Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 119-minute commentary on Chapter 9 of Śāntideva’s Bodhisattvacaryavatara, Ilia S. Durovic presents a detailed analysis of the emptiness of mind as part of the Buddhist path to enlightenment. After opening with foundational meditations on compassion and loving-kindness, Durovic builds the case for developing bodhicitta combined with wisdom realizing emptiness—the core of Mahāyāna practice. He then walks through the third of four mindfulnesses: the mindfulness of mind itself. Using systematic logical analysis drawn from Buddhist epistemology, Durovic examines both sensory and mental consciousness, dismantling the notion that mind is synonymous with the brain or neurons. He illustrates why mind must be understood as a perceiving faculty independent of physical matter, supported by examples from formless celestial realms and the continuity of consciousness across rebirths. The talk concludes with applications to everyday life and addresses audience questions on science, evolution, neuroscience, and mental affliction from a Buddhist philosophical perspective. Aimed at serious students already familiar with Buddhist concepts.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-08-23 – 9th Chapter of Śāntideva's. Emptiness.mp3
UUID: c4d56abd-ecab-4529-9e27-4c74a60644e6
Teacher: Ilia S. Durovic
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-08-23
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~6,906
Let’s start by doing brief few minutes meditation on kind thought related with mind of enlightenment. I do not want suffering. Similarly, all other sentient beings do not want suffering. And yet, like myself, similarly, all other sentient beings are very much tormented by suffering. Therefore, I wish that all sentient beings be free of suffering and I pray that they actually become free of suffering.
That becomes meditation on compassion. And then the next one thing says, I do want happiness. Likewise, all sentient beings equally do want happiness. But like my case and similarly with all other sentient beings, they are destitute of happiness. Due to this fact, I wish that all beings be with happiness, and I pray that they actually be with happiness.
That becomes thinking that way becomes meditation on loving kindness. Here, before going to develop mind of enlightenment, one needs first to think on those two necessary requirements, compassion and loving kindness. On top of those two, one needs to have the superior dedication, what is called universal responsibility, thinking that I alone, if it comes to that, take responsibility to really make all sentient beings free of suffering and be with happiness. It is appropriate to think that even if it comes to that, I would alone take the responsibility to accomplish that. Why that is appropriate is because from one point of view, one does have all the necessary capability to actually accomplish that.
How that is so is one presently have attained good rebirth as a human complete with all capabilities. On top of that one has encountered the correct and meaningful spiritual path, the Dharma. On top of that one has good inspiring companions on the spiritual path, other dedicated practitioners. One as well has teachers who show the path unmistakenly and completely, fully, fully and unmistakenly. So, yeah, it is appropriate.
If it is appropriate, then one does need to think even if it comes to that I alone am willing that I alone would take the responsibility to remove all others’ sufferings and bring them happiness. But with one’s present state of mind, if it is past, does one’s mind have all the necessary capability and excellent qualities to actually accomplish that, the answer would be no. The reason why that is so is because one presently has in one’s mind so many destructive and bad types of thoughts and one does not have enough of all the excellent qualities of the mind. The good thoughts, the excellent qualities of the mind in the form of good thoughts, this one does not have. So one needs to make the determination that in order to accomplish others’ welfare, I will put effort into training my mind to get rid of its impure thoughts and to acquire all the excellent qualities.
In order to train the mind to get rid of its impure thoughts and to acquire excellent qualities, one needs to develop the mind of enlightenment, bodhicitta, combined with the wisdom realizing emptiness, which together becomes the essence of the whole training on the path of Mahāyāna, the great vehicle. If that’s a fact then one here brings a special determination to be interested and take necessary effort in doing learning, reflection and meditative familiarization on the topic here on the realization of emptiness. At this point, Śāntideva explains the mind is not in the senses nor it is on the form and others. What this part concerns is firstly from earlier Tuesday evening’s teachings we were on how to understand the selflessness of phenomena which was done through looking into the four mindfulnesses or the meditations on the placement of four mindfulnesses of which we finished the first two, the meditation on the placement of mindfulness of body and of feelings. So tonight we go to the third, that is the mindfulness of mind.
As regards the earlier two mindfulnesses, to sum up we can say mindfulness of the body means firstly one through analysis has ascertained or have confirmed that the body is emptiness of inherent existence. Having established that, then in one’s awareness one retains the mindfulness or the memory. Mindfulness is no different from memory. One retains the mindfulness or the memory along with that wisdom realizing the emptiness on the body. That in essence is the mindfulness of body.
With the mindfulness of feeling, what it in essence means is firstly there are three basic types of feelings: pleasant, unpleasant and neutral feeling. Whatever any of these three types of feelings there are, one analyzes whether feeling inherently or truly exists as independent entity or not. When one establishes, when one finds that feeling as well as emptiness of inherent existence, then one retains that awareness in one’s mindfulness, in one’s ever present memory or state of mind mindfulness along with that wisdom realizing the lack of inherent existence. And then here with the mindfulness of mind, what it means is firstly let’s say as a person we have two features with us. One is the mind, one is the body.
As far as body goes we covered that already. Now we look at the mind aspect of our existence, our being. And that includes the mindfulness of mind where through analysis one realizes that mind as well is emptiness of inherent existence. Mind lacks inherent existence. And then one repeatedly meditates on that awareness, realizing emptiness of the mind and having repeatedly meditated like that one always retains the mindfulness, the memory of that awareness and that in essence is the mindfulness of the mind.
From one point, generally speaking, mind can be of two types, what is called the two types of consciousnesses, the sensory consciousnesses and mental Sensory consciousness means the five types of sensory consciousness such as the consciousness of the eye, of ear, of nose, of tongue, and of body. They are the five sensory consciousnesses. By mental consciousness it means a consciousness which does not rely on the five senses but which relies on the mind And that consciousness relying on the mind is the mental consciousness. Here in the mindfulness of mind, when the mind is analyzed to be of emptiness nature. The study here looks into those two types of consciousnesses.
Firstly, the analysis concerns the emptiness of the mental consciousness. Mind, awareness and consciousness, the three mean the same. They refer to the same entity. There are different names used for the same entity. The example would be flower would in Tibetan be called as metok and flower and metok are two different names but they both mean the same thing.
Because mind is not a sensory object for example because mind is not a visible form to be seen by the sense of eye, is difficult to understand what mind is. It is because it is not something to be seen. Similarly, it is not something which can be heard by ear, sense nor it is something that can be smelled by the nose sense nor it can be something touched or felt by the touch, the bodily sense. Being not a sensory object, therefore it is an invisible, intangible thing And as it is intangible, invisible and so forth, no matter an average person may think about what mind is and try to grab it, what an entity it is. But due to being of such nature or not subject to a sensory perception, it is yes, can be explained as quite difficult thing to understand about.
In the so called scientific field, there are claims of people saying the mind is the brain or others say the mind is the neurons. But it would be seen such description of mind being brain and knowers are indication that they have not clearly understood what mind is. The nature of mind is something which perceives objects internally or externally both. For example, mind has the nature to see anything out there, white colored thing, red colored thing, as distant as sun and moon and so forth. That is with nature of mind.
But let’s say if earlier with reference to where the claim is the mind is the brain or it is the nerve, then in that case it would be wrong to say the mind is such and such or brain and knowers. The reason for that is if it is a brain or a nerve then yes due to being within the person’s feeling there would be some feeling of heaviness then the thing is like that, meaning the brain or knowers. But they cannot have the nature to see external things. If mind is the brain, it would mean it would not be able to see external things. If mind is the neurons, then it would mean it would not be able to see external things.
The reason for that is brains and neurons are matter built up of so many tiniest particles. If that’s their nature, they are matter inanimate then it is quite understandable that they would not have the nature or able to see our things, our external or internal world. At the time when one conceives in mother’s womb, one conceives in between the blood combination from father and mother. At that time the mind of the person born is there conceived but there is none of the brains and knowers. The mind but none of the brains and knowers So great excellent qualities of the mind when trained such as the excellent qualities of precious bodhicitta, mind of enlightenment, such as the excellent quality of the mind, the wisdom realizing emptiness, these are the excellent qualities of mind which do not reside or stay upon the neurons and the brains or to paraphrase the actual root is these excellent qualities of the mind are not to be found with the knowers.
There are so many sentient beings who exist with mind but without neurons and brains. For example, the sentient beings on the form realm, what is called the upper realm, such as the celestial beings in the form realm, they have existence with with mind only but they don’t have neurons and brains. Similarly, the realm above that is called the formless realm. To start with, it is called formless realm because beings there don’t have concrete body or form. That’s how to start with and obviously in that realm beings don’t have brains and knowers but there is mind.
So the mind has to be something which sees objects, perceives objects realizes objects and mind cannot place anything which don’t have such attributes, such properties about it. By that then we can say knowers and brains definitely can’t be mined because they cannot perceive, they they cannot realize objects out there. So that’s how it is and this would mean according to Buddhist perspective, mind definitely has to be a thing or an entity which has those capability to realize, to see in things. Anything apart from that won’t be accepted as a mind. But that’s how far as the Buddhist goes that would be.
We cannot still rule out that there could be other opinions by other people in different fields opposed to that. That’s where the law When one becomes a Buddha and enlightened being, there is none of the concrete appearances one, personally as ordinary beings have. There is no solidity of body at all. Instead, the body is in the form of light. It is like light, it is like the electric globe light or it is like a rainbow, so clear and radiant, luminous, it is in that form.
So this would mean in that state there is no such thing as solid brains and knowers as well there is no such thing as a concrete body built up of the four elements. It is with dependence on the mind that all aspects of universes manifest. The environmental universes and the resident sentient beings’ physical appearances, they all manifest by depending on the workings of the mind. So apart from workings of the mind, there cannot be external varieties of sentient beings, different species appearances, nor there can be any whole variety of environmental residential universes. And by same token, we can say in brief, if there is no mind, then there cannot be nirvana nor there can be saṃsāra.
Everything comes about manifest with dependence on the mind All sufferings, all fears, all tragedies, all bad rebirths come out from bad types of mind or in other words bad workings of the mind. All happiness, all fulfillment, as well attaining the state of bodhisattva and even eventually attaining the state of buddhahood, they all come from good types of mind, the good workings of the mind. In essence there can be no good or bad results without there being firstly good and bad types of the workings of the mind. The teachings given by the Buddha solemnly and completely are meant to stop bad thoughts or the bad workings of the mind arising and those born to be removed. So that is the whole purpose, the solely and completely of all those teachings.
Our mind presently is abiding or taking residence in our body the reason the causes why the mind presently in our case takes residence in the body is due to karma. That due to our previous karma or previous actions that we are born in this form of rebirth and it is the karma which sustains the present state of mind residing in the body without leaving the body, yet it is due to karma.
In the example of two papers glued together, the two papers being retained and separated is due to the glue. Glue is the one which sustains the staying together of the two papers. Like that in our case of body and mind staying together and not let separated is due to karma. Karma is the one which sustains the two to be together. Now in the case of the example, if the glue dries up therefore it becomes no more effective as a glue, then the paper is separate if it ever happens.
The paper is separate. More like that when karma expires then the body and the mind separates. Until then, it would be retained. In brief, separation and staying together both are the workings of Karma. For the body and the mind to remain together in good rebirth is due to good karma.
So I appreciate that. I actually spoke good karma in English. So like that, for the body and the mind to be staying together in bad rebirth is due to bad karma. We then ask presently where is our mind in our personality residing. To start with, if we recall the earlier divisions of mind as two types of consciousnesses, we say in the case of the sensory consciousnesses it is quite clear that the sensory consciousness resides with the senses so it is within the range of the body where the senses As far as the mental consciousness goes, it resides not on the senses but with the mind.
At any rate or at any event we can say personally or as an ordinary person with the body and mind staying together we can say our mind both the sensory consciousness and the mental consciousness, both are residing in the body, and that is what is meant by residing. In the case of mental consciousness, although it doesn’t depend on concrete form to reside, it still needs a basis to live or to reside. That basis at the moment as ordinary being with concrete body it is within the body. Our body is like the motel. Our mind which is of two types, sensory consciousness and the mental consciousness is like the guest in the motel. Inside that motel, which is the body, the mental consciousness is like the chief boss or supervising everything going about and being done through the mind, its working.
The five sense consciousnesses are like the room boys or the orderlies are positioned on the five senses and having positioned them there on the five senses, the mind thus goes about with its function and so forth. But like in the case of a normal guest staying at motel, when the time is up the guest would leave the motel. Similarly, the mind as well would leave eventually the body and go to next rebirth. Here in trying to ascertain that the body is, the mind is emptiness of inherent existence, one looks at successive points about the mind in relation to its residence and workings so forth such as although the mind resides in the senses but it does not reside inherently or it does not truly resides in them. Similarly, although mind perceives external things and objects and so forth, it does not inherently or truly perceive them.
Similarly, the mind, although it is residing, but it does not reside inherently neither in the senses nor on the external objects. Similarly, mind does not exist inherently or truly in any other areas or avenues apart from these already mentioned ahead. So in these successive ways of looking at the mind we find that mind is not an inherently existing entity. Also the mind is not to be found existing inhaling in the inner organs of the body such as intestines and so forth. Also, mind is to be found not inherently existing on the external limbs such as hand, feet and 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 the respective object factor. This means the eye sense, the eye consciousness depends for arising solely on frames 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 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 factor, 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 than, 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 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.
So 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 our consciousness perceiving flower without firstly the flower being there. If the flower and essence perceiving it are formed simultaneously, here the word formed and existing is always the 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 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 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 in the beginning, in the first place formed to
Yeah. 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 the rest of 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.
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. 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 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, 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, 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 not 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. It might perhaps seem, laughter part was, it might perhaps seem very complex in going through all this list of ruling out, ruling out,, but the essence is to try and 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 existing earlier than the sound actually produced, that would be wrong. If and the 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 OM is produced afterwards subsequent to the actual sound being there. But even in that case, although it is produced later on, that very fact that it is produced afterwards indicates it’s not an inherently existing phenomena, it is a dependent phenomenon.
So 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. With the tongue consciousness, when there is a very delicious cake served with 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 exists after the cake being there, 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. The reason for that is because if the mind, let’s say, supposedly is inherently existing, then it would mean the 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 be able to attain liberation.
They would 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 have receive happiness and so forth by having removed the 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 thrust and implication of that point would be the mind with all its present ignorance, true existence grasping and 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 parts or the impurities of 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 higher 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 cover 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 arises 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 others, 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. That very lack lack of independence independent existence because
Of being dependent on others. That very lack is what is called the view, the understanding of emptiness. Then there is the emptiness of lack of independent existence. Together comes the view of dependent arising. If all phenomena arise by dependence on others, then 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 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 it is being dependent, the outcome produced by that dependence would be good and out of that good outcome would be the experiencing of happiness. This would illustrate the way how happiness and suffering are produced by good and bad outcome in the first place depending on good and bad reliance.
Depending on that dependence, bad reliance would mean depending on what harms others. If what one is depending on 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 outcome or negativities would follow suffering, experiencing suffering. 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 practice the behavior of not hurting others, 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 vehicles, 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 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 dependence on others. If one harms others then one has no Dharma practice. Many many one has not been in 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 two hands are posed, it’s not good. If it’s something like this, meaning 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 again through what the teaching says, then obviously the practice is not present in yourself. If you find what you do really accords with the teachings then the practice is complete in you. Okay. So we shall stop here for tonight. If there are any questions we’ll leave a few minutes for that.
I think a more sophisticated view or a modern scientific view would be that So what would you describe the functioning of the brain? What would I describe it as? You can describe it internally from one’s experience which would be normal or you can describe it externally by means of physiological things like electrical impulses and so on. The shock of the electric impulse would not be described as the functioning of the brain because we can look at and 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 will be aversion or dislike but that does not mean the way the forms appear is the functioning 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, life can exist in the next four rebirth forms or transmissions or the earlier saying in form and formless realm. But of course how far they accept beyond this life is their problem. You show form is not emptiness. Why have thousands of Buddhist practitioners throughout the years spent fantastic amount of energy in producing That does not mean form is absolutely not existing.
It is emptiness of inherent existence. There is a form that exists, so it is worthwhile to engage into all those exquisite productions or whatever. Very distant relative of Brian. But any 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, 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 beginningless time. So 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, 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
Humans in area around what is now Tibet. Come into being and then it disintegrates, it gets destroyed and then it gets re re formed and re exist and so forth based on that non ending cyclic formation and destruction, it is explained in case one such formation and destruction. Firstly, the previous world would be destroyed by destruction by fire where the seven suns would shine fiercely or scorchingly in the sky and the world would burn. Seven in this present, the world would burn and that then the one world would finish and later on there would be interim period of vacant and formation and so forth. And then when the new, this time, all this quite ready for rehabilitation, then one single celestial being from the upper celestial realm would fall down in bad rebirth and be born as a human in this new to be habitated earth or the Southern Continent of the world and then it would increase with further and further through rebirths from other realms.
In the case of Tibet’s origination, that monkey was the emanation of Bodhisattva Ārya Avalokiteśvara and the ogress or the female was an emanation of Ārya Tārā. It is claimed that Tibetans are of same blood and flesh of those two beings because they came forth from the union of those two. But there’s no So from Buddhist perspective, evolution would be ruled out. It would be ruled out and the way Buddhist explanation about human species origination in context of one formation of the old system goes is that very first human born from celestial realm as a human. He is out sorry.
He or she. It it anyway, it that human is a huge one. So that’s where the latter part was implying implying how it is contrary directly with the evolution where evolution as you would describe starts from more primitive species of amoeba and so forth, fish and then human. Instead, the very first human is a huge one. So so huge.
And the reason why he or he is so huge is because being born from celestial realm, obviously indicating the person had done some virtuous actions in the past. Out of merits or of virtuous actions there was the ripening of karma, receiving karma as with a huge body and the body having natural light of illumination without depending on external light and able to survive on meditation, concentration as food, not depending on other gross or substantial food and so forth. But later on when the world that one system world grows ahead in time, then the humans become more non-virtuous in their doings and so forth, and out of that they lose their previous good qualities about the size of the body, radiance and so forth. They become smaller and smaller, the radiance from light loses and they become more and more dependent on external source of sustenance and so forth. Finally as it goes in the system of one universe system, humans can go down as short life as ten years being the longest lifespan.
In the beginning at that time, the lifespan of humans are beyond conventional count and then it decreases into thousands, ten thousands, and then into ten thousand, then a few thousand, then one hundred years, and then it decreases fifty years at the most, sixty years at the most, and finally no more than ten years. Bodily size becomes shorter and shorter and shorter. Later on, it will come to a point at ten years of maximum lifespan that the cow dung would become like a delicacy to eat. No implication intended. This has got no reflection on short people born these days.
As far as the sensory consciousnesses go, there are not much of a difference to whatever different level of people. They don’t constitute much in terms of spiritual growth and so forth because sensory consciousness has more to do with seeing, hearing, taste and so forth. So what really matters would be as the question would be mental consciousness and that is where the quality and difference of advancement or lagging behind would mean, matter so much because every excellent qualities in training our mind to attain liberation, enlightenment has to be generated on our mental consciousness. It is on the mental consciousness we have to develop or produce compassion, bodhicitta and so forth. And in the case of mental impaired people and more specifically let’s say people with high degree of anxiety and so forth, well the obvious cause for that would be that they I mean that’s like basically speaking from a teaching point of view that it is basically due to them having brought anxiety and so forth to other people or beings in previous lives that the same karmic backlash has been ripened upon them.
That’s how they experience and so forth. Then with regards to those gone insane and mentally retarded and so forth, there is damage to the present state of mental consciousness due to previous life’s actions and the imprint left by previous life’s actions. So until that karmic imprint expires, there would be continued sort of similar mental problems and so forth. Mhmm. That would be due to a coma and completely due to it.
The accident would be a condition for the dropping of karma.