Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The map is not the territory — Ven Jampa Gendun uses this analogy to frame a 46-minute inquiry into what the self actually is. He distinguishes the rationally dissectable self from the emotionally reactive “I” — the one that surges in anger or hurt — arguing that emotional responses, not intellectual analysis, reveal the real object of Buddhist investigation. He isolates three felt qualities of this emotional self: unitary (an indistinct looming mass without parts, like something sensed in a pitch-black room), unchanging (the woodsman’s axe, always the same through three new blades and six handles), and wholly independent of any cause or condition. The second half walks systematically through the five aggregates — form, feeling, perception, mental constructions, and consciousness — testing each as a candidate for this self and finding none qualifies.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 HoM 1993 08 11.mp3
UUID: cbca4134-fdc0-4f93-8097-f5357788dae7
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1993-08-11
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.0 minutes
Words: ~6,039
The bodhisattva vehicle, but does not practice him or practice it him or herself and causes others to hear it. And therefore, that derives his name, hearer vehicle. And we’re talking, we’re trying to get some idea of the fact that the notion that we are operating on the basis of models, cognitive systems is essentially a model builder. That we are involved in the constructions of representations of our world. We, to a large part, understand our world through the models, the representations that we construct about the world.
Sometimes these models, these representations become much more vivid, much more precise and clear to ourselves than the things that they are representative of. We we begin to take what are in fact models, representations of something, as something else as the thing themselves. Let us say we begin to take the map for the territory. We begin to mistake the map, which is simply a symbol of something else for the thing itself, for the actual place, for the actual territory. So this is the the idea that we’re beginning to develop, that we’re working with.
And we’re working with a particular type of model of or self representation at the level of the hearer. A type of self which has qualities such as being unitary, being unchanging and being independent. You know, we believe that there is a thinker thinking our thoughts, that there is a feeler feeling our feelings, that there’s a director overseeing all our actions. There’s something in it. There’s there’s almost a sense that just somebody standing behind you somewhere running the show or feeling the feelings or thinking my thoughts.
There’s an agent involved. You know, some doer behind our deeds. But such a thinker or a feeler, a director or doer is nothing more than a construct of the mind. An eye symbol, a self representation. But we take it to be much more.
We take it to be the eye itself. That there is in fact a doer of our actions, thinker of our thoughts, someone who’s who’s back there behind the stage pulling the ropes, pushing the buttons. Believing that, that is what we perceive. We believe we believe in and perceive an entity, an agent, you know, the subject of who we are at the very core of our being. So in this context, this subject of who we are, this agent at the very core of our being is felt to be, is sensed to be, is perceived to be a partless whole.
It’s it’s it’s unchanging throughout all our life and doesn’t rely upon any condition, any causes. These are some of the qualities that we’re trying to trying to catch a glimpse of when we begin to gain an understanding of this model that we’re working with. Moreover, this model is thought to be me, a self and my the person who I am, this unitary, unchanging, independent self. So, there is a model of such a type of self. But such a model of a self cannot qualify for the self, for the I, the person.
You know, our sense of a unitary, unchanging, independent self cannot be used as evidence that such a type of self exists, but only that we have a model of such a type of self. The map is not the territory. You know, the fact that the senses are susceptible to to illusion, as in the case of when we saw the the coil of striped rope as a snake, is the evidence that our beliefs and our experiences are no guarantee of the validity of the truth of what we perceive. So but okay. We’re beginning to look at the situation.
And you and you may argue, I don’t think of myself as being unitary, unchanging, independent. Again, this is is to miss the point. The self, the I, the person as such is not the problem. You know, we can analyze this quite we can analyze the self quite rationally. We can break it down into its constituent parts.
Buddhism offers many methods or systems of analysis. One of the most common is breaking the self down into five aggregates, forms, feelings, perceptions, thought constructions, and consciousnesses. This is what constitutes the eye. This, this, is no problem. We can see that the the self is a changing composite, a train of events, of complex factors.
So this is just a definition of itself, of of a self. You know, any rational analysis shows us that that this is the case. The question is not why then we The question is not that we can rationally analyze the self into its constituent factors. The question becomes, if that’s the case, why then do we believe emotionally as if we were a an unchanging, unitary, independent self? So when we’re when we’re we’re looking, investigating the nature of the self, we’re not looking for the type of self which can be ascertained through rational, intellectual, analytic investigation, but the type of self which is the object of our emotions, which arises in the course of of feelings.
When one when one responds to events as if one had a self, for example, when one feels very hurt or or feels very offended. Then at that time, one should look to and try to see exactly what it is that’s be that feels hurt, what it what it is that feels offended. You know, for for our our knowledge to go beyond self deception or subjectivism or or misconception or distortion or mere speculation. We have to it needs to be based upon some kind of discipline of systematic investigation and observation into the nature of the object, in this case, self. So if we were to, you know, if we look at our emotional responses and the type of the sense of self that we have in during the course of these emotional responses, One of the first characteristics that we will observe is the self as an individual, partless unit.
When you say something like, I hate I can’t stand you. There’s a sense of the self as being an individual isolated partless whole, a unit. We don’t at that moment, there’s there’s no distinctive parts which are appearing to the mind. No particular features. No individual characteristics.
Just a localized personal entity is appearing to the self. This entity we feel to be the center of our being. I hate you. I. That I, that moment.
It’s just a nebulous mass without any particular parts, without any particular distinctive features is appearing to us at that moment. There’s a sense of itself as being an I unit. This this this I unit encompasses the continuum of our entire lives without any distinction as to, individual moments or stages in the course of our life. The I that, the past, of the present and the future appears as a single homogenous whole. This I unit incorporates encompasses, all our psychophysical features with all, you know, our our body, our mind have many many distinctive features, many parts, the limbs of the body, the of the mind, their various cognitive states, their various emotions, feelings.
But the but this I unit encompasses them as if it was just a homogenous unit. It doesn’t All these various features do not appear. There’s no distinctive features. Just a mass. You know, it’s like if you were laying and trying to get a feeling for what this I unit might be sensed as.
When you’re laying in bed at night in a pitch black room and and you you have some kind of kind of sense, some kind of vague notion that something’s out there, like looming over your bed. Some kind of indistinct mass. You can’t see any of its features. It’s just a sense, some premonition or that there’s some it’s as if you if you reached out, you know, in the darkness, you could feel it. There’s some kind of massive, indistinct object which is kind of looming over your bed, looming over yourself.
I don’t know if you’ve ever felt that. I hope not. It’s not very clear. You know, the you know, I’m just giving you kind of a sense of what it what this unitary quality, this indistinct mass without any particular distinct features, distinguishable features. It’s a looming mass, a unit.
That’s the first quality of this model of the eye that we’re working with. It’s a sense of unitary quality, homogenous. Homogenous means even throughout without any distinct parts. Then there’s the feature another feature of this emotional responsive self which arises, appears to our self, is that it doesn’t change. It’s constant over time.
It appears to be permanent. Know, the I which was born in such and such a place, went to school in such and such a place, moved to another such and such a town, married such and such a person, became old and finally died. That I appears to be unchanging throughout. There is a continuous thread of I ness in our life. And moreover, this I never seems to change.
Another quality of this I, unchanging. We don’t see it’s it’s movement from moment to moment moment. We don’t see its movement, its changing, its qualities varying over the course of time, different places, different stages of our life. The constant unchanging unit. Another feature characteristic of the this emotion, this type of I which rises in the course of emotional responses is that an example of unchanging, unchanging.
It was like it was like the the axe that’s owned by the old woodsman. You know, this this axe which is it’s been his constant companion his whole his whole life. Even though it’s had three new blades and six new handles, he’s it’s been his constant companion his whole life. He wouldn’t trade it for the world. You know, when you have something like that your whole life, you wanna hold on to it, right?
So it’s always been there. It’s it’s a sense, you know. It’s it’s a like it’s always been a constant companion to him. Always been the same, unchangingly there. That kind of thing.
Then finally, there’s the feature of the characteristic of this self which arise in in the course of emotional responses, of an independent self. It appears to not rely upon causes and conditions. And it’s experienced as some kind of isolated autonomous entity. It it exists independent of of our of our of external, social our social world, our our physical environmental world, of our inner world of of physical states, mental states. It’s it’s independent, isolated from all of that.
It doesn’t depend upon our society, our culture, our our the environment. It doesn’t depend upon the physical body or mental state. It’s an isolated independent unit. You know, most of most of our experiences are seen in the in the context of such a soul. You know, someone who is experiencing our experiences, seeing the sights, you know, hearing the sounds, tasting the flavors, thinking our thoughts behind the show.
But but we we have a sense that all of this, this this thinker of our thoughts, the hearer of our hearer of sounds does not depend upon any of these activities itself. You know, it exists as an independent substratum to, to that which is added attributes of experience or accrue. You know, it’s like when we talk like this, it’s like there’s there’s an there’s the idea of and we say things like, you know, like the leaves which change their color over the seasons. You know, first the leaf is green, and then it turns to what? To red, and it turns to yellow, And then it turns to brown.
So if analyze the way we’re speaking about that leaf, there is the notion. There’s the It seems to imply that in some sense, the leaf could hang from that tree without any particular color. That the leaf is the substratum and nature is applying various colors, green and then yellow and red, yellow, brown. That that a substance could exist apart from its attributes. You know, if you peeled away the color of the leaf, you’d find this the leaf without any without any color.
There could be a leaf without color and we’re just nature is simply applying various colors to this basis, this substratum leaf. So behind so we have a sense that behind the thinker is the is the sense of an I thinker whose existence does not depend upon the activity of thinking. That that there behind the act there is an I actor whose existence is not dependent upon acting. But this But the but the thinking of this I thinker and the actions of this I, actor entitle them to any kind of pleasure or pain which such types of activities, accrue. There is an I thinker which does not depend upon the act of thinking.
There is an I actor which does not depend upon the the activity of acting upon doing. So, you know, we very briefly have have described some of the ideas about this self and some of the some of the features characteristic of our of this normal, this this I which appears to us in the course of as an emotional response. So now, you know, we try to gain some kind of conception of what that kind of eye feels like. Some kind of feeling what it looks like. Now we’re going to search for it to see if in fact it exists.
You know, we that we said that words and concepts, models, representations, they stand for something. There’s a correspondence. They re words refer to things out there in reality. And the map stands for the territory. But some types of maps, as we’ve as we’ve discussed, have no correspondence.
And there’s a map in Tolkien’s books. Though they’re elaborately described, you’re never going to find anything in physical reality which corresponds to those locations, to those descriptions. There’s a map with no territory which corresponds to it. So we can have models of things which in fact do don’t correspond to anything in reality. So this is what we have to begin to to investigate and to begin to realize.
If we are beginning to gain some kind of sense of what this model of the eye looks like, appears like, which arises in the course of emotional response. Then we’re going to begin to investigate, does this model correspond to any findable reality? Is there anything which actually corresponds to it in fact? Or is it simply complete fiction, complete illusion, the fabrication of my own mind? So in order to to carry out this this search as systematically as possible so that there’s no doubt left at the end of our in in analysis, know, at the end of our investigation.
We want to be we want to be able to come to some really firm conclusion within our mind. I looked and I looked and I looked and I couldn’t find it. And the reason I didn’t find it can only because it didn’t exist. Because if it exists, I looked in such a way, my method was thorough enough, my procedure of analysis was was exacting enough that if it existed, I would have found it. But I didn’t find it.
Therefore, it doesn’t exist. There can’t be any doubt left over. Maybe it exists in another way. Maybe it exists somewhere which where I didn’t look. If if there’s doubt, if there’s some possibility that we’ve overlooked another some other alternative, then then the the the outcome of the investigation will have no force in our mind.
We’re simply going to conclude my method wasn’t good enough. It it still could exist, but I haven’t found all the possible ways of look where I could look for it. So we have to have a search in a very systematic systematically as possible so that we will be left with no doubt as to in the end. And we we in order to do that, we organize the sum of our experiences into comprehensive categories. And these comprehensive categories are called the five aggregates.
These were you know, we’ve discussed these a long time ago when we discussed the ego in terms in terms of their psychology. But here we’re looking at them in terms as a means to gain insight into selflessness, in terms of what is called the the ontological status of the self. And the ontology of the self is the nature of it, the way it exists, way of it, the nature of its being. So we want to understand the way that the self exists. So we’re looking at the five aggregates aggregates not from a psychological point of view, but in terms of the way the self exists in relationship to these five aggregates.
The five aggregates forms, feelings, perception, thought constructions, and consciousnesses. So they’re called aggregates because if we look if we look at our experience in a dispassionate fashion, all of our experiences arise moment by moment as isolated impersonal events. Events in space and time. The human personality as well as all the objects that we experience, that we all the world of all the objects which are which are constructed by our perception are found to consist only of conglomeration, grouping together, a collection of aggregation of these events. The ceaselessly changing, ceaselessly changing from moment to moment.
So after they have arisen, so so soon after, that it seems simultaneous, we become emotionally involved in them. And we create a whole scenario of self other self in the world. So the the aggregates, you know, we’re gonna go through these five aggregates because this is the way that we’re going to systematically analyze, investigate, search for the self that we’ve we’ve developed some kind of sense of, some kind of feeling for how it would appear and we’re going to actually look for it. You know, where do where will we search for the self? Where does it appear?
You know, I think it seems to appear somewhere over here, on this side of the looking glass. Anyway, when I say, I I can’t stand you. Oh, I’m I’m the most beautiful thing that ever happened. Seems like we’re talking about something over here. Over here.
So we don’t you know, so if we’re going to search for the self, we’re going to that eye, we’re going to look where it appears. You know, it wouldn’t it doesn’t make sense to to look for that that eye in the kitchen while, you know, while it seems to be over here. Or, you know, we where we see the snake, that’s the place that we’re going to look. We want to investigate that place, not over here. To see whether that is a snake, really a snake or not, it would not make sense.
It would not seem rational to look over there. We look at where it’s appearing. Where the eye is appearing is somewhere over here in the case of my body and my my mind. That seems to be the location, roughly speaking, where my eye exists, somewhere around in the proximity of my body and mind. And we simply break up the body and mind into more comprehensive categories, so we can carry on a much more exacting systematic search for that I.
So the body is broken up into the aggregate forms. The mind is broken up into the four mental aggregates, you know, feelings, perceptions, thought constructions, and consciousnesses. So we’re going to look at these and see if we can, logically, intellectually, but then through a matter of a system of actual observation, see if we can find this self, this I. So the aggregate of forms, the first of these five aggregates refers to the body and the environment. You know, or or more in more detail, more specifically, the five sense powers.
Eye, ears, nose, tongue, body sense powers. The eye sense power, the ear sense power, the nose sense power, the nose, nose, the tongue sense power, and the body sense power which pervades the body. And they sense objects. There’s colors and shapes, there’s sounds, there’s smells, there’s flavors, and then there’s objects of touch. So this this is what constitutes the aggregate of forms.
It is of the it is the only aggregate that is corresponds to the material world. And the other four aggregates correspond to the mental side of the body mind complex. So I’m going to be quoting, We take for granted that there is a world out there beyond our senses and that our body part partakes of that world. When we sit down to meditate, it is the body and its environment that first catches our attention. So we can start our investigation there.
I am sitting here because my body is sitting here. Is that I therefore the body? So we can begin some kind of rough investigation of what we mean by I. Why I have a sense that I am sitting here. I can say that because my body is sitting here.
Whatever my body does, I say I do. One can examine the body systematically, taking it limb by limb, organ by organ. Is my hand me? And am I still me without my hand? What is the hand anyway?
Is it still a hand without a finger? Without skin? Without bones? Without flesh? When is it when it’s broken down in this way, one finds that the hand is merely a convenient concept.
There is no such thing as hand as such. It is the same for every part of the body. Examining the body in this way, one may come to the conclusion that I and the body are merely convenient concepts for dealing with the world and experience. They have a certain relative reality but not absolute. In the relative truth, they are streams of events that one identifies and labels as I or body.
But that I or body cannot be said to have lasting separate independent existence. If the body had such existence, it might have been called the self, but it does not have and however much one were to investigate it, it never would have. It is not self, and self is not the body. The same applies applies for the brain, of course. So, you know, investigating the the self, we can begin to observe the self, and we can investigate the various limbs of the self.
Is the hand the eye? Is the arm the eye? Is the foot the eye? Is the leg the eye? Is the trunk the eye?
Is the head the eye? Do any of them, constitute the eye, which has appeared to us to be a unitary, that is a partless, unchanging, independent self. Do any of them qualify, you know, for that? This is a model we have of a self and we’re trying to see whether it corresponds to anything in reality. Is this is this what it corresponds to?
The hand, the arm, the legs, the trunk, the head. Looking through the aggregate of forms. And there’s the aggregate of feelings. So it’s the the the automatic affective reaction to form before any higher conceptual patterns processing begins. The bare feelings are are the bare reaction to what is viewed as attractive.
What we view as attractive is simply, what one would like to pursue, hold on to, or to repeat contact with again in the future. That’s what in dependence upon that what one can sees an object which is conceived of that way, one experiences pleasurable feelings in contact with that object. Displeasurable feelings, objects which appear unattractive, which appear are the types of objects which we want to break off contact with, which we wish to avoid, which we we wish to not repeat contact with again in the future. With we when we meet with those come in contact with those types of objects, we experience negative feelings, displeasure, pain. There are other objects which we have some kind of confusion about.
We have neutral objects. They know we neither want to pursue them nor avoid them. So we develop feelings of indifference and come into contact with them. Feelings here refer specifically to those of pleasure, displeasure and indifference. For example, as one sits in the meditation, one may one may like it and want to stay or one may not and want to leave.
The only other alternative is that one may not care one way or another. Whether whatever wherever we are and whatever we do, we are always experiencing one or another of these three feelings. They are not self, however, because none of them is lasting. They take turns in arising. Now there is happiness, now there is sadness, and so on.
Self could not be the feelings because they are always changing. So, you know, the type of self that we’re looking for that has appeared to us is an unchanging self. The feelings cannot be self because they are continually changing. One moment there is a pleasurable feeling, the next moment there is a displeasurable feeling, and the next, third moment there is a feeling of indifference. They also are not independent.
They arise in dependence. Their In dependence upon a pleasurable object, an attractive object, we we generate pleasurable feelings. in dependence upon an unattractive object, we generate displeasurable feelings. So they do not exist independent. And this the self that we’re we’re we’re looking for is a self which corresponds to a model which is appear makes it appear that the self is independent, isolated entity.
It doesn’t depend upon its environment, doesn’t depend upon culture, or the body or the mind. It’s a unit. So therefore, the feelings cannot qualify for this self that we’re searching for. Then next is the aggregate of perceptions. Sometimes this aggregate is called, recognitions, discriminations, discernment.
So it is the first perception or or recognition that there is a specific object. So it’s the beginning of of concept formation. It forms the the the the concept of our self as that self relates to to particular forms occurring around us, about us, you know, which occur in our attention. It abstracts the characteristics of an object that have been determined that have been determined by feelings to be of interest to ourselves. You know, it is the naming process.
This is good. This is bad. This is a glass. This is a table. You know, if we can name something, we can hold it in our field of attention.
We we as we’re gaining some kind of control over how we’re going to relate with it through the naming process. We can grasp onto it and hold it in our field of attention. It’s the first discernment of an object and a self. Discrimination or perception, the naming of objects. A glass is a glass.
A table is a table. An attractive object is an attractive object. It’s the first movement toward patterns of conceptualization, patterns of thinking. Perception here refers to the first moment of recognition, of input through the senses. When one experiences a color such as blue, one recognizes it as blue.
When one feels an itch, one recognizes the feeling. Or when one hears a car starting up, one recognizes the sound. And the same applies to smells, etc. We experience a continual stream of perceptions through our senses all the time we are awake. We are either listening to something, looking at something, feeling something with our senses of touch, tasting or smelling something, or even receiving images of something arising in the mind.
We have six senses including the mind. As one sits in meditation, one might be perceiving the breath moving in and out, images floating in the mind, or noises going on in the street outside and so on. Although one thinks it is oneself that is perceiving these things, one does not think these perceptions are the self. None of them has the characteristic of a self since none of them is lasting. So, you know, we there seems to be a self which is perceiving, which is recognizing.
We don’t, you know, we we don’t take these these thoughts which are recognizing. This is a glass. This is good. I like that. I don’t like that.
We don’t take those to be the self. There seems to be a self which is which is behind the recognizing, which is behind the perceiving. And moreover, these recognitions, these attributing of names, these, discriminations, they are continually changing. You know, one moment we’re perceiving a glass, the next moment we’re perceiving a table, next moment we’re perceiving a mental image within our own mind. And they do not exist independent of the objects which are being perceived.
We only discriminate in dependence upon, the objects. We only we only perceive in dependence upon the object which we’re labeling, which we’re giving a name to, like glass. Without them, there’s no perception. So it’s dependent. Therefore, these perceptions cannot qualify as the self, the I, because they’re not lasting, they’re constantly changing, they are dependent, they’re not independent.
The fourth aggregate is the fourth is the the aggregate of mental constructions, Sometimes, called compositional factors, the aggregate compositional factors. So, you know, we’re going through the mind, working through the body. Now we’re systematically going through the mind. All the possible types of inner phenomena which we might be able to experience, observing, investigating, is this the self, is this the I? So the aggregate and mental constructions, sometimes called compositional factors.
So this includes all the mental activities. These are patterns of thought. And perceptions are merely process of labeling, giving names. These are more complex patterns of thought. All are various negative emotions, positive emotions, jealousy, desire, pride, positive emotions, love, compassion, faith, devotion.
That is the complex ways of thinking, patterns of thinking. These are thought constructions. Feelings and actually thought constructions include all mental activity, which are not included in the other three mental aggregates. In fact, you know, we could include feelings, perceptions in thought constructions. We can include consciousness in thought constructions.
But for the sake of this systematic analysis, we’re dividing those out. So there’s feelings, perceptions, thought constructions, these complicated patterns of thinking, both positive and negative, all our various emotions. These these these, you know, the term for this heap in in Sanskrit is called Samskara. In Tibetan, it’s du je. And this has the idea it also has the idea of predispositions.
So also included in this category are the latencies within our mind. The seeds of emotions, the tendencies of mind, even when they aren’t manifest, even when they aren’t expressing themselves as emotions or patterns of thinking. These latencies which are left by our former actions within our mind. Our mind is conditioned by these. You know, we we we we don’t we, you know, we don’t think of these thought constructions normally as as as being the self.
And we don’t think of the the emotion as love as being the self or the emotion of hatred as being the self. We don’t tend to identify self with these thoughts thought constructions, But we do identify what we call the personality, oftentimes with the self. Because when our personality is criticized, we have a sense that I’m being criticized. You know, you’re not much, are you? You’re kind of stupid, aren’t you?
That there’s a sense that I’m being criticized. So how are you know, however, if one examines the makeup a quote from this. If one examines the makeup of one’s personality, one very carefully and dispassionately, one finds it even more intangible than the body. At least with the body one was sure that what was included in as a part of it even thought even though none of it could be identified as the self. With one’s personality on the other hand, one just has a stream of ever changing mental constructions and events.
One tends to choose certain more or less constant features of the stream of characteristics of a particular personality. And when they are manifest, one feels a person is being himself. If it starts to manifest in a more or less constant fashion, totally different characteristics, we talk about him having a change of personality. We talk of people not being in their right mind, of being temporarily deranged and so on. The implication is that there is a person or self other than the present personality or mind state.
It is this self that we are investigating. It is clearly not the personality or any of the mental constructions or events that constitute it, since then none of them exhibit a separate, independent, lasting element that one could call a self. Our personality is constantly changing, isn’t it? We just we focus upon those characteristics which confirm a particular image of ourselves which we may wish to portray for one reason or another. But in fact, you know, the personality is in constant flux even though over time there might be predominant patterns of qualities of ourselves.
But none of them is lasting. They’re continually changing. And the personality is simply being attributed to this constant flux of patterns, of characteristics, of traits about who we are. So the personality is dependent upon these these mental constructions, upon these these these types of thought patterns, these emotions. They’re they’re they’re constantly changing and they’re not unitary.
They have many parts. And moreover, you know, we it’s interesting, isn’t it, that to we attribute to people, you know, when you say, I’m just not myself today. I don’t know what’s wrong with me. You know, we’re we’re making some real statement about conception about the nature of the self. That because I’m not manifesting or expressing a type of self which I identify with, then I’m not myself, Even though one cannot not be oneself.
You know, what if one’s one’s not self Yes. You know what I mean? It gets very confusing. He’s not himself today. You have to you have to you have to excuse him.
He’s just not himself today. That’s himself. Then finally, the the fifth aggregate, the aggregate of consciousness. In consciousness in in in Buddhism refers to a moment of awareness, a knowing quality of the mind. And we have a sense you know, we’ve listed the four four we’ve listed four aggregates thus far, forms, feelings, perception, and thought constructions.
And we and that we might have a sense of feeling that behind all of this, behind all of them, there is a general sense of awareness or knowing. There’s something standing behind watching the show go on. It’s kind of an observer. You know, we we might call and we could even call this the mind itself. And we might, as opposed to, you know, all the various mental events which occur within the mind, and various emotions, feelings.
These are events which occur within the mind, but there there seems to be a mind which is kind of just observing the whole show, the panorama as our as our life goes by. There’s this kind of sense. So, we might feel that this is really who I am. This is the me. This is the self, which corresponds to this this model that we’re looking that we’re investigating.
I have an unchanging separate unitary independent self. This I which seems to this sense of self which this awareness, this knowing, it seems to be constantly going on all the time behind somewhere behind me. You know, the behind all of our experiences, behind all of our awareness that this is the I. This is what