Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Geshe Pema Tsering anchors this 76-minute session with a simple question: if you investigate a car — its bonnet, wheels, and parts — where exactly is the car? There is no carness to be found, only parts, labels, and causes assembled together. This is the entry point to the actual meditation on emptiness in the Seven Points of Mind Training, applied in three stages: to external objects, to the mind perceiving them, and to the investigating awareness itself. A pointed clarification explains the Tibetan grammatical distinction between two types of negation — one implying something else in its place, one implying nothing at all — to show what the meditator rests on after analysis. A wide-ranging Q&A covers the momentary nature of mind, the brain-mind relationship, the subtle wind-mind said to survive death, and a computer-screen analogy for how one simple thought actually contains dozens of distinct moments of consciousness.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 2005 06 12 MT.mp3
UUID: 8db0676c-d36d-4b8d-a211-0336d85d1e40
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Mind Training (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2005-06-12
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 76.1 minutes
Words: ~6,757
All sentient beings want to experience happiness and no sentient beings want to experience suffering. In this way they are exactly the same as us. So because they are exactly the same as us, the only thing really for us to do is to try and find a way to stop them experiencing suffering as well as to stop ourselves experiencing suffering. So the best way that we can do this is through developing the mind of enlightenment to the bodhicitta, which is the intention and the aspiration to first of all attain Buddhahood and then lead all sentient beings out of suffering. So the best way for us to develop this state of mind, or one of the best ways for us to develop this state of mind, is through the meditation that exchanges self for others,
The meditation in which we start to cherish others the way that we cherish ourselves. So this is the text that we’re looking at today. So please think that you, by listening to this text, you’ll develop understanding of the mind training, through that, you will develop the qualities needed to become a Buddha. Okay. So last week, the spot we were up to was we were in the preliminary practices of the meditation session on the seven points of mind training.
So this is the preliminaries of the meditation session. The first one we did was the preliminaries in general. This is the preliminaries of the meditation session. And it said that after positioning yourself cross legged or comfortably on a cushion or a chair, then we focus on our in and out breath. And when we’re able to stabilize our focus so that we can count to twenty one in and out breaths, this means that our mind has become stable enough for us to start focusing on objects of the meditation.
So after we’ve done that, so Then after stabilizing our mind through focusing on the breath, then we should and making our body, mind and speech stable through this practice. We should try and concentrate on the idea of what’s called a relative bodhicitta or the thought to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings for as long as we are able to maintain our concentration. So, we can think about benefits of developing this way of thinking or think about the thought itself. The more that we can concentrate on this, after stabilising our mind through breathing meditation, the more beneficial it will be because this thought is the most beneficial thought that we can have. Alright.
So this session that we can meditate on the first part of the second point of the seven points of mind training, which focuses on Absolute bodhicitta, which is another way of saying, and focuses on emptiness, then, it starts with developing the idea that we are entering into session. So we’ve done the preliminary practices, we’ve done the preliminary prayers, preliminary setting of motivation, the preliminary breathing meditation and then the focus on bodhicitta. The actual meditation or the actual hang on a second. That doesn’t work, does it? Because you’ve just been meditating.
Alright. So Geshe-la said it is the real meditation and they said, so does that mean all the stuff that you were doing before meditating on your breath isn’t meditation? And he said, no, it’s preliminary meditation. So, we’ve gone through preliminary meditations and teachings and teachings and teachings and teachings and now we’re up to the real meditation or the main part of the meditation which in this instance is focused on emptiness or ultimate bodhicitta. Emptiness is a synonym of ultimate bodhicitta.
So, we have this idea then that we are entering into a session of meditation on emptiness or on Śūnyatā. And the way that we approach this session is first of all by examining. We examine phenomena, we examine our minds and we examine the examiner. And through this process we come to the conclusion that all phenomena lack inherent existence and having developed that certainty we focus on that point of meditation for as long as we can. So in this way when we are analyzing we’re developing wisdom perceiving emptiness and when we are focused on, what we’ve analyzed, on the results of what we’ve analyzed, then we are single pointedly concentrating on emptiness and this develops capacity for concentration, which eventually leads to the development of the mental state of tranquility or śamatha.
Alright. So the first part of the meditation on emptiness deals with looking at what’s called objects that we focus on with our mind. Alright. So first of all, we focus on the the lack of the nature the lack of the nature of all the objects that we focus on with our mind. So that is to investigate to see that all of the everything that we see, all of the beings that we interact with, all of the smells that we smell, the tastes that we taste, the what’s left?
Things that we hear or the sounds that we hear or the tactile sensations that we have. None of these actually exist by themselves. They only exist in a conventional way. If we investigate, we don’t find any solidly existent external phenomena at all. And this is why the next line of the root text which is the first line of the second section says, train in seeing all phenomena as like a dream.
So the way that we perceive them is mistaken. The way that we look at things is incorrect. We look at things as if they inherently exist, as if they have a true nature of their own, but in fact all they do is appear, all they do is conventionally exist. So we need to train ourselves here in beginning to see that the way that things appear to us is actually a similitude or a facsimile of the way that they actually are. Because the way that they actually appear to us is as if they are inherently existent external solid entities that aren’t dependent, that aren’t interdependent.
And the way that they actually exist is that there is not a single atom or not a single single atom that inherently exists. Alright. So there’s not a single atom that we can establish by itself. There’s not a single atom that is external to the mind. There’s not a single atom of existence that isn’t merely labeled thus by the mind.
So what this means is that when we investigate, when we use our intelligence to investigate the way that things actually are as opposed to the way that they naturally appear to us without investigating, then we find that we won’t be able to find even an atom of inherently existent substance. We will find that all things are empty of such a way of abiding. So, without looking, then things appear to us. Without looking, then we experience things. So, we have to say that things conventionally exist, but they exist by the conventions that we label them with.
But if we start investigating those conventions, if we start investigating the labels that we put on things and we try and find the essence of those things. If we try and find the thing that makes them them, that makes those labels that we give them truly existent, then we can’t find anything. And so the process is that without investigation, things exist. And with investigation, they don’t. And so, we need to contemplate and analyse and contemplate on this with relation to the first line from this, section.
So this something that’s difficult for us to just think right off the bat. You know, oh, the things don’t inherently exist. They are merely like a dream. It’s difficult for us to think like this because it’s not the way we’ve trained ourselves to think. It’s not the habit we have when we perceive objects.
So the way that we generally relate to objects is the way that they appear to us when we haven’t investigated them. So, take for example a car. If we see a car, we don’t think, Oh, that is merely like a dream and doesn’t really exist. When we see a car, we think, that’s the thing that I paid a lot of money for, and is therefore very important to me. And it is of course, exists.
It’s red. It goes. It takes me places. It’s a it’s an important tool for my, work. It has all of these functions.
It has all of these qualities. I can see its shape. I can see its colour. I can get in it. I can drive places.
Of course it exists. And besides, I paid a lot of money for it. It has to exist. So because of this, we put a lot of importance to the car. This is the way it exists for us.
If we start investigating and we go, ‘Okay, where’s the car?’ We see a collection of things. We can see a collection of parts. We see a collection of parts and functions and importance that we’ve put onto it, and that makes up our whole idea of car. But if we start investigating the car, we can’t find what it is that actually makes the car. Is the car underneath the bonnet?
If we just had the bonnet, would that be a car? If we just had a wheel, would that be a car? If we start investigating the car, we can’t find anything that makes that a car. All we can find is a collection of things coming together that we’ve labeled a car. There’s no inherently existent car there.
There’s no inherently existent or substantially existent thing there. Despite that fact, despite what we can’t find when we investigate it, we still relate to that car as being an inherently existent, self important thing. Alright. So it’s not to say that the car doesn’t exist at all. It’s not to say that the car is a non existent thing that, you know, because that would defy our experience.
We see the car. We we interact with the car. We can see it. We’re not it’s not a matter of thinking that it doesn’t exist at all. What’s we’re refuting is the way that it appears to us to exist.
So the way that it appears to us that it exists is as an independent entity that has an essence of its own that somehow has the ability to sustain itself. And this is the way we’re refuting that it exists. If we if we can’t say it doesn’t exist at all, we’re saying it doesn’t exist the way that we interact, the way that it appears to us as existing, the way that we, relate to the car doesn’t exist. Yeah. The way that we, hold on to the car doesn’t exist.
So we can’t find if we look into the car, we can’t find the thing that makes it a car. We can only find parts that make it a car. And we can say there’s this part and this part and this part, and when they all come together, they create a car. So to label the parts of a car and not only the parts of a car, but the causes and conditions that cause the parts of the car to come into existence. So it goes on forever.
There’s an there’s multitude of causes and conditions that came together to bring about car, alright, or this car. So not only the parts, but the parts of the parts or the causes, the the beings that made the the parts and so on. There’s all of this process goes involved to that. So, when all of those things come together for us to say that’s a car, it’s still a valid thing. It’s a valid thing to say, but it’s not valid for us to go around with the idea that we usually have that comes along with that, that somehow there’s something, there is a carness to the car that makes it a car.
There’s an inherent existence to that car that means it is a valid object to grasp onto, that it’s a it’s a something that is worth investing in. No, that’s not saying. Investing that kind of there’s something that’s worth investing that kind of existence in. I forgot the last bit. So then when we can’t find it, when we can’t find what we’re looking for, the same process applies to all phenomenon.
They appear to us, they conventionally exist because we relate to them on that conventional level, but when we start investigating them, we can’t find them. And this is why this line says, All phenomena are like a dream, in that they appear, but we can’t find their true existence when we go looking for them. Alright. So, this is the way that we relate in this meditation. This is the way we relate to external objects.
Is, which is the literal translation of the word that’s used is that which is held. That is things that we perceive, things that we hold on to as that we mentally hold on to as being intrinsically existent. The next section is to deal with the holder. So, the holder is a synonym for saying the mind. The mind is the thing that holds on to things as being inherently existent.
So first of all, we focused on that which is external and and found that there is no inherent existence or there’s no independent autonomous existence in the external things. Then we start then we turn our focus in on the thing that is thinking that or not thinking that which is the mind. And the next line deals with the mind because it says investigate to find the awareness is unborn. Investigate to find awareness is unborn. And so this means in the same way as the objects that our mind focuses on, are seen to be empty, the mind is holding onto those objects is also empty.
And so the mind is the thing or the thing that holds onto objects. Alright. So it’s defined as being the thing that holds or that takes object, something that takes an object in this case. So when we start trying to find the mind, if we start trying to find the mind, then we see that it isn’t something that ever ceases. There’s no moment where we don’t have, an experience of mind.
But there’s also no generation of mind. So the mind doesn’t cease, it doesn’t generate, there’s no regeneration to it. And so we don’t find something that just comes into being and we don’t find something that just goes out of being. And then we need to look at when it, whether it abides, whether we have an abiding experience of the mind. But if we start to investigate the mind, we don’t find, we find that it can’t be established by its characteristics and we find that it can’t be established by its parts.
So we can’t establish it by its characteristics and that we can’t find a color for it. Mind has no color. We can’t find a shape for it. We can’t say the mind has this shape. And we can’t separate it into parts.
We can’t say this is one side of the mind, this is another side of the mind. There is no sorry. So in the same way as all bodies that we experience, all of things that we experience as being existent have parts, we can’t, divide up the mind. So if you say our body has arms, it has legs, it has feet, it has a head, we can’t say, okay, this is the head of the mind, this is the legs of the mind, this is the arms of the mind. And if we investigate in this way, we can’t separate the mind out.
So this is this would be another characteristic of something that inherently existed, but we can’t find that. So in this way, we have to come to the conclusion that there is no intrinsic characteristics or there is no intrinsic substance to the mind, that we can say, okay, that’s mind. And so once we’ve done that then the concentration after this investigation and the concentration for the meditation is the mind hasn’t ever been generated since beginningless time. It says, since forever there has been no generation of mind. So that’s the thought that after that process of analysis, that’s the thought for the second part of this meditation on emptiness.
Alright. So, the first thing that we looked at was how things that we grasp at are, the objects, external objects, aren’t aren’t inherently existent. And then we turned around and looked at the subject which is perceiving those objects and investigated and we couldn’t find any any inherently existent or truly established or any essence to the mind either which is the object with the mind which is the subject. The next part is then looking at the combination and saying how all phenomena are not inherently existent so they’re all subjects and objects. And section of the root text that deals with this is a line that says, the antidote is naturally liberated.
And what this means is that not only external objects and internal objects, but even the mind that is investigating and finding that there is no external objects and internal objects is also not inherently existent. Alright. So even the even the way out of Samsāra, even the past, even the the even the thing that is stopping the grasping at inherent existence isn’t inherently existent. Even the investigation that stops grasping an inherent existence isn’t inherently existent. So even the investigation itself isn’t inherently existent.
So even the the thing that abandons their misperception of reality and sees it as being inherently existent or truly truly established or a real thing, that doesn’t doesn’t exist inherently by itself. Alright? So, the abandoning itself isn’t truly established, isn’t a real thing. A really real thing. It’s a kind of real thing, but not really real thing.
Alright. So, this in this process then, we have gone through and established that nothing external can be truly established, nothing internal can be truly established. Okay. So we and not even the things that liberate us from misperceiving things as being truly established are truly established. This means that all phenomena, there’s not one phenomena that we can find that we can say, that’s what that is and it inherently exists.
It truly it can I can establish it as being an independent thing that in that way? So in in this way then we have nothing that we can establish. I’m trying to find very simple to put very complex Tibetan words. Alright. So, this way, after we’ve investigated all of these things, all of the ways the way that things appeared to us, we find that the way that things appeared to us doesn’t actually exist.
Alright, so, look things appear to us as being in a certain way as having a certain, essence, as having a a inherent existence. It’s it’s something about them that personally makes them exist or individually makes them exist. And when we investigate, we can’t find that. When we start looking into those objects, we can’t find that. And what we’re left with then is, oh, things is this thought.
Oh, things don’t exist the way they appear to me as existing. Alright? So that’s a negation. They don’t appear to me the way they appear they exist. So that means that you’re lacking something.
And that’s what’s called a non affirming negative. Alright. There’s this thing in Tibetan. Right? This is why I’m just saying, oh, bullies.
And guess, you know, they’re not there. Anyway, there’s a you know how we say in English, we say, it’s not. It’s not. Alright? And that’s we only have one way of saying it’s a negation.
So I would say, they will use it like not and no and things like that. In Tibetan, you have a distinction between two things. So Alright. Okay. So So they differentiate when when when they’re negating something, we’ll just say it’s not.
Yeah? And in Tibetan, there’s two ways of saying it’s not. Alright? And one of them is to say it’s not that, but it’s something else. Yeah?
And the other way is to say it’s just not. There’s nothing there. Alright? So if if I’m saying that there’s no cup on the table, use one word. And if I’m saying the cup isn’t a pig, I’m using another word for it isn’t.
Does that make sense? So there isn’t here and then there, it isn’t that. Yes? And so at the end of this process, you’re not left with a it isn’t that. Right?
You’re left with a it isn’t. Does that make sense? So I guess it’s like the way you say it’s it isn’t is. It’s not there. It’s there’s nothing there.
It’s not like, oh, this cup is in a pig. You’re saying the cup isn’t there. Alright. So then, you’re going through the process where you’ve you’ve seen external objects don’t exist, the investigator itself doesn’t exist. And then, in this way, you have subdued your mind from chasing after any other external or internal objects, from any sense of dualism, any sense of this and that.
Yes? And so, having subdued your mind through this investigation, rest your mind on that thought. You rest your mind on this thought that nothing inherently exists. Nothing has a things don’t the things don’t exist the way they appear to you as existing and that lack of something is a negation that doesn’t affirm anything else. Alright?
Yeah. Yeah. So, that resting on that thought is your is the is the Shamatha meditation or the resting meditation. So, you’ve analyzed everything and you come to the point where you’re resting on that thought of the lack of things being the way you thought they were. So, you’re resting on that thought.
And then, when you’re resting on that thought, then you practice Shamata or calm abiding tranquility meditation in this. Your mind starts chasing after something, then you use the analysis that you went through beforehand to go, that doesn’t exist the way it appears to exist, and you come back to resting on the thought you were. So, in this way, you’re getting rid of agitation and you’re getting rid of you’re brightening your mind if you start sinking into a stupor or a drowsy space. And that’s the that’s actual meditation on emptiness. In this way, you’re developing your perception of the lack of inherent existence and calm abiding.
So if you have any questions, please ask. Yes, Hiro. I’m sure Hiro has got questions about emptiness. Well, that’s a good start. The what of the object?
Yeah. That that’s information. Yeah. I know what you mean. Object.
Do you mean like characteristics and stuff like that? Within subject or object. The the the the the like stuff knowing stuff about the object or the characteristics. Do you know characteristics? You know that word?
Look it up. Because I think what you mean instead of information. C a oh, don’t ask me how to spell. It’s a h a r. Uh-huh.
Okay, cool. All subjects have characteristics. All objects have characteristics. So every phenomenon has characteristics. Both.
Both. Yeah? The thing is that none of those objects can be truly established by their characteristics. Because if they could be truly established by their characteristics, then they wouldn’t need to change. Yeah?
So you’d say that the this the characteristics of this object mean that it’s this, then it wouldn’t change. It wouldn’t there would be no flux. Yeah. That’s okay. So we say we can say that all phenomena have characteristics.
Yeah? That is both subjects and objects, but we can’t say that any of those phenomena can be truly established. Yeah? And that means that we can’t say that any of them exist ultimately because they have characteristics. From the kind of characteristics?
Characteristics? Is that the same in subject and object? Uh-huh. Every single phenomenon has a different set of characteristics. And so that means that every single object has a different set of characteristics, and every single subject has a different set of characteristics.
Okay. Alright. There isn’t a specific you have a specific characteristic for every oh, sorry, characteristics for every object and every subject. But there is a general definition for that which is an object and that which is a subject that covers all of them. So the general definition for that which is a subject is that which Oh.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay. So, the definition of an object is that which appears to a clear and knowing mind.
Right? And the definition of a subject is that which can that which has the capacity to register an object. So the object. So the subject and the object depend on each other. Okay.
So for example, Geshe said, this will make it easier for you. The if Okay. So that which appears to the mental consciousness, which is a subject, is form. So anything that we see is an object of the subject, which mental is the sorry, the visual consciousness, the eye consciousness. So the eye consciousness, which is a type of mind, has a object, which is a form.
Alright? But there’s all sorts of ones like that. So types of characteristics. Characteristics. Because all phenomena have characteristics, and all phenomena are limitless.
So therefore, their characteristics would be more than limitless. Yeah. It’s like a number of sheep. A number of sheeps? Yeah.
He referenced so too. One lifetime is very short. Yeah. You don’t get to live for more than about a hundred years. That’s not much.
Yeah. Yeah. This one. Yeah. Okay.
Jackie? Jackie He said, Jackie probably understands emptiness, so what’s he got to say? Yeah. Do they still what? Appear.
Yeah. With template or a parachute, presumably, you could say, compared to existing, you mean they had to take the path. Uh-huh. Yeah. That’s like yeah.
I was thinking maybe the ghostly template, you could say, there’s a was it Plato’s idea of another place where there’s ideals of everything? Can I translate that instead of a ghostly template? I was saying. Because it’s just that if I try and that that’s a more tricky but he had that, you know, he had that idea that philosophy of these things that exist here as reflections of something that are ideal somewhere else. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Guess to say if something was inherently existent, there’d be no or truly established, then there would be no parts. Right?
You couldn’t say that this is one part of this or this is another part of that because it exists by itself. It’s able to establish itself. It’s not reliant on anything else to establish itself. So it wouldn’t be necessarily the idea of some essence remaining as you wouldn’t be able to take it apart. There would be nothing to take apart.
There would be if there’s something to inherently exist, it it can’t be taken apart. For something to be truly established, you can’t have parts. But did you say did you miss that bit? Okay. If the mind was something that inherently existed, first of all, Geshe-la said also, weren’t wasn’t wasn’t she listening?
We just said that. Okay. Is this it it the reason the mind doesn’t exist is because there’s no point in which you can say, okay, that was when mind started. And there’s no point where you can say this is where mind finishes. Yeah?
And there’s nothing that there’s no there’s no thing that we can say, okay, that I can define as mind. Right? So we can’t say where it started. We can’t say where it finished, and we can’t say how it abides. We can’t say, did it, exist as this form or this, this color or anything like that.
It has none none of those characteristics. So, the the thing to look at with mind is if something inherently existed that was mind, then we’d be able to find it, which we can’t. And we’d be able to find it in time, which we can’t. We can’t say this is mind and point at it. We can’t if if we think about it in terms of of our perceptions, then the perception’s gone already by the time that we’ve, we’ve we’ve located it.
So there is no point where we can say, okay. That’s mind. I said, so I guess the Scientists would say that you could point to the origination of mind because you would say as soon as there is brain, there is mind, and if there is no brain, there is no mind. So, would say that there is a beginning to mind. And he said, well, for because the other thing is this word mind.
The word that we’re translating is mind into English is three Tibetan words that all have the connotation connotation of something that lasts for more than a split second, and there’s like sixty four minds in the click of a finger. Alright? So your mind is an instance of knowing. Yeah? So anyway, he said that they’re right to a certain certain degree, they’re absolutely right, that most of the minds we experience come about in dependence on the brain.
Yeah. Most of our sense consciousnesses and all of those things all come about in dependence on the brain, and even our grosser levels of mental consciousness come about in dependence on the brain. But there is a subtler level of mind, alright, which is not something that also needs a form, but it has a very subtle form, it’s called a subtle wind, that isn’t dependent on the brain and that’s what continues on after death. So he said, in general, when you talk about mind, mind comes about in dependence on form and the form comes about in dependence on mind, so they’re mutually dependent. Yeah?
And most of thoughts that we have, most of the minds we experience come about in dependence on our brain. But there is a very subtle one that doesn’t. Right. That kind of way because I was just I had to I was thinking, oh, no. How do I explain this?
And I just said to Geshe-la, the I this is difficult for to translate. And I said, think that I’m gonna have to use the words of the the the terms that they use in Hindu philosophy, even though I don’t necessarily know if that was where you’re coming from because there’s only way I could translate it. Right? Because this this concept is very is not any it’s not in Buddhism at all. It’s only in Buddhism as a way that as a a philosophy to be refuted in the in terms of ancient Hindu philosophy.
Yeah? Okay. So, not only do they say don’t not only do Buddhists not say that there isn’t not only do they not say is that a double negative? Not only do they say that there isn’t a, like a communal mind. Is there any way yeah?
Like a yeah? But each individual, experiences a, a succession of different minds. So not even our minds are singular. Yeah? We have a continuum of different moments of consciousness with different minds that exist in as like six they say sixty four minds in a snap of a finger.
Alright? So not only do they say there is an external or a mind beyond the senses that is with others, yeah, but each of our individual minds is also not a singular thing. Alright? We have a continuum of minds as opposed to a mind in Buddhism. Yeah?
Okay. So you and so in this way, from a Buddhist perspective, it’s also not correct to say that that exists in any way. Alright? That you can’t say its definition or its characteristic is that it is clear and knowing. Alright.
So each moment of consciousness is clear and knowing. It knows its object and it’s not obstructed by anything. Alright. But there is a succession of moments of this mind that is clear and knows its object. It’s not obstructed and knows its object.
There’s no no thing beyond that, and there and there certainly isn’t anything that’s shared with others, any any mind shared with others. Okay. So Geshe-la said, this doesn’t work for all phenomenon and but he thinks that our minds work a little bit like a computer. In this, there is a If you watch a computer screen, there’s all sorts of things that can come up on the computer screen. Yeah.
And it’s not as if all of those are present in the first moment of the screen, but you can bring everything all up onto it. All sorts of things can come up onto it. And you can have things flash up onto it if you’re on the Internet and so on. Right? So there’s all sorts of processes that are going on there, but you can’t say, hang on, I should’ve I should’ve he actually said, our minds are like that which appears on a computer screen, not the computer screen itself.
So you have all sorts of things flashing up on there. You have all different things that can come up and you can use it in different ways. Right? But you don’t say, okay, that for example, one format is apparent at one time when it’s not and you’re using another one, that has the potential to go to that? And he said that the more you know about a computer, the more you can get out of it.
And he said, it’s the same thing with your mind. The more you know about your mind, the more that you can can use it. The more different ways you can use it, the more you can can focus on one thing. So, in the same way as someone who knows more about computers can get it to do more things than he knows what to do with a computer. People who know things about their mind can do can get them their mind to do exactly what they want it to do.
Alright. Okay. You opened up a can of worms, Hiro. Okay. So first of all, I was going backwards and forwards with Geshe-la because there’s real problem going backwards and forwards between English with this word mind.
Yeah? And the Tibetan definitions, like the Tibetan Buddhist. Right? So So I’m sure if you didn’t go up and ask some Tibetan yak herder about it, then they wouldn’t be able tell you. But if you talk to Geshe-la, yeah, his idea of what this word mind is is very specific.
Yeah? And the way that we use the word mind is kind of, ah, right? Comparatively. Okay. So when he uses the word mind, he’s talking about anything that is an instance of clear knowingness.
Alright? And there is said to be there’s this this term that’s called momentariness, which means in every moment you have change. Yeah? And in every moment, you are supposed to have like heaps of different minds operating in your in your mental continuum. Okay?
So you have Geshe-la said that we’re constantly that they’re divided into I think eighty-four different types of mind. Some of which are with us or constantly and some of them aren’t. And then you have main minds and mental factors. So there’s aspects to the mind and then there is actual main objects of consciousness as well. So, you’ve all sorts of things going on in every instance of this mental continuum.
So, you have the five senses, you have what are called the four omnipresent features and the five changeable features and this lots. Geshe said, too much to talk about now. So, okay, let’s say for an example, what we would see as a simple perception of a car we like. We’d say, we look at a car and go, I like that car. Alright?
We’re just thinking that’s very simple thought. In actual fact, there is a lot of minds, yeah, or moments of consciousness happening within that simple thought. First of all, we have the mental the sorry, the eye consciousness, focusing on a physical object. Yeah? And then we have the discrimination to see that this is a car and not something else.
Alright? So we have a visual, then we have discrimination, and then we may have discriminating thought about the color of the car as well as and not just that it is a car. So we have the it’s a car, it’s a color. And then we may have a sense, a conceptual idea that comes along with that that that’s a good car. Alright?
That we see there’s different facets of the car and we add them up and come up with a concept that that’s a good car. Along with this idea of that’s a good car, may also come up with a sense of I want. Yeah? And that’s so that’s another subtle mind which is a desirous mind. So and then from that process, we may so we’ve got a concept.
Sorry. We may go on to something else. We may go on to a destabilized feeling because of our, attachment to the car. So in this whole process we have a visual, consciousness happening. We also have two types of discrimination at least.
Yeah? And then we also have, the discrimination to say it’s a car, then we have the concept of it being a good car, and then we have the afflictive emotion of desire arising with it, and we also may have a feeling of disquiet or destabilization because of that desire. Alright. So all of those processes are happening in what we would generally just think of as one thought. Alright.
And each of those individual perceptions, each of those individual moments of consciousness is called a separate mind in Buddhism. Way up. If you could freeze a nanosecond in time, you would find that clarity. Would An what? A nanosecond in time would find the clarity.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Be able to see that perception. Be able to see that. You’ll be able to have You’ll have the clarity.
Alright. Sorry. I just had a bit of trouble. So I was like, if you you free you don’t have a freeze frame words, surprisingly enough, in Tibetan. And then I said, if you stop the film he goes, well, if you stop the film, you’re not seeing anything.
And then I was like, no. You stop it, but you leave an image there. And he’s like, like, What image? You have to be very precise when you speak to Geshees. We finally got there, and he said, Well, that’s what I was talking about in the teaching anyway.
He that’s the that was the process at the end where you’ve gone through all of this and then you’re stopping your mind on something. The tranquility meditation is this. It’s focusing if you’re able to focus your mind single pointedly on one object without a a a bewildering array of different minds coming up in your continuum, then this is what happens. In this case, you’re doing it on the concept of or emptiness. And things don’t appear the way that they we think that they do.
Yeah? So they think things aren’t the way they appear to us to be. So if we’re able to get an insight into that and then focus single pointedly on that, it’s like we’ve frozen all the other minds. It’s like we’ve stopped all the other minds, and we can see that very clearly because we don’t have all the other congestion of the other thoughts that we have. That’s us.
Okay. Time is way up. Sorry. Minutes over.