our wish to be happy and be free from\nsuffering.\nOkay so yesterday we finished with FEELING, the mental factor of\nfeeling. We went through the form aggregate of which there were 5\nphysical sense powers mentioned. There were the objects of the\nfive sense consciousnesses and there was the form which is the\nobject of mental consciousness. So we went into detail yesterday\nof what all those eleven things were.\nThe second aggregate is that of Feeling, which is the experience\nof the maturation of karma of which there are three types,\npleasure, pain and neutral feelings and there are some other\ndivisions of feeling, for instance there is the feeling which is\nthe base of attachment, and this is a feeling that accompanies\nattachment to the attributes or qualities of the desire realm.\nThe desire realm is one of three realms. These are called desire\nrealm, form realm and formless realm. Here we should understand\nrealm as a state of mind. So the desire realm is a state of mind\nin which there is desire for the pleasant objects of the senses.\nSo we know what the objects of the senses are, I mentioned those\nyesterday. Visual forms, sounds, odors etc. and amongst pleasant\nand unpleasant giving rise pleasurable feeling and painful\nfeeling. So the desire realm is the state of mind that regards\nsuch pleasurable feelings as the best. So as long as one is\nregarding such objects in high esteem then one is a person in the\ndesire realm.\nForm and formless realms refer to states of mind that have lost\nsuch esteem for the objects of the senses. I shouldn't say lost\nit, they've transcended it by seeing the shortcomings of such\nexperiences and seeing the superior qualities of the experiences\nof meditation. The form realm gets it's name from the objects of\nmeditation having form. The formless realm mentality is said to\nbe higher than the form realm, it has transcended the mentality\nof the form realm by seeing the shortcomings of such a mentality\nand seeing the superior qualities of the formless realm.\nSo as there is one feeling which is called the base of\nattachment, accompanying the attachment to the attributes of the\ndesire realm there is another feeling which is the base of\ndeliverance, and this is a feeling that accompanies the mentality\nof the form and formless realm, that being the feeling which is\nthe base of deliverance. So the feeling that is the base of\nattachment is pleasant feeling, pleasurable feeling with respect\nto objects of the senses and this causes the clinging attachment\nto arise. Such a pleasurable feeling is viewed unrealistically as\ntrue happiness. It is not true happiness. One reason why it is\nnot true happiness is because it can't last, but because it is\nseen as true happiness the mind grasps onto it and will not let\nit go and will do anything to keep in touch with it. This is the\nmajor obstacle for the human being, of all the various faults\nthis is the main one. In a thanka known as \"the Wheel of Life\"\n--that last one hanging up there, it is often painted with a\nBuddha in each of the five or six realms of cyclic existence and\neach of those Buddhas is carrying something that represents the\nantidote to the main suffering of the respective realm, and the\nBuddha in the human realm is carrying the staff and the bowl of a\nmonk whereas in the hungry ghost realm he's carrying water and\nfood. That is because the hungry ghosts suffer from hunger and\nthirst mainly, and for the humans it's because humans suffer from\ndesire. That's not such a gross generalization because if you\neliminate the conditions of war and illness and poverty, those\nextremes of human suffering that you find in the world, then you\nsee so many human beings that are destroyed by their desire.\nSometimes marriages fail because of desire for somebody other\nthan the partner, because of adultery, and that may result in one\nor both of the people who are married falling from the level of\nstatus in the society that they were in. Or politicians who were\nhonored in society, well how about supreme court judges, high\ncourt judges who are honored in society, but because of their\nsexual misconduct then there's a big scandal and they fall from\ntheir position. Teachers who have sexual relations with students\nand then lose their position as teachers and so on. And these are\nall people who have plenty of food, clothing and shelter and\nmedicine and all that stuff.\nSo it's like all those people who are trying to end war where\nthey are, just like at Sarajevo in Bosnia Hercegovina. Well once\nthey eliminate the war then they can look forward to suffering\nlike every one else. Right now they're suffering in a gross way,\nbut then comes the suffering of the uncontrolled desire, where\nthere's always something missing. So this is something that we\nall try to transcend and generally the main way in which we do\nthat is by weighing the disadvantages against whatever benefit\nwe'd get if we followed the desire. If the disadvantages are\nreally horrendous and the advantage of following the desire is\nvery small, then it's much easier to give up that desire.\nUnfortunately it's not always that clear, and so consequently\nit's difficult to give up the desire and it stays, and then one\njust has to endure it. So there arises the thought \"I wonder if\nthere is a state of mind free of such desire, where it just\ndoesn't arise and one could just cruise through this life like\nthe wind. You touch things but leave them as they are not\ncarrying them with you just free\".\nThere's a Zen story. Two Zen monks a master and his disciple\ncome up to a river, it's an old story you may have heard it\nbefore. There's a beautiful woman who's trying to cross the river\nbut she needs help. So the master picks her up and carries her\nacross the river. According to the discipline he shouldn't be\ntouching a woman and this is what the disciple was thinking, so\non the other side of the river the master and disciple carried on\ntheir journey but after sometime the disciple couldn't hold\nhimself back anymore and he said to the master\n\" How could you pick up that woman?\" and the master said\n\" The important thing is to put her down when the river was\ncrossed, which I did, you on the other hand are still carrying\nher.\"\nSo can you imagine being free of desire? How free you would be!\nYou could enjoy anything but put it down with no second thoughts\nand I'm not talking about the attitude of a cad, I don't know\nwhat you'd call it. I'm not talking about the attitude of\nsomebody who has love affairs and then just disposes of them like\nthat, one night stands. I'm not talking about that. There's\nnothing high about that, that's somebody who's really possessed\nby desire, they can't get satisfaction. I'm talking about\nsomething quite different. Freedom from desire exists, you get it\nwhen you enter the form realm, when you generate this form realm\nmentality, the desire for the objects of the senses doesn't arise\nany more.\nTo generate a form realm mentality requires a cultivation of\nconcentration, the type of concentration where you can stay\nsingle pointedly on an object for hours. It generates it's own\nkind of mental and physical ecstasy, which eclipses the pleasure\nof the desire realm. Unfortunately it's not very easy to\ncultivate. Well at least it's nice to know it's possible, but\nbecause it's not so very easy, there's very few people who have\nthat freedom from desire and consequently even those people who\nmake it their profession of being desireless have a hard time.\nThat's when we here of all the scandals in religious orders.\nTheir main way of controlling desire is just like everybody\nelse's. The only advantage that they may have is the amount that\nthey separate themselves from the objects of desire, in for\ninstance cloisters. Usually the scandals occur with those people\nwho don't have such separation.\nSo in the good old days concentration was easier to cultivate\nthey say, I'm not so sure, I think it was always a bit difficult.\nIn a monastery of a thousand people there were probably only a\nhandful who could do it, but the thing is all of us have the same\nproblem, so as long as we have the pleasurable feeling then\nattachment can arise unless you've abandoned attachment. So lets\nsay we have attachment, what it likes is pleasurable feelings, so\nwhenever pleasurable feeling arises, there's danger of\nattachment. If attachment arises you've lost your freedom.\nUsually I don't buy many things, consequently I don't have much\ninterest in shopping so when I walk down a street of shops the\nimpression in my mind is just things, but when I do go shopping,\nfor instance to buy a computer, then if I walk by a shop that\nsells computers even after I've already bought a computer I can't\njust walk by that shop thinking thing. My mind gets stuck there I\nhave to stop walking, look at all the things, especially the\nprice to see if I paid more for mine. I might get upset, all of\nthese things that didn't have to happen. So that's a simple\nexample, there are many other examples, where, when the\nattachment arises your mind gets stuck to the object. Then\nthroughout the day your mind keeps on that object, it comes up\nagain and again, you find your mind plotting in order to get that\nobject. You find that your voice of reason is getting weaker and\nweaker, your voice of cleverness is getting louder and louder, so\nyou're stuck, you've lost freedom, therefore The Buddha said we\nhave to guard the doors of our senses.\nSo it's not that a pleasurable feeling is negative, it's the\nattachment that's negative, the feeling has no ethical quality.\nPleasurable feelings aren't virtuous, painful feelings aren't non\nvirtuous. It's just that pleasurable feelings tend to give rise\nto this mind of clinging attachment and painful feelings give\nrise to anger. It's also interesting to keep in mind that if a\npleasurable feeling is the result of virtuous karma, if that's\nthe case then the object which was a cause of the pleasurable\nfeeling, enabled this pleasurable feeling to occur, such as\nsunshine. From one point of view, the pleasurable feeling\nexperiencing the sunshine, depends upon the sunshine, but the\nsource of that pleasurable feeling being pleasurable was a\nprevious virtuous action. It's like you can't have a crop without\na field, so keeping that in mind, rather than regarding the\nvarious objects as sources of happiness, one should pursue\nvirtuous action with the same kind of enthusiasm that we use to\npursue those pleasurable objects.\nOkay so then the next aggregate is DISCRIMINATION. This is also\na mental factor and is an omnipresent mental factor and this one\napprehends the uncommon signs of an object. Each object has\ncharacteristics which it shares in common with other objects and\ncharacteristics that are unique to it, and it is those unique\ncharacteristics that enable us to differentiate one object from\nanother. So discrimination is the function of the mind that\napprehends those unique characteristics, and there is\ndiscrimination that we find accompanying sense consciousnesses\nand those accompanying mental consciousnesses, and of the mental\nconsciousnesses there are the conceptual consciousnesses and it\nis the conceptual consciousness of a person who knows a language\nthat has the discrimination that can differentiate objects by\nmeans of names. So it is this discrimination mental factor that\napplies names, identifies objects with names. Sensory\nconsciousness doesn't name objects but it can nonetheless be\nclear about different objects. It can clearly differentiate say\nyellow from red.\nDiscrimination enables us to recognize and differentiate the\nobjects that make up reality.\nThis is the one that functions when sensory consciousness is\noperating and on the basis of having clear and distinct\nperceptions a conceptual discrimination mental factor will name\ndifferent objects and similarly when hearing true words, then in\nyour mind you're identifying certain things, and giving names to\nthose things you're identifying and that's also discrimination.\nAlso when you identify something as good by depending upon it\nhaving the signs and the reasons that's also discrimination.\nSo there's a discrimination, a reasoned discrimination. This is\none that is skilled in relating names with their objects and also\nthat is able to observe the appropriate qualities such as sound\nis impermanent. Also there's a discrimination that has a clear\naspect and a clear object. This is opposed to an unreasoned\ndiscrimination, such as one that is unskilled in relating names\nwith their meaning, such as a child who is yet to learn any\nlanguage, or a discrimination that thinks that sound is\npermanent, or a discrimination that lacks any clear subjective\naspect or object.\nThat last type of unreasoned discrimination is the\ndiscrimination that operates in the highest level of the formless\nrealm, where there is no clear aspect and no clear object\nappearing to the mind. It's really not a very useful state to\ngenerate, but it comes from the belief that discrimination, this\nfaculty of discrimination is a source of the problems.\nIt's not uncommon to read criticism of discrimination. For\ninstance in a number of spiritual texts that would describe the\nultimate state as somehow a unified state. With such expressions\nas all is one. Now of course discrimination differentiates,\nidentifies and differentiates, which seems to contradict an all\nis one experience, and that description, based upon the mere\ndescription of some high state of mind as all is one, some\npsychologists have misunderstood what that high state of mind is.\nFor instance in child psychology there is a recognition that as\nan infant, the child doesn't discriminate between subject and\nobject. A clear subjective ego awareness is yet to arise in the\nchild. This is sometimes called oceanic awareness. In one place\nCarl Jung thought that the high realizations of these yogis was\nrecovering that state of mind that is possessed by the infant.\nWhich is elevating a primitive consciousness to an exulted state.\n(That's not what he said), and in another place Freud referred to\nsuch high experiences of the yogis as infantile regressions\nthinking that they were non other than what the infant has. This\nwould be devaluing an exulted state and making it a primitive\nstate. So there's a big difference between lacking discrimination\nand transcending discrimination. So the infant doesn't have\ndiscrimination of subject and object. The yogi does have such\ndiscrimination, but within that discrimination has been able to\ndiscriminate something that transcends both subject and object\nand in order to do that, you have to have even more powerful\ndiscrimination than other people. So far from achieving high\nstates of mind by eliminating discrimination, such states of mind\nare achieved by making one's mind that much more powerful.\nAnother type of discrimination is called discrimination of the\nsmall, which is discrimination in the mind of a person in the\ndesire realm. There's another discrimination known as\ndiscrimination of the vast, which is discrimination in the mind\nof a person in the form realm, so from the point of view of the\nform realm the experiences of the desire realm are small and\nquite insignificant. Then there's discrimination of the\nlimitless, and this is discrimination that is found in the first\ntwo states of the formless realm, where one discriminates\nlimitless space and limitless consciousness. And then there's\ndiscrimination of nothingness, which is third state of the\nformless realm, where one doesn't discriminate anything and that\nstate is like being unconscious. Also a mistake. These different\nstates of mind have been achieved by people who are striving hard\nfor liberation, and in their striving having discovered that the\nsecret for liberation was in the mind itself, or the key for\nliberation was in the mind itself. They stumbled upon the\ntremendous capacity for concentration and having this amazing\ntool tried to achieve liberation merely by it. Concentration that\nenabled them to turn off parts of their mind, trying to achieve\nliberation by making themselves unconscious for instance. There's\nno pain if there's no experience. Experimenting with all kinds of\nmanipulation of the mind with concentration, and by means of this\nthey could achieve what's known as the peak of cyclic existence,\nin which all of the various disturbing negative thoughts of the\ndesire realm, form realm and the formless realm below the peak,\ncease functioning. They become free of all that. The only problem\nis that faults of the peak itself remain, and it doesn't have\nanything higher than the peak to get rid of those faults, unless\nyou use something else besides concentration. The thing that they\nmiss is the wisdom perceiving emptiness and if you have the\nwisdom realizing emptiness you can totally abandon all the faults\nof cyclic existence even without having to generate such a high\npower of concentration.\nSo that's the discrimination aggregate.\nAny questions ?\nQ: As you explained it seems as though we are a community of\ndifferent tendencies. So how is it possible to have this feeling\nof oneness ? And this feeling of a self of permanence?\nA: So first of all seeing our self as one thing. This is a very\ncommon phenomena to think of and it comes from our capacity to\nconceptualize by means of which we can categorize different\nthings, for instance a crowd of people is actually many people\nbut we can differentiate one crowd from another crowd. We can\nhave one crowd or many crowds and that can have some practical\nfunctions, so this capacity is something that is useful. So for\ninstance we are composed of a body and a mind. And when we say\nbody, body includes many things, but rather than having to list\nall those things for which there's no end because there are just\ncountless atoms in the body and even those things we can see,\nthat is those things we can see under a knife of discrimination\nare still too many to mention. So we have this capacity to think\nbody by means of which we can be including all the parts of the\nbody or just some of the parts of the body. and also for\nourselves it can be useful to refer to that which possesses the\nbody and mind as in the expressions \"my body\" and \"my mind\". We\ndon't mean that we are something that can get up and walk away\nleaving our body and mind behind, the way the owner of a car can\nget up and leave the car, but it's just a way that we organize\nour experiences and describe our actions, so this ability to\nconstruct things with thoughts can be useful, and by means of\nthis we can differentiate one thing from another. The problem\noccurs is when we take the thought constructs and forget that in\nfact they are thought constructs and start thinking that they\nhave an independent life of their own. And based upon the belief\nthat it has an independent life of it's own and also based upon\nthe fact that it doesn't appear to change that one can view it as\npermanent, we refer to ourselves as I or me, using those same\npronouns day in and day out, and also thinking of ourselves in\nthe past, thinking I did this then, and referring to ourselves in\nthe future I will do this, when, and thus it appears that this I\nis not changing at all, it is exactly the same. And further more,\nif it exists with a life of it's own, then it would have to be\npermanent. It wouldn't be depending on anything else such as\ncauses, to exist, but when we analyze this point closer, we see\nthat although the name may remain the same we have indeed\nchanged. In fact it would be a sad state if we remained exactly\nthe same as we were when we were children. The thing is that we\nseldom analyze and just take things as they appear. So this\nperson, the person, ourself, which is just a thought construct,\nhaving functions in terms of practical discrimination and\nlanguage appears to have a life of it's own, and then it is\nactually apprehended as having a life of it's own. This\napprehension is the ignorance or misknowledge which was\nrecognized by The Buddha as being the root source of all the\nsuffering. Is there anything more to that question that I could\naddress. It's good ? Okay !\nQ: You described the different levels of concentration according\nto each realm, can you repeat them please ?\nA: The interesting one would be form and formless realm. First\nthere's desire realm, that has concentration but it's not\ndistinguished, that is it is not special. And the discrimination\nassociated with that one is called the discrimination of the\nsmall, that is the objects it can recognize are small in quality\nin comparison to the objects that are recognized in the form and\nformless realm. Then with the form and formless realm we start to\nfind very special types of concentration. In the form realm the\ndiscrimination there is known as the discrimination of the vast,\nthat is the objects that are identified in the form realm are\nvastly superior to those of the desire realm. Then the formless\nrealm is said to be superior to the form realm because it is\nwithout the faults that are found in the form realm, and within\nthe formless realm there are different types of discrimination.\nIn the formless realm there's four levels known as limitless\nspace, limitless consciousness, nothingness and the fourth is\ncalled neither sensation nor no sensation. That fourth level is\nalso called the peak of cyclic existence. The discrimination\nfound in the first two of those is known as the discrimination of\nthe limitless and then that found in third level is known as the\ndiscrimination of nothingness and the discrimination found in the\nfourth level is a type of unreasoned discrimination. It is the\ntype in which there is no clear subjective aspect and no clear\nobject of observation. So let's take a break.\nThe next aggregate is the one known variously as Compositional\nfactors or Intention and all of the other mental factors are\nincluded in this aggregate. I'm using by the way, volition,\nintention and will synonymously.\nWe'll begin then with this mental factor of Intention which some\npeople consider to be the most important of the mental factors,\nand it is defined as the mental factor that moves and directs the\nmind that accompanies it to it's object, and it has the function\nof engaging the mind in virtue, non virtue, or those activities\nthat are neither virtuous or non virtuous.\nIt's something which is extremely powerful, it causes the mind\nto engage in an object helplessly, like metal filings have to\nhelplessly follow a magnet. If you drag a magnet over metal\nfilings then they just have to follow it, they have no choice.\nSometimes it happens that a person notices that they're just not\nin control of their life, they would like to go in a particular\ndirection but they are helplessly going in another direction.\nThat can be striking because it makes you wonder, who's in\ncharge? We have these expressions \"this is my body and this is my\nmind.\" \"I want to do this, I don't want to do that \". \" So how\ncome my body and mind don't go the way I want them to go ?\"\nRemember when I described this I, this person, as a mere mental\nconstruct, aside from qualities that we might conceptually give\nit, it doesn't have any qualities itself. For instance when you\nhave the thought I am walking, it's ability to walk is actually\nborrowed from the body or in other words because the body is\nwalking one can have the thought I am walking. It's not like the\nbody is walking and also I am walking and we're sort of walking\nhand in hand. And likewise when there is the thought I am going\nto do it, in fact it is the mental factor that is thinking do it,\nthat is the impulse that produces the activity and on the basis\nof that impulse we can have the thought \"I\" am doing it. So it's\nthat impulse that's the actual creator of things, and that's why\nit's considered so important, because there's also the I that's\ndesignated by depending upon feeling, such as I feel pain or I\nfeel pleasure, so we can have such thoughts because there's the\nFeeling mental factor experiencing pain or pleasure and then\nthere is this conceptual process that invents this character\nknown as \"\"I\" on the basis of that.\nNow the experiences then are derived from this creator function\nof intention. We would like to have it that the only kind of\nfeelings we would have would be the pleasurable sort as the basis\nof our thought \"I\". In order for that to happen then this creator\nintention has to be only going in a virtuous direction and thus\nwe can only be a virtuous person if our mental factor intention\nis directing us virtuously.\nNow is the mental factor Intention susceptible to persuasion ?\nOf course! It doesn't exist on it's own independent of the other\nmental factors. Often it is something that arises after a\nconsiderable amount of thinking. Like if you have to make a\ndecision about whether you go on a long trip or not. There you\nuse your faculties of discrimination and so forth to weigh the\nadvantages and disadvantages of such a trip. When you think about\nbeing in such a place a pleasurable experience may arise causing\nthe desire to meet with such an object which also influences the\nthinking process. There might be a painful experience associated\nwith the place you're staying in, causing the thought to separate\nfrom it as soon as possible. This can also influence the thinking\nprocess and at a certain point all of this thinking concludes in\nthis intention to do it. Then that intention starts taking the\nmind in that direction and at that point you're just along for\nthe ride, like a surfer on a wave, or more accurately a thought\nconstruct designated on the basis of this intention that's in\nmotion.\nEvery conscious action we do has intention going in either a\nvirtuous or a non virtuous way or a neutral way. So we are acting\ncontinuously, throughout the day we have numerous intentions that\nwe set, and those intentions don't necessarily cease immediately.\n.....Let's say in my example of going to a place the intention of\ngoing to that place can take you to that place but it is not the\ncase that that process of intentionality totally stops once you\nget there. That whole process is something that's remembered in\nthe mind and it can repeat itself, and has many different\neffects. Anyway this whole thing is the subject of karma, so I'm\ngoing to have to move on. But for instance you can have effects\neven after this life, for instance at the time of death it's said\nthat as a person goes through the death process they can have\nnumerous visions, people who have had near death experiences\nreport having had the experience of their whole life flashing in\nfront of them. And having seen their life flash in front of them\nit causes to make some evaluation. Certain things in their life\nstand out more than others, they identify more strongly with a\ncertain type of behavior than other behaviors, that they witness\nin such visions. Or in using the language of this description of\nIntention, there arises from it's latent state, a process of\nintentionality, that had been operating in the past but then went\nlatent, and then due to the circumstances of death it became\nactive again, and due to the association that we have with the\nthought \"I\" in relation to that intentionality process, there you\ngo again another ride, but in this case the intentionality as it\ntakes \"you\" the mere thought construct on the basis of it. It's\ntaking you without your body because you've left that behind now.\nHowever it may be the case for this intentionality to get to it's\nobject, to get to it's aim it will need a physical body. But it\nonly uses a physical body which is necessary to get to it's aim,\nand there's a great many varieties of physical bodies. If your\naim (in my other example of intention) of going on a trip was to\ngo south in the winter and that was the intentionality that\nhappens to resurrect itself at the time of death, then maybe all\nyou need to accomplish that again is the body of a bird, because\nthe mind is not linked with any specific type of body. The body\nis only a vehicle for the mind, and each body due to it's own\nnature, allows certain kinds of mental experiences to take place.\nIn some ways we could say that the rebirth is the dominant\ncondition for the experience of life, that is the mind coming\ntogether with a certain kind of body then gives that mind access\nto a certain kind of experience. The unique characteristic of the\nhuman body is that it's nervous system supports an unlimited\ndevelopment of intelligence. Therefore the human body is the best\nsort of body for the person who is aspiring for liberation,\nbecause in order to get liberation you have to develop this\npenetrative insight into the way things exist. This doesn't mean\njust any kind of human body. It has to be a human body that has\nall it's senses working properly, and a human body in a place in\nwhich it is not too easy and not too difficult to find the\nnecessities of life. It can't be too difficult because if that's\nthe case you never have any free time to explore such questions\nas why do things exist the way they do ? And we know such people\nthat just dismiss such thoughts as useless philosophy and they\nhave to get on with their work of making money and supporting\ntheir various responsibilities. But if life is too easy then that\nis also a problem, because the mind gets sluggish, and thus\nthere's no incentive for the cultivation of intelligence, so it\nhas to be somewhat challenging as human beings rely upon their\nintelligence to survive. That's why the practice of a person who\nis mainly trying to achieve a higher rebirth consists of the\npractice of ethics.\nThere are many types of ethics, one type of ethics is the ethics\nof restraint, which is restraining yourself from an action that\nwill bring you some immediate pleasure, because you recognize in\nthe long run it's going to be problematic, and although the\nexperience of denying oneself this pleasure is painful, one can\nsee that in the long run there is going to be great benefit. So\neven an animal can see what's immediately in front of it, so in\nthis case for the person practicing ethics what's immediately in\nfront of this person is pleasure to be had and pain if I don't\ntake it. What enables a person to restrain themselves and not be\nmiserable is the ability to imagine something in the future which\nthe animals can't do. That requires quite a development of\nintelligence.\nSo one then is exercising this intelligence in order to get a\ngreater benefit even at the cost of a short term sacrifice. That\nis especially the case for the person who is sacrificing the\npotential experiences of this life in order to get even better\nthings in the future life, because this life is tangible, it is\nsomething that you see and you have, whether there is a future\nlife you can't tell by seeing, tasting and smelling. You can only\nknow that with intelligence. So for the person who is trying to\nget a good rebirth and avoid a bad rebirth, all of this is done\nthrough the power of their intelligence and this person is\nputting a higher priority on the use of their intelligence than\njust the instincts of taking what is pleasurable and trying to\nget rid of what is immediately painful. So such a person is\nlikely then to be reborn with the type of a body that will\nsupport the further development of such intelligence. They would\nget for instance, a human body, in a place where they would have\naccess to the type of education where they could learn about\nhigher and higher states of happiness.\nAny questions about that?\nI wish I was wrong !\nBut I think that's what the dharma says. That's what The Buddha\nhad in mind. Even though I hate to hear it ! Due to the kindness\nof my teachers I just can't help myself but I have to say those\nthings.\nThey say that the dharma is like a mirror, in that a mirror is\nsomething that you use to see if you have any dirt on your face,\nso that you can then wash it off, and similarly the dharma is\nsomething that you can use to see if you have any faults, any\nmistaken conduct and so forth. Then you can eliminate those\nfaults and change your conduct. So the fact that one might squirm\na little bit or feel uncomfortable when one is hearing the dharma\ndoesn't mean that it is wrong.\nQ: Is it possible that Volition can bring us to activities\nhelplessly and is it possible to influence the volition and in\nthis case is this influence an intention ?\nA: There are many other mental factors beside intention, and for\ninstance when I was talking about generating the intention to go\nsomewhere there was a whole thought process that led up to that.\nIt is not an absolute that a specific intention has to arise,\nit's not like a whole package ready to go, it's dependent upon\nvarious conditions, for instance through the power of\nintelligence you can determine that the aim of a specific\nintention is undesirable and therefore you don't allow that\nintention to arise. Also the intention is usually taking place\nwithin a context of a person and that person's environment, and\nso that person has various likes and dislikes and then the\nintention is the means by which that person is able to get what\nthey want and avoid what they don't want, so the force of the\nintention is dependent upon the way in which that person is\nperceived. For instance if you're dreaming, and you're chased by\nsome monster in the dream, then the intention to get away from\nthat monster is dependent upon you believing that you are real in\nthat dream.\nThen the intention to get away doesn't arise because there is\nnobody who has to really escape from any thing really\nfrightening. So like that the Buddha discovered that the degree\nof reality that we attribute to ourselves is more than is\nactually there, and when we discover that we are empty of that\nextra reality, then all of the intentionalities that were created\nin the past that were dependent upon this exaggerated view of\noneself no longer have any control over oneself. That's when one\nis liberated. That's why the whole thrust of The Buddha's\nteachings, or the emphasis of The Buddha's teachings is the\ndiscovery of the actuality, of the true reality of the person.\nSometimes when people hear about the teaching of karma there\ncomes in their mind the idea of predetermination, as if they are\nlocked in an experience or a process that you can't do anything\nabout, but as intention is something that arises on it's causes\nand it's conditions, and these causes and conditions are not\nthings that are fixed, we can get control over this karma. In\nother words we can get control over this intention.\nDid you have a question?\n(Complicated question asked)_\nIt's only when you study a lot that it all becomes clear because\nthe Buddha dharma has so many topics within it. We have an\nexpression that you can't see the forest because of the trees,\nwhich means that when you're in a forest and you see the\nindividual trees there's so many of them the idea of forest\ndoesn't come to mind and likewise as we're studying all the\ndetails of the dharma a unified view, an overview doesn't come to\nmind. So for instance yesterday I talked about how there must be\na continuation of mind and although it wasn't everything that can\nbe said about it I'm not going to spend any more time on it.\nWhat you said today about the possibility of there being animal\nmind, preta mind and so forth, that's true. Just as it's the case\nthat a human being can generate a mind of the form realm and\nformless realm, which are also actual states of rebirth because a\nhuman being can generate the certain types of concentration that\nare concentrations of the form and formless realms, so also the\nhuman being can generate animal minds, hungry ghost minds and\njust as a person takes rebirth in form and formless realms\nbecause of generating the form and formless concentrations, so\nthe human being can take rebirth as an animal because of\ngenerating an animalistic mentality. There are certain times in\nour life where these states of mind appear evidently and we even\nhave expressions for that like a person is behaving unreasonably\nfearfully we may say they're \"chicken\" and there's a lot of these\nexpressions, animal names that are given to certain types of\nbehavior, and that's because that behavior doesn't conform with\nthe dignity of the human being.\nSo if one dies with that type of mentality active then you get\nthe body that best accords with that mentality and likewise with\nliberation. Liberation is a state of peace, one has been pacified\nof the disturbing negative thoughts, and being forced\nuncontrollably to take rebirth. So the source of the disturbing\nnegative thoughts and karma is the ignorant misconception of the\nself. So when the person through the cultivation of a special\ninsight into reality is able to completely abandon that\nconception of self and thus all the other afflictions and karma\nby virtue of eliminating their foundation, then that person is\nsaid to be liberated even though they are still a human being,\nand after death who knows where that person goes. Their mental\ncontinuum doesn't cease. They still have the experience of\nliberation. The continuum of mind is not something that is\ndependent upon ignorance, as ignorance is mind that is distorted,\nso all we're doing is correcting the distortion. So all of this\nexperience like our whole life experience here, is like when we\ngot off the highway to get on a shortcut and we got lost, and it\nbecame a nightmare. So when you get liberated it's like finding\nyour way back home again. What you do there, we who are still\nlost can only just guess.\nRemember the definition of mind, clear and knowing. Mind,\nconsciousness, are synonymous and main minds and mental factors\nare minds, because they are clear and knowing. They are products\nas we know. The visual consciousness for example arises by\ndepending upon a visual object, an eye sense faculty and the\nimmediately preceding moment of consciousness.\nSo then the mind that we have now what is it's original cause\n(our present mind today thinking in this moment)? What is it's\noriginal cause ?\nThat would be the first moment of consciousness in the womb.\nThat would have been a mental consciousness\n(Missing approx. 4 minutes.)\nin all three realms, desire, form and formless realms it comes in\nthe general category of mental factors known as object\nascertaining mental factors and it is defined as a mental factor\nof fine discrimination, which can discriminate between whether a\nthing is virtuous or non virtuous. Now this definition is a\nbiased one, it is biased from the point of view of how\nintelligence should be employed along the spiritual path. Using\nthe faculty of mind to discriminate what sort of story you are\ngoing to tell somebody in order to convince them to buy your\nproduct might be the same mental factor but it doesn't have this\ndefinition. So this intelligence, mental factor in Sanskrit is\ncalled prajna, which is often translated as wisdom, but you can\nalso translate it as intelligence based upon the definition of\nbeing fine discrimination which is something which sounds like\nintelligence. But if we call it wisdom we certainly put it in a\ndifferent category than the cleverness of buying and selling\nthings and it is a mental factor that you only find with the\nmental consciousness.\nThe five sense consciousnesses do not have this mental factor of\nintelligence, also for example concentration that's also another\nobject ascertaining mental factor and this enables one to focus\nsingle pointedly on an object without being distracted by\nexcitement or laxity, this too is only a mental consciousness,\nyou can't develop your concentration merely by looking at\nsomething with the eyes, there has to be a mental thought for\ninstance going on that produces an image or that you use to focus\nsingle pointedly with. This mental factor concentration is said\nto function to increase wisdom, intelligence, because if you can\nfocus single pointedly on something for a long time then that\nenables you to analyze very finely all of the qualities and\ncharacteristics of a thing, particularly determining whether the\nthing exists in the way it appears.\nConcentration is something that depends upon another object\nascertaining mental factor which is known as mindfulness.\nMindfulness is the factor of not forgetting and it functions in\nthe way of holding any object without letting it go. In this\ncontext it's mainly referring to virtuous objects as this is a\npresentation of mind and mental factors that are either\nsupportive or destructive of the path to liberation. So if you\nwant to have good concentration then you have this ability to\nbring to mind an object and hold it there. To do that you need\neffort, which is found in the category of virtuous mental factors\n, this effort is the mental factor that delights in virtue and it\nfunctions to cause new qualities to develop and old qualities to\nreach perfection. It's essential in the bringing to conclusion\nany virtuous work. It is a specific type of endeavor, not all\ntypes of endeavor are this specific mental factor effort. This\none is delighting in virtue, delighting in making money is not\nthe same thing, due to delight in making money a person can\ngenerate a lot of energy and also use up all their time. From the\npoint of view of the definition of effort that was given here,\nthat type of endeavor is called laziness, the type of endeavor of\nrejoicing or delighting in making money is called laziness. Now\nfrom the point of view of the person who delights in making\nmoney, the person who's spending all their life meditating and\nstudying is lazy. The person who is devoting their life the\nmeditation and studying can regard this other person as lazy,\nboth are exerting effort but they have different results. The\nindustrialist has the result of great wealth, the spiritual\npractitioner has the result of liberation and Enlightenment. So\nafter the industrialist gets all of their money are they happy ?\nNo they're not, and they will say so. So therefore they've wasted\ntheir time. The person who gets liberation and Enlightenment is\nhappy. So they didn't waste their time.\nSo if we judge laziness or not being lazy on the basis of\ngetting the results you want then this person who delights in\nvirtue is the one who is not lazy and so from this point of view\nengaging in other activities is a laziness and that laziness\nundermines their effort. There's different kinds of laziness.\nLaziness is a mental factor that you find among the twenty\nsecondary afflictions. It's defined as the mind that does not\ndelight in virtue and it has different types. Such as delighting\nin the non virtues, delighting in doing nothing. Delighting in\ndoing nothing is something that you discover when you're relaxing\nin your favorite chair in front of the television and somebody\nasks you to do something, then you discover how much you enjoy\nsitting in that chair doing nothing. There's other forms of\nlaziness, one of which is self discouragement, such as thinking\nthat you can't possibly enter into the spiritual path, thinking\nlike I just couldn't do it. \"That's okay for those high beings\nbut not for me.\" Okay so that thought is a form of laziness. The\nBuddha said that \"even if a mosquito made the effort it could\nbecome a Buddha, you human beings have more capacity than a\nmosquito all that's lacking is effort\". Remember effort is\ndelighting in virtue. So this is the key. Sometimes the\nexpression of putting effort into something appears to the mind\nlike drudgery, like work, sweating, breaking one's nails. There's\nexpressions like I don't know if you have in French. We have an\nexpression for a person \"working like a mule.\"\n\"working like a mule\" If you ever watch a mule work it's real\ndrudgery.\nBut here idea of effort is delighting in virtue. Enjoying it,\nthis comes from aspiration which is an object ascertaining mental\nfactor, which is a mental factor that having ascertained a\nvirtuous object then seeks it. This mental factor arises from the\nvirtuous mental factor of faith. The virtuous mental factor of\nfaith is a mind that causes peace with respect to a valid object,\nit's a mental factor that has a valid object and causes all the\ndisturbing thoughts to be removed from the mind when you focus on\nthat object. There's different types.\nOne is the faith of conviction which arises by depending upon\nreasons, such that one's mind has penetrated to whatever that\nobject is, so that is you know what that object is. Then there is\na purifying faith that with respect to the qualities that one\nsees the object having causes the mind to have a peace or\ntranquillity that arises in the heart, a kind of joy. Like for\ninstance sometimes when you read biographies of great saints and\nthere you become aware of the qualities that such a person\nexhibited and that causes a kind of joyful energy in your heart\nthen from this can come the aspiration to achieve such qualities\noneself. The mental factor of effort sustains that aspiration.\nThere's another object ascertaining mental factor called belief\nand that mental factor takes as it's object an object that has\nbeen ascertained and holds that object in the face of all\ndiscouragement. So if somebody were to tell you no it's not true\n, but if you have this mental factor of belief then it wouldn't\nmatter what they said you'd still hold that as true. So by\ndepending then on faith the aspiration arises so faith will arise\nby coming to know for instance the different qualities of an\nobject or the different reasons that validate the existence of\nthe object and that's obtained by for instance listening and\nstudying. Some conviction comes from thinking about what you've\nbeen studying and listening to. Aspiration then arises. Then\neffort comes, with that effort seeing the various qualities, the\nvarious functions that say concentration can give you and you\naspire to achieve that. Then you generate the effort to do so.\nThrough this effort one cultivates mindfulness and through\nmindfulness you'll be able to hold the object throughout the\nwhole meditation period. Then through another mental factor\ncalled introspection which is a type of intelligence you analyze\nwhether or not any subtle factors are affecting the\nconcentration, any subtle negative mental factors are affecting\nthe concentration such as the secondary afflictions of excitement\nand laxity. We are then through the exercise of the virtuous\nmental factor of conscientiousness which is a combination of four\nother virtuous mental factors, those being the mental factors of\ndetachment, non anger, non ignorance and effort. Then one avoids\nany kind of action that is not conducive to the spiritual\ndevelopment and thus applies whatever antidotes are necessary to\neliminate these adverse factors of excitement and laxity, until\none arrives at a place where these negative mental factors don't\noccur at all. Then you have to break the habit of utilizing this\nmental factor of introspection, because although it was helpful\nat the time, it still divides your attention between the object\nof concentration and the state of mind you have. For this you\nemploy the virtuous mental factor known as equanimity, which is a\nstate of mind that remains in an equal state free from excitement\nand laxity, which sounds like a type of contentment, which then\ncounters this impulse to resort to introspection. Then through\nthis, one arrives at single pointedness, which is achieved\nthrough the power of familiarity, which is brought about through\nthe mental factor of mindfulness, of being able to hold the\nobject without losing it. This single pointedness then gives rise\nto the virtuous mental factor known as pliancy, which provides\none with the ability to use the mind in whatever way you want.\nPliancy is said to be the actual antidote to laziness. Although\nlaziness and effort counteract each other it is pliancy that\neliminates any danger of laziness because then you can use your\nmind to do any virtuous activity without any resistance, like for\ninstance if there was an opportunity to take precepts in the\nearly morning, a person who generated pliancy, as soon as they\nhave the thought to take precepts then the mind would just go\nthere. Without pliancy then when the thought to take precepts\narises it might be followed by the thought to not take precepts.\nThis mental pliancy can produce a physical pliancy in which the\nbody also gives no resistance to virtuous activities, in\nparticular this meditative activity. The body feels extremely\nlight, like a cotton ball. There's no pain in the knees or the\nback or any thing like that. Then due to the physical pliancy\nthen that gives rise to a physical joy, then that physical joy\ngives rise to a mental joy. So those two joys indicate that one\nhas arrived at the type of concentration that is known as calm\nabiding, which is in the category of an actual dhyana which is a\nmind of the form realm. Then by means of this state of mind one\ncan cultivate intelligence with respect to the object reality,\nthat is then using the mental factor of fine discrimination, and\nwhen that fine discrimination enhances one's concentration\ninstead of dividing it one achieves penetrative insight or higher\nseeing. This is also known as the yoga or union of calm abiding\nand penetrative insight. Quite a high achievement. With such an\nachievement one enters into what's known as the path of\npreparation, and due to the force of familiarity, that\npenetrative insight perceiving reality (which at this stage is\nstill just a conceptual mind) will become a direct experience of\nreality, known as the path of seeing. When you achieve the path\nof seeing you longer create any more karma and you don't take\nrebirth through the force of karma. You're not done yet though.\nThere's still the path of meditation to go before you reach the\npath of no more learning. The path of no more learning is the\nstate of liberation. It gets it's name because you no longer have\nto learn anything more to achieve liberation.\nSo there was a little presentation of how these different mental\nfactors are operating. There wasn't enough time to go into all of\nthem, but you get some idea. The last aggregate, the fifth one is\nthese six main minds which I mentioned before. Somebody asked at\nlunch whether or not there are any more than six. According to\nsay, the Prasangika school of Buddhist philosophy there are only\nsix, but within mental consciousness you can divide between gross\nforms and subtle forms. In the Cittamatrin school that follows\nscripture, you find a presentation of eight consciousnesses.\nThere is another school whose presentation asserts there is only\none consciousness, and it just looks out through the different\ndoors of the senses like one person in a house with many windows.\nIn the presentation of eight consciousnesses, there are the six\nthat were first mentioned, then a seventh one, known as the\nafflicted consciousness and the eighth one known as the\nfoundation consciousness. So there are these different schools of\nthought. The Cittamatrin following reasoning just asserts six\nconsciousnesses, so even the same school can't agree. The\nCittamatrin school following scripture would refer to such\nscriptures of the Buddha as the Lankavatara sutra which mentions\nthe eight consciousnesses. But the great logician Dharmakirti who\nhad a special psychic power by means of which he could never be\ndefeated in debate, (much to the annoyance of many non Buddhists)\ncould not accept that there were eight consciousnesses. He found\nthat the afflicted mind was part of mental consciousness, and\nthat the various functions for which the foundation consciousness\nwas asserted to be responsible could also be explained by the\nmental consciousness.\nYou might be attending teachings on tantra and you might hear\nsuch expressions as \"clear light consciousness\". The Prasangika's\nwould say that this would be an example of a subtle mental\nconsciousness and also all the conceptual or thought\nconsciousnesses are mental consciousnesses. Dreams would be a\nmental consciousness, although we can sometimes talk about\nhearing and seeing in dreams, such hearing and seeing should be\nproperties of auditory and visual consciousnesses shouldn't they?\nThe Prasangika's would say dream visual consciousness and dream\nauditory consciousness, they just use conventional expressions.\nAccording to them there doesn't have to be any more validity for\na thing than just how it's used conventionally, because they say\nthat all things are existing merely by name and thought. But\nthat's all a subject of next month's seminar, so you have to stay\ntuned to that next episode. \"Aggregates 2.\" The sequel to\n\"Aggregates 1\"\nAny questions?\nSo let's just sit for a couple of minutes and try to digest the\nthings that were said.\nPlease dedicate the effort that we've made on this weekend that\nall those beings who have yet to generate the aspiration for\nEnlightenment may quickly do so, that those who have already\ngenerated such an aspiration will develop it further and oneself\nwill quickly become a fully Enlightened being so one can lead\neveryone else without exception to that very same state.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nend of file","title":"The Five Aggregates By Ven Thubten Pende","type":"page"}