Session Two

The First Noble Truth is the truth of suffering. The use of the term truth here has different interpretations to different philosophical schools. I will not go into this partly because I do not remember all of this and partly as it would complicate my explanation. So in dealing with complex issues such as this perhaps the best approach is to adopt a dignified silence.

One of the reasons why I pointed out this complexity in the understanding of the term truth in relation to the Four Noble Truths is because there is a fundamental difference between the Prasangika-Madhyamika School and the other mainstream Buddhist schools as to how one distinguishes between ordinary beings and Arya beings, Superior beings. The other mainstream Buddhist schools make the distinction on the basis of whether or not the individual practitioner has gained direct, intuitive insight into the Four Noble Truths. This is a criteria not accepted by the Prasangika-Madhyamika School. According to the Prasangika-Madhyamika School even non-Arya beings, ordinary beings can have a direct, intuitive understanding of the Four Noble Truths.

What exactly is the meaning of dukha or suffering? Suffering or dukha is the basis for one’s painful experiences. In brief dukha refers to one’s state of existence as conditioned by karma and delusions or afflictive emotions. Asanga states in the Abhidharmasamuccaya that the concept of true dukha or the truth of suffering must embrace both the environment where one lives and also the individual beings living within it.

When one talks about the environment in which unenlightened individuals live Buddhism talks about its cosmology of the Three Realms of Existence; the Karmadhatu or Desire Realm, the Formless Realm and Form Realm. The point here is how to conceptualize the Buddhist idea of the Three Realms. Of course one can not say that Buddha has taught this in the scripture, as this is not alone a sufficient reason for a Buddhist to accept the existence of these realms. Perhaps the most comprehendible way of looking at the Buddhist concept of the Three Realms is by a fundamental Buddhist approach to understand states of existence in terms of levels of consciousness or levels of mind. For example according to Buddhism the very distinction between enlightened existence and unenlightened existence is to be understood on the basis of the level of mind or consciousness. An individual who is within a state of existence where the consciousness is unenlightened, undisciplined and untamed abides in a state of samsara. Someone who is within the state of being which has a consciousness that is disciplined, tamed and enlightened abides in a state of nirvana.

Similarly in Buddhism one also finds a distinction that is made between ordinary beings and Arya or Superior beings again on the basis of the level of consciousness or level of realization. An individual who has gained direct, intuitive realization of emptiness or the ultimate nature of reality is said to be an Arya or Superior being. Someone who hasn’t gained that realization is said to be an ordinary being. Similarly one can examine the Three Realms of existence in terms of the levels of consciousness in their causes. The more subtle the level of consciousness an individual attains the more subtle a realm of existence that individual can attain.

One can look at the concept of the Three Realms from that point of view relating the concept to the idea of levels of consciousness or levels of being within one’s mind. For example in ones’ ordinary states of being the mode of being is within the context of attachment towards perceived objects like desirable forms or pleasant sensations. Having attachment to the more physical experiences, these gross levels of interaction, thought processes and sensory experiences lead to a form of existence confined within the Desire Realm and for the future as well. Similarly an individual who has transcended attachment towards immediately perceptible objects but rather is attached more towards inner dimensions of experience like internal states of joy or bliss creates causes for future rebirth where physical existence is more refined. Finally there are individuals who have transcended attachment to pleasurable sensations both physical and mental and tend towards states of equilibrium or equanimity. This level of consciousness is much more subtle compared to the others but there is still a form of attachment to a particular mode of being. This state of mind leads to what is known as the Fourth Level of the Form Realm. The subtlest level of attachment towards the states of equanimity leads to the Formless Realms. There is a way of looking at the Three Realms relating them to levels of consciousness.

Based on this cosmology of the Three Realms of Existence Buddhism talks about an infinite process of the universe coming into being, abiding and dissolving. It then again comes into being. This process must be understood in relation to the Three Realms of Existence. According to the Abhidharma literature which discusses metaphysics and cosmology in the Buddhist discourses, it is from the third level of the Form Realm on down that is subject to this continuous process of coming into being, abiding and dissolution. Whereas from the fourth level of the Form Realm on up, which also includes the Formless Realm, is outside this evolutionary process of the universe.

This infinite process of evolution that the physical universe goes through is related to the issue of the Big Bang and Buddhist cosmology. One thing I can say is that if the understanding of the scientific cosmological theory of the Big Bang entails an acceptance of only one Big Bang as the beginning then that would go against basic Buddhist cosmology. If that is the case then Buddhists would need to come up with some way of understanding how it would not contradict the Buddhist idea of the infinite evolution of the universe. If the concept of the Big Bang does not entail only one Big Bang but rather a multiplicity of Big Bangs then of course that would go very well with the basic Buddhist understanding of the evolutionary process.

Whatever is in the Abhidharma literature need not necessarily be accepted as literal. The cosmology in the Abhidharma literature, especially that of our universe, is based on the model of Mount Meru in the middle with four continents around it. Many of the descriptions of the size of the sun and moon are contrary to the current scientific understanding. In this case one would have to conclude given that scientific experiments have established the Abhidharma model to be wrong, then the conclusions of science need to be accepted on these points.

In Buddhism there is an understanding of a cosmology where the evolution of the physical universe is understood in terms of the four elements; wind, fire, water and earth. A fifth element, space, can be added. There is a complex discussion of this not only in the Abhidharma literature but also in the Uttaratantra, The Sublime Continuum, as well. These descriptions or explanations seem to be very similar to current scientific theories of cosmology.

This is how Buddhism understands the evolution of the physical universe or the environment. When discussing the sentient beings that inhabit these environments then there is an acceptance of a multiplicity of sentient beings within the Buddhist world. Within the realm of sentient beings there are beings with corporal forms and beings that could be said to be formless. Within one’s own familiar world in Buddhism there is a diversity of sentient beings many perceptible to one's sense faculties and some not so obvious to one's sensory faculties, for example the spirit world.

Generally speaking according to Buddhist understanding the human form is considered to be one of the most ideal forms of existence. This is because of its suitability or conduciveness for practicing Dharma. Compared to the human form of existence the spirit form would be considered inferior because of its less effectiveness for the practice of Dharma. Beings in the spirit world may have certain faculties or powers not available to humans but the fact remains that they are a part of the world along with humans. All of these sentient beings are under the control of delusion, under the control of afflictive emotions and thoughts. They all are products of delusions and afflictive thoughts and emotions. Lama Tsongkhapa gives a vivid description of the state of unenlightened beings in samsara. He gives the analogy of someone tied by the ropes of karma, delusions and afflictive emotions who is also encased in a net of ego-consciousness and self-grasping attitudes. This person is then thrown around endlessly by the fluctuating currents of the experiences of suffering and pain. This is unenlightened existence.

The question is if this is the case what is dukha? What is suffering? Buddhism discusses three levels of suffering. One is the suffering of suffering or one could say obvious suffering. Second is the suffering of change. The third is the suffering of conditioning. Suffering at the level of the first type is in very conventional terms of experiences all can identify as suffering. These are painful experiences.

When discussing the suffering of suffering there are four main experiences, which are fundamentally felt to be in the state of suffering. These are the suffering of birth, sickness, old age and death. The significance of recognizing these experiences as suffering is as an impetus or catalyst towards a spiritual quest. This is very strongly demonstrated in Buddha’s own life story. Buddha as the Prince Siddhartha according to the story is supposed to have seen a sick person, an old person and a dead body. These sights led him to the realization that so long as he could not free himself from the infinite process of rebirth; he would always be subject to those sufferings. He then saw a spiritual aspirant, which led the Buddha to the full awareness that there is a possibility of freedom from the cycle of suffering.

In Buddhism there is an understanding that so long as one is subject to the process of rebirth that all the other sufferings are in some sense natural consequences of the initial starting point of birth. One could say that one’s life is characterized within the cycle of birth and death with sickness and old age sandwiched in between.

The second level of suffering, the suffering of change, refers to experiences one would ordinarily identify as pleasurable. In reality as long as one is in an unenlightened state all of one’s joyful experiences are contaminated and therefore ultimately suffering. The reason why Buddhism states that these supposedly pleasurable experiences are ultimately states of suffering is because according to Buddhism there is an understanding that one experiences pleasurable states only in comparison to painful experiences. They tend to appear as a sort of relief so they are in some sense relative. The pleasurable status is only relative to a painful experience. Therefore if they are truly joyful states or experiences then just as the more one indulges in the causes leading to pain the painful experiences increase similarly the more one indulges in the causes of so-called pleasure the pleasure or joy should intensify. This is not the case.

In our daily life when we have some valuable ornament for a short period you feel this is really marvelous. One shows it of to others. After one week or one month passes this same object no longer appeals and one feels frustrated. This is nature. This is a fact. Also fame. At the beginning you may feel happy, “Oh now I have a good name!” Again as time passes you feel frustration, dissatisfaction. Same with friends or sexual feelings. At the beginning you almost become mad. The same factors eventually create dissatisfaction and hate. In the worst case it leads to fighting and murder. This is the nature. Every beautiful thing, everything we consider desirable if you look closely as time passes most of these factors eventually give us suffering. So this is the second level. (H.H. in English)

Now the third level. Why is it that things have this nature? The answer is because all of this happens due to ignorance. The very name ignorance is not comfortable, not good. Under the control of ignorance there is no possibility of a permanent state of happiness. Some kind of trouble, some kind of problem always happens. (H.H. in English). So long as one remains under the power of ignorance or the fundamental misapprehension or confusion then suffering comes one after another like ripples on water. The third level of suffering or dukha is known as the suffering of conditioning. This refers to the mere fact of one’s unenlightened existence which is under the influence or control of the fundamental state of confusion and also the negative karma this confusion gives rise to. The reason why it is called the suffering of conditioning is because not only does this mere state of existence serve as the basis for one’s many painful experiences in this life but it also serves as the basis to create causes and conditions for future suffering as well.

In order to develop a deeper understanding of the third level of dukha one of the most useful ways of looking at this is the one described in Dharmakirti’s Pramanvarttika and also in Aryadeva’s Four Hundred Verses on the Middle Way where there is an emphasis on reflecting upon the subtle transitory or impermanent nature of reality. When on discusses impermanence or the transient nature of things it is important to be reminded that there are two levels of meaning. One can understand impermanence in terms of how something comes into being, stays for awhile then disappears. This level of impermanence or transitoriness is quite easily understood. The destruction of the object requires a secondary condition. An object comes into being and when its life span ends another condition acts as a catalyst to destroy its continuity.

There is a more subtle level understanding of the concept of impermanence or the transient nature of things. This is the mere effect of how everything goes through a dynamic process of change, how everything is going through a process of momentary changes. This process of constant momentary change that all things go through is not because there is a further secondary condition that makes things become momentary but rather it is the very primary cause which lead the object to come into being that is also the cause of its destruction. One could say that within the cause of its origin is also the cause of its cessation or destruction. This momentary, transient nature can not only be understood in terms of an entity in the first instance not staying, not enduring during its second instance or second moment but also the fact that when the first instance comes into being it is not static, it is moving towards its own cessation.

Since everything comes into being, right at the beginning of its very birth, comes together with its seed or potential for its dissolution or destruction. One could say that the destruction or cessation of things or events does not need a secondary, further condition. Therefore in Buddhism all phenomena are said to be “other-powered”, they are under the power or control of their causes.

Once one has developed that kind of understanding of the transient nature of phenomena then one can situate one’s understanding of dukha within this context. One can then reflect upon one’s very existence, one’s aggregates of mind and body, in this samsaric world. One understands that one’s very existence has come into being as the result of its own causes and conditions. Therefore it must also be “other-powered”. It must also be under the control of the causal processes that gave rise to its coming into being. However in the context of one’s own existence within the samsaric world, the cause being referred to here is nothing other than one’s own fundamental confusion, ma rigpa or ignorance and the delusory states that the confusion gives rise to. One knows that so long as one is under the domination or control of this fundamental confusion along with its delusions and afflictive emotions that it gives rise to, then there is no place for lasting joy, lasting happiness. Of course within the Three Realms of Existence one can talk about comparatively more happy states of existence, relatively joyful existence. However as long as one remains within the samsaric world in any of the Three Realms and remains under the twin forces of fundamental confusion and its subsequent delusions, there is no hope for lasting joy. In the final analysis one is in a state of suffering or dukha. This is the meaning of the third level of understanding of dukha.

Fundamental ignorance or confusion, the Sanskrit is avidya, which literally means ignorance, similar to the different interpretations of the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of anatman or no self, has different interpretations of what is meant by avidya or ignorance. However the general meaning that is common to all schools is an understanding that there is a fundamental ignorance at the root of our existence. The reason is quite simple. One knows from one’s own experience that one deeply aspires to gain happiness and try to avoid suffering. However one’s actions and one’s behavior leads to more suffering and does not lead to the lasting joy and happiness that one seeks. This must surely mean that one operates in an ignorant way. This is the fundamental confusion at the root of one’s existence.

When reflecting on the nature of dukha according to the Buddhist teachings for some practitioners contemplating on the sufferings in specific realms such as the hells or hungry ghosts, pretas, may find this very powerful to motivate them towards a deeper spiritual quest to attain freedom from suffering. However for many others, including myself, reflection upon our own human suffering perhaps is more effective. Although the human form of existence is considered to be one of the most positive where we have all the potentials to perfect enlightenment even then the state of existence of a human life isn’t that joyful. We are subject to unavoidable sufferings of birth, sickness, aging and death. Also when one reflects upon the fact that one’s conditioned existence is under the influence or domination of the fundamental confusion and also the delusory states of afflictive emotions and thoughts then for someone like myself the recognition of the suffering nature seems to be much more effective than thinking of the sufferings of some other realms.

In the Buddhist scriptures when this causal process of how the fundamental confusion gives rise to volitional acts which then give rise to birth in a samsaric world within the complete chain of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, Buddha made three observations. First he said because there is this, that ensued. Because this came into being, that came into being. Because there was fundamental ignorance, volitional acts came into being. When commenting on these three statements Asanga in his Abhidharmasamuccaya talked about three conditions. I think understanding this point would be very useful.

When commenting on the first statement Asanga said that the significance of that statement is to tell one that all phenomena come into being from causes. It is not as if there was a first cause, a beginning, rather there is an infinite chain of causation. Therefore Asanga referred to this observation or qualification as the first condition.

When commenting on the second statement Asanga spoke about what he called the impermanent condition, the quality of being impermanent. The significance is that just because something exists is not enough to produce an effect. In order for something to have the potential to produce an effect that very entity or thing itself must be subject to causation. It must also come into being as the result of other causes so there is an infinity of causes. Just because something exists, mere existence alone is not adequate for giving rise to consequences. Not only must the cause be existent but also the cause should be impermanent, subject to causation.

Asanga, when commenting on the third statement, talked about further qualifications that are needed for a cause to produce an effect. He referred to this condition as the condition of potentiality. This is the idea that it is not enough or adequate for the cause to be existent and impermanent to produce a particular or specific result, anything can not produce everything. There must be some kind of concordance between cause and effect, some kind of natural relationship. Therefore because the state of one’s existence is suffering although what one desires is happiness but out of ignorance create suffering, the fundamental root of one’s existence is suffering. There is a concordance between the result and its cause. All in all there are three conditions. The cause should be existent, impermanent and concordant with the result or effect.

In Buddhist analysis when trying to understand the causal relationship between ignorance and volitional acts, what is required here is a complex understanding of the causal nexus. In the Buddhist scriptures there are many discussions of causes and conditions however the principal understanding of cause must be in terms of two types of causes. One is known as the material cause or substantial cause and the other is the cooperative conditions, factors that assist in causation. By material or substantial cause one is talking about the very stuff that turns into the effect. One can talk of the continuum of a physical entity. The very stuff or material that turns into the effect is the material cause but many other factors are needed which allow this transition or process to take place. These are the cooperative causes or contributory causes. Similarly when discussing conditions there are different ways conditions can effect a result.

Although these complexities in the ways in which conditions can effect results may have more to do with the complexities of the operation of the mind or functions of mind. However one finds in the scriptures a discussion of five types of conditions. There is the objective condition that refers to the perceptive object. There are the sensory faculties like the organs that give rise to the perception. Then one has the immediately preceding condition, which is the earlier continuum of one’s consciousness and so on. So one sees there is a complex understanding of the process of causation in Buddhism.

Take the example of fire. Wood would be the material cause or the substantial cause of fire. One could say there is a potential existing as fuel within the wood, which then becomes the fire. Similarly in the case of consciousness perhaps the issue becomes more complex. Take one’s sensory perceptions or consciousnesses. It is obvious that one needs the physical sensory organs and nervous system as a basis for sensory perceptions to take place. Although in the classical Buddhist scriptures there is hardly any discussion of the nervous system perhaps this is something which needs to be added to the Buddhist texts on psychology. However the substantial cause of the consciousness would not be these physical entities. The substantial cause of the consciousness needs to be understood in terms of its own continuum be it in the form of a potential or a propensity. It has to be understood in terms of its continuum.

Although it is a very difficult topic perhaps one could understand it in terms of the continuum of subtle consciousness because one should not lead one self into a position where one ends up implying that the material cause of an entity must be exactly the same. One can not maintain the position that the substantial cause of sensory perceptions need not always be sensory perceptions. This is because sensory consciousnesses are gross levels of consciousness and they are contingent to the physical organs of the individual being, whereas the continuum should be understood more at the level of subtle consciousness. Perhaps one could say that at a certain point sensory perceptions are in the form of potentialities rather than actual conscious states.

When one talks about consciousness or shes-pa the Tibetan word, one should not have the notion that one is talking about a unitary, monolithic entity. One must appreciate the complexity of the mental world. Within the realm of mental phenomena it seems that feelings or sensations and thoughts are two factors of mind which seem perhaps to be most predominate in one’s consciousness. Let us now try to examine how the feelings and discursive thoughts occur within us.

When talking about feelings one is talking about two dimensions. One where feelings at the mere physical level of sensations. The more complex issue is trying to conceive or understand feelings or tshor-ba in terms of the mental consciousness. Of course one has to accept that there must be some connection with the nervous system of the body. One must also be able to account for deeper levels of feelings as well.

Here I am pointing towards the nature of mental consciousness, the sixth mental consciousness. I would like to point out that although the research being carried out now is limited and at a very elementary stage however there are experiments performed on meditators. These experiments are pointing towards a phenomenon, which is perhaps difficult to account for within the current scientific paradigm. What they point out is that without any physical change in the body, without any physical movement by the individual, simply by using the force of the mind, through a single-pointed state one can effect the physiological sate of a person. These physiological states which are taking place remain quite difficult to explain within the current assumptions of the physiology of human beings.

To me what this points towards is that when one talks about human consciousness one is talking about a contingent phenomenon. Of course the human consciousness is contingent upon the human body, all of one’s experiences are contingent on the human body. There is this inextricable nature of the human mind and body. Yet at the same time what the experiments seem to point out is the possibility that although the human mind is contingent on the body, it has a power of its own which simply through reflection or meditation can be enhanced.

Also one knows that within the modern medical discipline there is a growing recognition of the power of will in the process of healing. There is one could say an effect by will on the physiology of the person. This is a fact recognized even by the modern medical discipline. Also one knows how will is developed. The person does a lot of thinking on reasons and grounds thereby developing a strong will. Similarly someone could develop such a will through meditation. There seems to be an acknowledgement that the will can effect physical change. What seems to be accepted is that whenever thoughts occur they give rise to chemical changes within the brain, which is then manifested by physical expression or physiological changes.

The question arises as to whether pure thought can lead to such physical effects or whether it is the case that whenever a thought occurs, it occurs as the result of chemical changes within the body or brain. This seems to be an open question. I’ve asked scientists on several occasions as to whether it is possible to have a pure thought first then that thought process gives rise to chemical changes which is then effected at the physiological level. Most of the time the answer is that there is an assumption that consciousness is dependent upon the physical base. Every occurrence of thought by necessity is caused by chemical changes within the brain. This seems to me to be a sort of prejudice rather than something experimentally proven. Here I think the question is still open and so what is needed here is further investigation and experimentation particularly on the part of practitioners by engaging in profound meditations and to see what changes can be effected within oneself.

When talking about the nature of consciousness and the functions of mind, I think explanations found in the Vajrayana literature where there is discussion of the existence of different levels of consciousness or subtleties of mind and their corresponding subtleties of energy levels or pranas, can contribute a lot to the Buddhist understanding of the nature of mind and its functions.

When trying to investigate the nature of one’s own mind through introspection, one finds in one’s own experience that most of one’s conscious mind seems to be states of consciousness dealing with either objects experienced in the past, recollections and past experiences which inform one’s present consciousness or with feelings and sensations. One’s experience of consciousness tends to be pervaded by either discursive thoughts or sensations.

Given that one’s consciousness is so dominated by discursive thoughts having to do with objects, things, and sensations, it is very difficult for one to have a glimpse into the actual nature of consciousness. The actual nature is a mere state of knowing or luminosity. Therefore one technique to be used is to sit in meditation and free one’s mind from thoughts of recollection of any past experiences or any form of anticipation of what might happen in the future. Rather try to abide in the now or present although one can not talk of present consciousness. Try to free one’s thoughts, free one’s mind from these thoughts that are directed towards the past or future. Be concerned only with the now. When one is able to clear away these past or anticipatory thoughts and abide in the present then one might slowly have a glimpse of spaciousness or void. If one can extend this period of voidness for longer periods of time then gradually the nature of consciousness as a mere luminosity and awareness will slowly dawn. Through practice this intervening period can be lengthened so that the awareness of consciousness becomes clearer to one’s mind.

However one must know that the experience of the luminosity and knowing nature of the mind in itself is not a profound realization. Many of the Formless Realms are considered to be the results of abiding in states of clarity. However using that initial experience of the luminosity of consciousness as a basis then one can build on the experience by complementing it with other practices. This is how one can look at the Buddha’s teaching on the truth of suffering within all this complexity.

Once one has developed this kind of recognition of the dukha-nature of one’s existence then one already has an understanding that at the root of one’s existence is the fundamental confusion, avidya. This of course points towards the Second Truth, the Truth of the Origin of Suffering.

[End of second session]