Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 50-minute teaching, Kyabje Rinpoche systematically investigates whether mind and sensory consciousness can be proven to exist inherently. He begins by searching for where mind might reside—in the body’s organs or on its external limbs—and then analyzes how each sensory consciousness depends entirely on its corresponding object: eye consciousness requires form, ear consciousness requires sound, tongue consciousness requires taste. Using the example of eye consciousness perceiving a flower, he establishes through logical analysis that the object must precede consciousness, ruling out inherent existence. He then draws the crucial implication: if mind were inherently existing, mental impurities could never be removed, making liberation impossible. The teaching grounds this analysis in Buddha’s two core principles—dependent arising and non-harming conduct—and ends with a Q&A addressing questions on consciousness, the brain, and sentient life.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-08-23 – 10B – 9th Chapter – KR.mp3
UUID: bf8fcfd7-6175-41dc-a71f-a2e3cd4ceeea
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-08-23
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,067
Also, the mind is to be found existing inherently in the inner organs of the body such as intestines and so forth. Also the mind is to be found not inherently existing on the external limbs such as our hand, feet, so forth of the body. Therefore, no matter at whatever perspective about the mind we look at, it would be established that mind does not exist truly or inherently. Generally, the five sense consciousnesses, five sensory consciousnesses arise with dependence on their respective object factor. This means the eye sense, the eye consciousness depends for its arising solely on forms as the object factor.
So the term object factor means the object of perception which acts as the factor for that consciousness to arise. Similarly, with the ear consciousness it is the sound which is the object factor arising or giving rise to that ear consciousness and the smell is the object factor for nose consciousness, taste is the object factor for the tongue consciousness, and the form or the external sensations are the object factor for the bodily consciousness. In this way, this as well clearly shows that each of the sensory consciousness are produced by its own specific object factor. There is no cross crossing of the ways or one or the other. For example, if there is no flower, then there cannot be eye consciousness perceiving flower because the eye consciousness perceiving flower arises with dependence on there being flower present.
So flower is the object which acts as the factor for producing the sense consciousness, sensory consciousness of the eye perceiving object. So for the eye consciousness perceiving flower, flower becomes the object factor. The eye consciousness perceiving flower cannot be something existing prior to something existing earlier to the object factor being existent. In other words, flower being existent earlier because it would not be possible that there can be an eye consciousness seeing flower without there being flower at all in the first place. This would imply that the object factor, in this case, the flower would have have to be earlier already existing in order for the eye consciousness perceiving flower to arise.
The point here is to prove that eye consciousness perceiving flower cannot be something which comes earlier than the existence of the flower itself in the first place. For example, without there being the mother first, there could not be the child. Mother would have been earlier, already existing, and then the child born afterwards. Because that is the working of cause and effect. Cause precedes the effect.
Like that, there cannot be eye consciousness perceiving flower without firstly the flower being there. If the flower and the eye consciousness perceiving it are formed simultaneously, here the word formed and existing are always same word. So if the flower and the eye sense perceiving it are formed or existing simultaneously in the first place, then it would not be possible for the flower to be the object factor for that eye consciousness perceiving it. That can be ruled out. It cannot be possible.
This then rules out that the flower and the eye sense perceiving eye consciousness perceiving it cannot be a thing formed or existing in the first place simultaneously. Example to look at that point would be like, say, if the mother and the child was in the first place born together, then it would not be possible for the child to be the child of that mother because of the very reason that the two were born at the same time. One cannot be the child to the other. So that rules out the child being called as the child and the mother as the mother due to the very fact that they were simultaneously born. So that’s the example.
And again to emphasize here then it would be a point quite clear that the flower, the object factor, and the eye consciousness perceiving it cannot be something that were formed in the first place, in the beginning, talking about the beginning, in the first place formed together. If the flower is existent simultaneously with the eye consciousness perceiving it, then there would be that fallacy. So that rules out the two being together formed in the first place. So it is quite a fact that firstly there was the flower existing and then the eye consciousness perceiving it comes about is produced. That is cause and effect.
That is the point established so far. But although that’s true that the eye consciousness perceiving flower has come about after or later to the flower, there is no reason to say that the eye consciousness perceiving flower is inherently existing. It is not. So this so far covers one whole point. Now the whole analysis about this so far is to analyze whether the eye consciousness perceiving flower is an inherently existing thing or not.
So that is the emphasis, the main point being established here. And in trying to establish that, we went through firstly negating all the obvious fallacies such as if the eye consciousness perceiving flower was born or existed earlier to flower, then it would be a fallacy because there cannot be an eye consciousness perceiving flower without the flower being there in the first place. Similarly, we ruled out the fallacy that if they are formed or existing in the first place together, then that would be a fallacy of cause and effect being ruled out that cannot be possible. Now we look at this last point, that although the eye consciousness perceiving flower is produced after the flower being there. Yet we still analyze further that is it inherently existing or not.
And the reason is it is known because it shows that the eye consciousness perceiving flower is a product. It is something dependent on other. It does not independently, inherently exist by its own self, itself truly, and so forth. So in that way, in summary, we then prove that the eye consciousness perceiving flower is not inherently existing. Now it might perhaps seem the latter part was, it might perhaps seem very complex in going through all those lists of ruling out, but the essence is to try and to analyze whether the eye consciousness perceiving flower is inherently existing or not.
So that’s the whole point. In this way, eye consciousness perceiving flower is established to be not inherently existing. Now we can apply the same thing with any other perception such as perception of the white color of the book, of the white color, of the red color, and so forth. Just about anything can be seen in the same way as not inherently existing. We can then apply to other sensory consciousnesses such as ear consciousness perceiving sound, that they also are not inherently existing.
For example, when we hear the sound Aum being recited, then there is an ear consciousness perceiving the sound Aum produced. But then we analyze whether that ear consciousness perceiving that is inherently existing or not. In our analysis we rule out the previous fallacy in the same way that if the ear consciousness perceiving on sound was there earlier, if the sound and the ear consciousness are produced simultaneously, that also would be wrong. So it would have to be accepted that the ear consciousness perceiving the sound AUM is produced afterwards, subsequent to the actual sound being there. But even that case, although it exists or is produced later on, that very fact that it is produced afterwards indicates it’s not an inherently existing phenomenon.
It is a dependent phenomena. So that then clearly through that analysis establish the ear consciousness perceiving the sound Aum as not inherently existing. And then we can relate the same thing to just about any other perception of the ear consciousness with any sound. The same with the tongue consciousness. When there is a very delicious cake served before oneself, then having tasted the delicious cake, there will be tongue consciousness perceiving or experiencing the cake, the delicious cake.
So again, we can analyze whether that tongue consciousness is inherently existing or not. If it is, it should have existed earlier or later or even if it is it existed after the cake being there, still it is not an inherently existing thing. In this way one can apply just about any other workings of the sense or consciousnesses and by that way as well the mental consciousness. So in brief here in the analysis on the mindfulness of the mind, one establishes that the sense consciousness too, through whatever way of analysis, is found not inherently existing, and the mental consciousness too is to be found as not inherently existing. And in that way, really mind is to be found as not inherently existing.
If the mind is, let’s suppose, inherently existing, then that would imply there cannot be any possibility of the impurities about the mind being able to be removed at all. Because the reason for that is because if the mind, let’s say, supposedly is inherently existing then it would mean true existence grasping or truth grasping or, in other words, the ignorance grasping the I or phenomena as truly existent, in that sense true grasping, or true existence grasping. In that case it would mean that true existence grasping, which ordinary persons do have with their mind, would always remain there unchangeably, never to be able to be removed, purified and so forth. If that is so, that would mean that there is no way the sentient beings would be able to attain liberation. Then that also would mean that there is no way the sentient beings would be able to get higher rebirths, there is no way sentient beings would be able to receive happiness and so forth by having removed impurities of the mind and having attained the excellent qualities of the mind in place of those impurities.
Because by the same way, the basic implication, thrust, basic thrust and implication of that point would be the mind with all its present ignorance, true existence grasping so forth, would remain like that forever, never to be changed, never to be able to be purified. It is due to the very fact that the mind is not inherently existing that it becomes possible for all the impure thoughts or the impurities about it to be removed. It becomes possible due to that fact for all excellent qualities of the mind to be attained through trainings and meditative familiarization. It becomes possible to remove suffering, to remove bad rebirth. It becomes possible to attain high rebirth, attain all happiness, attain liberation, attain Buddhahood, enlightenment, all are possible because of the fact the mind is not inherently existing.
Buddha’s teachings can be summarized into two principal aspects about it: the view of dependent arising the second, the conduct of not hurting or harming others, so non harming conduct and the dependent arising view. These two completely covers all essential features about the teachings of the Buddha. The view of dependent arising in meaning means that all phenomena arise or originates by manner of depending on others. The very fact all phenomena arise or originates by depending on others negates all phenomena arising independently from their own side, inherently from their own characteristic. Because if something arises with dependence on others, with relative to other, with dependence on other, that fact itself would mean that thing is dependent.
It is not independent and existing or arising by its own right, independent solidly and so forth. So that very lack independence, of independent existence because of being dependent on others, that very lack is what is called the view, the understanding of emptiness, that there is the emptiness or lack of independent existence. Together, that becomes the view of dependent arising. If the manner, phenomena, old phenomena arise is by dependence on others, as far as the dependence on others goes, it can be any of the two possibilities. Either it is depending on something good or it is depending on something bad.
If it depends on something bad, then out of that bad dependence or out of depending on something bad, the outcome would be bad. And out of that outcome, there will be experiencing of suffering. If on which the dependence is being done, if that is good, if it is good on which is being dependent, then the outcome produced by that dependence would be good. And out of that good outcome would be the experiencing of happiness. Happiness.
Now this would illustrate the way how happiness and suffering are produced by good and bad outcome through in the first place depending on good and bad dependence or good and bad reliance. The depending on that dependence, that reliance would mean depending on what harms others. If what one is depending is something that harms or hurts others, then that is bad dependence, bad reliance. Out of such bad dependence would come about negativities or demerit karmic points. And out of that bad outcome it would follow suffering, experiencing suffering.
And the meaning of depending on something good would mean depending on something that helps others, that benefits others. Then out of such good dependence would come good karma, the merits. And out of that good karma would follow experiencing of happiness. So the real meaning of what is bad dependence, what is good dependence is described in terms of whether it hurts or harms others or whether it helps or benefits others. The second aspect about the previous two aspects is the conduct aspect or the behavior aspect of one’s following the Buddha’s teaching.
The behavior or the conduct is described as the conduct of not hurting or harming others. Non harming conduct, non harming behavior. This description of it clearly shows means to stop hurting others or harming other sentient beings. If one is able to do that then one in essence is following one of the two most fundamental essence of Buddha’s teaching the behavior of not harming others. In the case of the great vehicle practitioners like bodhisattva, they not only very fully practice the behavior of not hurting other, they additionally actively perform the practice of helping others.
So that is far more an additional thing, more an ornament, more a bonus thing, more one can do is better. So as a practitioner, if we cannot help others then at least we need not harm or hurt others. So if we do that, then we are able we are being able in our following the essence of the teachings. In the context of the two the in in the context of two vehicles, lower vehicle’s conduct is not to hurt or harm others. In the context of the great vehicle, the conduct practice is not only not to harm others but as well actively help others.
As far as the view of dependent arising goes, it is something found present in both the vehicles. Both accept that all phenomena arise out of dependent dependence on others. If one harms others, then one has no Dharma practice. Meaning one has not done Dharma practice at all. One can then easily measure oneself whether one is doing any practice or not by way of checking whether what the teaching says is it something present in one’s behavior or not.
If one finds that the way one is going about in one’s daily behavior is something like this, like a two hands opposed, it’s not good. If it’s something like this where there is an accordance as the teaching says, then it is good. So it is quite a clear thing. You can measure yourself. If you go against what the teaching says, then that is obviously the practice is not present in yourself.
If you find what you do really accords with the teachings, then the practice are complete in you. Okay. So we shall stop here for tonight and if any questions, we’ll leave few minutes for that. So would you describe the functioning of the brain as? The shock of the electric would not be described as the functioning of the brain because we can look at, say, if wind blows, our body reacts.
But that’s not the same thing. For example, when one sees an attractive form, there would be attachment. And when one sees something repulsive then there would be aversion or dislike. But that does not mean the way the forms appear is the function of the brain. But at any rate, to interpret the counter against that would be the whole thing.
If the brain is cremated or buried or the cells die. The life can exist in the next life or future rebirth forms. But of course, how far they accept beyond this life is their problem. Of inherent existence. There is a form that exists so it is worthwhile to engage into all those exquisite productions or whatever.
A very distant relative of Brian’s. But to really answer whether who was the first species of human, who was the very the very first human, that cannot be traced at all because it is no different than asking the same question in a different way, who was the first sentient being or first ordinary being. It is untraceable because of the very fact there was no beginning to saṃsāra, no beginning to the consciousness of an ordinary person in the ordinary state. It’s been like that since the beginningless time. So, yeah, obviously that cannot be traced.
It cannot therefore be described and explained at all. But if we are to say in reference to specific areas within different parts of the universe, even in this Southern Continent, we can describe who was the first human and so forth. But as far as generally go, it is difficult. And say, with the first human of the Southern Continent, which is our part of the universe, even with that, it would be difficult to describe the very appearance and so forth of that person. But it can be mentioned with relation to specific reference.
For example, in the case of Tibet, it is explained and believed that first humans in area around what is now Tibet came about by the union between