LTF 67: Contacting Awareness – Cognizing Objects as Pleasing or Unpleasing

We covered in the last two classes the first six of these twelve links. We saw that unawareness is the unawareness about how persons exist, both doctrinally based unawareness and automatically arising unawareness. We have seen that on the basis of that, we get disturbing emotions and attitudes, which bring about karmic urges, or impulses. That’s the affecting variables link. And if we act on the basis of those impulses, then we have a loaded consciousness. In other words, on our consciousness, on the mental continuum, the so-called seeds from karma – karmic aftermath – are planted. Those would include the various tendencies to experience suffering as a result of destructive action that we have done. Destructive actions result in experiencing the first type of suffering, the suffering of pain, unhappiness. From doing constructive actions on the basis of unawareness of how we and others exist, we will experience the second type of suffering. That’s the suffering of change, our ordinary, worldly happiness, which never lasts and never satisfies. Then, of course, we also experience repeating the types of actions that we have done before, being in situations in which others do something similar back to us, and also having general circumstances that will be similar to or related to what we have done before. 

All of that takes place in one rebirth – the unawareness, the affecting variables, and the causal loaded consciousness, which is when the consciousness is in the causal phase of what will bring a rebirth. 

Then, in a following lifetime, which could be either the very next one or another lifetime after that, there is a second phase of the loaded consciousness. This is the resultant loaded consciousness. It begins at the moment of conception in a following rebirth with nameable mental faculties with or without gross form. So, we have the consciousness aggregate. That is there, but it’s not yet differentiated into the various types of consciousness. The other mental faculties are basically in nameable form; they are not yet differentiated. Also, we would have either a gross form, if we are reborn in the desire realm or, a very subtle form, if we are reborn the formless realm.

As the fetus develops (if we’re speaking of rebirth in a womb), we get the link of stimulators of cognition. This is when the consciousness is differentiated into the various types of sense consciousness and mental consciousness, and the form aggregate, the body aggregate, is differentiated into the individual types of cognitive sensors – in other words, cells that are able to be photosensitive, sound-sensitive and so on – and the objects that it would perceive in a womb, for example.

Then there is contacting awareness, which is when the various types of consciousness  actually comes in contact with  an object through one of the cognitive sensors. And the way in which the mind is  aware of contact with object is to experience it as pleasing, unpleasing, or neutral. 

According to Prasangika, Pleasing/Unpleasing Are Not Qualities Inherent in the Object; They Arise from the Mind 

How contact with the object is experienced arises on the basis of habit. One can’t say – from a Prasangika point of view – that it’s on the basis of the object itself. The lower schools of Indian Buddhist philosophy might say that these characteristics are inherent in the object, but Prasangika doesn’t. So, we want to look at this from the Prasangika point of view. 

That’s what we have covered so far. Any questions?

Participant: What would Prasangika would say?

Dr. Berzin: Prasangika would say that the pleasing, unpleasing, and so on contacting awareness basically arises from causes and circumstances, mental labeling and so on – so, from the side of the mind.

Participant: Only?

Dr. Berzin: Only – that there is nothing in the object itself that by its own power or in conjunction with mental labeling, establishes the object as inherently pleasing or unpleasing. Therefore, a pig might find another pig beautiful and see it as very pleasing, and it might see feces on the ground in India as pleasing. We would look at both and probably not see them as unpleasing.

Participant: But it sounds like Yogachara, like the Mind Only School.

Dr. Berzin: No, it’s not Yogachara, which I usually call Chittamatra.. There is a difference between Chittamatra and Prasangika. Chittamatra says, basically, that there are no externally established external objects. 

Now, when it says there are no external objects (we have discussed this before, and it’s a very difficult point), it doesn’t mean that everything is a way of being aware of something, that everything is mind. It still accepts that there are forms of physical phenomena. A body is not a way of being aware of something like anger or consciousness is. However, you cannot establish the appearance from the side of something outside. We can only establish the appearance from the side of the mind. 

Participant: This is Yogachara?

Dr. Berzin:  This is Yogachara. So, there is no appearance that comes from out there, like one originating from photons entering the eye from an external source. The appearance is generated from the mind, like a mental hologram. And you can’t even speak about whether or not there is something out there because to speak about it means generating a hologram of the object through your speaking about it, thinking about it or conceptualizing about it. 

Prasangika says that, in fact, there are external objects. It is true that the appearance is established by the mind, which is very helpful to realize, because the mode of existence is also established by the mind. This is one step further than Chittamatra. So, Chittamatra prepares you for that. 

Prasangika View Versus Chittamatra View Regarding the Natal Source of the Appearance of an External Object and the Natal Source of the External Object Itself 

When Prasangika says that there are external objects, again, what does that mean? This is talking about… the technical word is “rdzas-rgyun” in Tibetan. That means a continuum of substance as a natal source. “Natal source” means where something comes from. 

Chittamatra says that in any sense cognition, for instance seeing the sight of a plastic spoon, the eye consciousness, accompanying mental factors and the sight do not derive from separate natal sources. They all have the same natal source –  one mental seed, a tendency, for visual cognition. It is not a karmic seed. Karmic seeds are the natal sources for cognitions involved with constructive or destructive actions of body, speech or mind. Non-karmic seeds are involved with neutral actions, like seeing a plastic spoon and eating with it.  

Prasangika says no. The sight itself has its own natal source, an externally existing plastic spoon that existed before we saw it, though not in the Sautrantika sense as something truly existent. The plastic of the spoon was made from chemicals that existed before the spoon, and the chemicals were made from elements that existed before the chemicals. The elements, chemicals, plastic and spoon, both before and after we saw them, constitute a rdzas-rgyun, a continuum of substance and natal source. The eye consciousness and each of the mental factors in the cognition each come from their own natal sources, which are the mental seeds, the tendencies, for each.    

Chittamatra would agree that the sight was the sight of a plastic spoon that was comprised of chemicals that were comprised of elements. Chittamatra would also agree that the plastic was manufactured from chemicals, and the chemicals were produced from elements. But the appearance of such a sight comes from a tendency for visual cognition. And we could only think, “The plastic was manufactured from chemicals,” based on inference or the memory of previously having seen it being made. But there is no way to establish the existence of that manufacturing outside of seeing or inferring it. So, the natal source of the sight of the plastic spoon is not external to the mind and likewise, the natal source of the plastic spoon itself is not external to the mind. 

Prasangika, on the other hand, says, “Hey, wait a second. Be careful. You have to say that the plastic spoon itself does have an external natal source. It is true that the appearance of the hologram of the spoon, comes from your mind, but that’s beside the point.” So, it’s slightly different. 

It’s similar to the explanation of how you and I interact. You don’t exist in my mind, but there is a common karmic seed on each of our foundation consciousnesses. They are not identical with each other but are related in the sense that yours is the natal source of your experience of the conversation and mine is the natal source of my experience of it. But you have a mental continuum that is not my mental continuum, and I can only establish your existence from my perception of you. Everything from a Chittamatra point of view has to be explained in terms of cognition. And that’s all that you can talk about. Prasangika says, “Well, yes, but don’t take that to an extreme.” 

Mental Labelling Merely Establishes the Existence of Something; a Karmic Seed Produces Its Appearance  

Prasangika also says that, actually, everything exists in conjunction with a mind in terms of mental labeling. But it’s not that mental labeling produces something. Mental labeling is not a natal source like a karmic seed (if I can speak with simple terminology) is the natal source of my consciousness and the object that I perceive. It’s not that the existence of something is produced by the mental label, whereas the appearance is produced by the karmic seed. Mental labeling is just how you establish the existence of something. All you can say is that something is what a word or concept refers to. So, it’s in relation to mental labeling that everything is established. And mental labeling, of course, has to do with the mind.

When you are able, on a Chittamatra level, to understand how everything is connected with the mind in terms of natal sources producing appearances, then you are prepared to go to the subtler level of Prasangika, which is that the existence of things is only established in relation to a mind (which is, after all, what is behind mental labels and concepts). But mental labeling doesn’t produce appearances. And it’s not that they come from mental labels. Do you follow that? So, Chittamatra prepares you for that way of thinking – of the relation of everything to a mind. 

Participant: What about contacting awareness?

Dr. Berzin: Contacting awareness is a bit complicated because it is a mental factor, a way of being aware of something.

Participant: How would that difference be applied between Chittamatra and Prasangika? 

Dr. Berzin: In Chittamatra, when cognizing a physical object, for instance feces on the ground as seen by a pig, there is a difference between what is cognized with sensory cognition and what is cognized by conceptual mental cognition and by non-conceptual, sensory cognition. In both cases, the consciousness and appearance come from the same natal source, a mental seed. We’re not talking about that now.

Sensory cognition, whether of the sight or smell of an object, simply cognizes it as an existent object. The object has on its side only the defining characteristic mark of an existent object. The pig can see or smell the object and distinguish it from a bush next to it. To the sense consciousness, it does not appear with any qualities or identifiable features. Those only appear to conceptual cognition and are only mentally labeled. The defining characteristic of being an object does not serve as the defining characteristic on which the qualities or identifiable features can be mentally labeled. So, the pig mentally labels the contacting awareness with the sight and smell of the feces as pleasing and experiences it that way. Humans would mentally label it as unpleasing and experience it that way.

The difference with Prasangika, in addition to the issue of the sight and smell of the feces coming from an external source, is that Chittamatra asserts that the existence of the feces as a validly knowable object is established from the side of the feces, whereas Prasangika asserts that even that is established in terms of mental labeling. 

How you mentally label something is, of course, based on your previous karmic potential and habits and is accurate or inaccurate in relation to convention and so on. But you may be somebody who’s a weird human being and consider feces to be delicious. That’s always possible. 

Participant: Is a human considering feces as delicious a valid cognition? 

Dr. Berzin: That’s a difficult question: is that a valid cognition or not? Is that correct consideration or incorrect consideration for the species? That’s hard to say. And of course, there are many implications for that in terms of the definition of what’s normal or not normal for a society, for a gender or a group. I don’t know. 

When we are talking about accurate or inaccurate mental labeling, that usually has to do with nouns – what something is. Everybody would agree that what I am sitting on here is a chair. If I thought that what I am sitting on is a dog – that would be invalid. That is contradicted not only by convention but by what anybody with a flawless perception of conventional truth would say. But when it comes to qualities like good or bad – that’s relative. To say that it’s relative… I don’t really know how that has to do with pleasing or unpleasing. I suppose that’s individual. And I don’t know that you can say that it is valid or invalid. Correct or incorrect consideration has to do with static or non-static, happiness or unhappiness, etc.

In Tantra, Is the Transformation of the Elements of an External Object Just a Matter of Mental Labeling?

Participant: There is this kind of tantric test – that you should be able to eat a piece of shit and find it completely OK, totally pleasing or neutral?

Dr. Berzin: No, it should be blissful. Your experience of all senses should be blissful. But that has to do, again, with… obviously not the side of the object. One transforms the object. Do you transform it just in terms of mental label? Do you now call this “nectar”? Does that make it nectar? Does it make your experience of it nectar? Well, if somebody like us called a piece of turd “nectar” wouldn’t mean that we would experience it that way. Obviously, one has to have changed one’s consciousness.

Participant: To an invalid one?

Dr. Berzin: No. Someone who has manipulated the winds in such a way that they are dissolved in the central channel experiences the bliss that comes from a transformation or triggering of those winds into a blissful state, into being the basis for a blissful state, I should say. It’s very complicated. You can’t say that it is an invalid cognition.

Participant: The bliss comes from the turd?

Dr. Berzin: The bliss comes not from the turd. Bliss comes from the mind. When you have actually transformed things… Now everything starts to get very complicated, Jorge, because with certain levels of concentration, you gain the ability to transform elements. So, are you transforming the elements of the turd? Are you actually changing it into nectar? Would anybody else actually see it as nectar? These are difficult questions. It’s doubtful that anybody else would see it that way, but then I don’t really know. You have Milarepa shrinking himself to fit into the tip of a yak horn. Did the opponent in the contest of powers see it? Yes. Did the dog that was watching it see it? I don’t know. These are not easy questions. 

But I think the main point to focus on in trying to understand this is what is established from the side of the object and what is established from the side of the mind. If something is established from the side of the object, everybody should experience it the same way. Obviously, everybody doesn’t, although there can be general agreement – convention.

Would Prasangika Say External Objects Exist? Common Denominators (Common Locus)

Participant: Would Prasangika agree that there is something – that maybe every person perceives it differently but that you can say there is still some kind of object?

Dr. Berzin: This is a good question. Would Prasangika agree that at least there is an object there, even though everybody would label it differently and experience it differently and so on? 

First of all, you have to differentiate whether there is a common denominator. Do you know common denominator? Common denominator means a shared basis for various things, various perceptions. Common denominator is just the word that I use (I don’t know what other people use), shitun (gzhi-mthun, common locus) Mthun is “common,” and gzhi is “basis.” So, is there a common basis? Yes. Prasangika would agree that there is a common basis. Is that common basis findable? No. Is there a something? No, because being a something, being a knowable, existent object is also established by mental labeling. Not only is something being, let’s say, a chair or a dog – its existence as a chair or a dog – established in relation to the mental label “dog” and “chair,” it’s also an existent, knowable phenomenon. Being something is established in relation to the word or concept “something.” 

It’s like – if we go back to the analogy of putting a solid line around things – you put a solid line around things and call it a “chair” or a “dog,” or you just put a solid line around it and call it a “thing.” It’s like atoms and energy fields – is there a line that marks the boundary between one object and another object, you know, the air next to it? Not a very clearly defined boundary. So, yes, there is a common denominator. Is that common denominator established from its own side as a common denominator, as a “thing”? No. This obviously requires quite a lot of thought and mental gymnastics to be able to work with that and feel comfortable.

Participant: This sounds like this Zen question about a tree falling alone in a forest. If nobody is looking at this common denominator, what happens?

Dr. Berzin: He says it’s like the Zen discussion about whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if nobody’s there to hear it. And we won’t… or maybe we will quote the cartoon in which the tree shouts, “Oh, shit!” That’s a lovely cartoon. It’s a famous cartoon. The caption reads, “Does a tree falling in a forest make a sound?” And there’s this picture of a tree falling, and the tree is saying, “Oh, shit.” [Laughter]

But then your question is, is there a common denominator whether somebody perceives an object or not? Chittamatra would say no. Prasangika would say yes. That’s a clear difference between the two. There is a common denominator when you and I are looking at it. Prasangika would say there is a common denominator anyway; it’s not that the thing is produced from our minds. There is a common denominator, but it’s being established as a thing is in relation to the concept “thing.”

Participant: What kind of things are these common denominators? 

Dr. Berzin: What is a common denominator? What are the characteristics of a common denominator? Ah! Characteristics are not established from the side of the object. Look it up in a dictionary; that’s where it defines what a thing is. Defining characteristics are made up by the mind. 

Participant: Then it’s not a common denominator unless we’re in a culture that speaks English.

Dr. Berzin: If we are not human and we are not speaking English. Yes, but we are speaking about a thing in general – an unknowable object. Whether you call it a knowable object or not it is… Mental labeling doesn’t require words. Concepts don’t require words. There are many other types of concepts besides words. 

Remember, what are we talking about when we talk about concepts? We are talking about categories. So, a worm has categories of things. A worm doesn’t just see pixels: it sees objects. “There is a thing over there. I think I’ll go check it out to see if it’s food.” Right? It doesn’t just see, “Oh, there is a colored patch, colored shape. I’ll go over and see what it is.” It certainly has a concept of a “thing,” of an object. It doesn’t have a word. It’s not looking it up in the dictionary. What is the defining characteristic? There are defining characteristics, but those are conventions. As convention, there are defining characteristics.

So, what establishes something as being a common denominator? Of course, it’s the concept of a common denominator. But that’s the convention. But then valid cognition of conventional and deepest truth – it’s not contradicted by that. You see the rug, I see the rug, and everybody in the room sees the rug – so, it’s not contradicted by a valid cognition of conventional truth. It’s not that I take my glasses off and that I see a color but that I have no idea that it’s a rug – that I think it’s the earth. What establishes a common denominator, again, has to be in relation to a mind. 

Chittamatra just introduces you on the most basic level (mind you, it’s very difficult to understand anyway) to the idea that everything is somehow related to the mind. That’s the whole point of it. Do you follow? Somewhat.

Contacting Awareness Is About Pleasing/Unpleasing; Feeling Is About Happy/Unhappy

Participant: I have another question about contacting awareness. I get a bit confused about pleasing, unpleasing, and neutral. I always had this in mind as feeling.

Dr. Berzin: Feeling is about happy, unhappy, and neutral. Contacting awareness is about pleasing, unpleasing, and neutral. What is the difference? For the difference, one needs to look at the Sanskrit and Tibetan words. That’s the only way that you can really understand it. “Pleasing” and “unpleasing” are just the English words that I chose. They don’t have quite the same meaning. The Tibetan yid-du 'ong-ba translates the Sanskrit manojñā. What I am calling “pleasing” is, in Tibetan, literally, “comes to the mind,” and “unpleasing” is “doesn’t come to the mind.” So, your mind goes or comes to this object. I don’t know whether we want to say easily or not easily, but it wants to go to it, so it is pleasing. 

We are not talking about desire here. The mind just goes to it. For instance, what do you naturally look at? Let’s say you are at the bakery. At the bakery, there are all these different cakes. What does your mind go to? You have contacting awareness with each of the objects. Your mind will go to the chocolate cake. It won’t go to the bread. 

Participant: Could it also be that it goes to an old piece of cake that really looks horrible and that somebody forgot in there? It’s not really… I wouldn’t call it pleasing, but it’s “going to” the object.

Dr. Berzin: Could it go to an old piece of cake? Obviously, you can make your mind go to a stale piece of chocolate cake. Well, how would you know that it was stale? By just looking at it? In any case, you can make your mind go to something. That’s something else. But just naturally, when you have contacting awareness with something, you have contacting awareness of it as pleasing, so the mind goes to that. Here is where preferences come in. This is what I think is what’s involved here: your preferences. 

Participant: Why not use “attractive”? 

Dr. Berzin: “Attractive” sounds too much like attractive and repulsive. Attractive and repulsive… it’s hard to use those adjectives for defining a state of mind, whereas you could use “pleasing” and “unpleasing” to define a state of mind. This is what I have been trying to avoid… a lot of people translate this link as “contact,” and they think of it as the physical act of contact, which it certainly is not. And it certainly is not talking about the object: it’s talking about a mind. So, it’s pleasing. I am looking at it – it’s pleasing to look at. I can’t think of a better word. If you can come up with something….

Participant: It’s influence.

Dr. Berzin: Fluent?

Participant: No, influence.

Dr. Berzin: The mind is “influenced,” “uninfluenced”? No. “Influence” means it could be influenced by anything. That wouldn’t work. 

Participant: “Comfortable” and “uncomfortable.”

Dr. Berzin: “Comfortable” and “uncomfortable”? Something like that. Something like that.

[Participants, discuss in German how the word “Einfluss” works]  

Dr. Berzin: Yeah, in German maybe it works.

Participant: Aber Einfluss ist zu allgemein.

Dr. Berzin: That was my objection as well. It’s too general to say “influenced.” In any case, we are not going to settle the translation problem here. The point is to get the idea. Something comes easily to the mind, or it doesn’t come easily to the mind. 

Contacting Awareness of Pleasing/Unpleasing Gives Rise to Feeling Happy/Unhappy; Feeling Happy/Unhappy Gives Rise to Craving

I think the best way to understand it is our preferences. I prefer a certain kind of cake, and when I look in the store, it’s pleasing to see it. Then, on the basis of that, I get a feeling of happiness, which is not wanting to be parted from it (this gets into our next link). Happiness is that feeling that you don’t want to be parted from when you experience it. Unhappiness is that feeling that you want to be parted from when you experience it. That’s different from finding something pleasing. 

It’s on the basis of finding something pleasing – having pleasing contacting awareness with it; it’s a pleasing sensation – that you feel happy. Unpleasing contacting awareness – you see that there is only some cake that you don’t like, and you feel unhappiness. Or you see an absence of the cake that you would like. Now we get into our negation phenomena: you see that there is no cake. So, you have unpleasing contacting awareness when you see the absence of your favorite cake. Then, on the basis of that, you feel unhappy. 

[Participant question cut]

Actually, you are saying two things that are not necessarily related. One is that in the standard illustrations of the twelve links, the picture for contacting awareness is of a man with an arrow stuck in his eye, and for feeling, it’s of a man and woman in intimate contact. Yeah, that’s true. They don’t necessarily illustrate these very clearly. But in any case, to understand the twelve links clearly, you need to be an arya. They are not easy. They are very, very profound and very deep. The second point that you made was that the stimulators of cognition, contacting awareness and happiness follow in succession very quickly. So, you need to slow it down. 

Well, there are at least two explanations of the twelve links. One is that they can all occur in sequence very, very quickly. That’s not the most common way of explaining them, at least in Mahayana. The other way, which is more common, is that they have to do with the rebirth process, which occurs over two or three lifetimes. So, up until contacting awareness – that’s still in the womb, the development of a fetus. When that mechanism is complete, then you will have the differentiation of various sense objects with the cognitive stimulators and the sense apparatus to perceive them, and you will have pleasing and unpleasing contacting awareness with these objects. Once that’s complete, the main emphasis will be on happiness. 

The sequence of links that are really in close connection is the sequence of feelings of happiness, craving, and an obtainer attitude or emotion because now the basis is happiness. You see, up until happiness – so, before happiness – is just the foundation for experiencing what drives the mechanism of samsara. 

Craving Has to Do with Feeling Happy/Unhappy; An Obtainer Has to Do with the Object of Craving

Now, what’s going on, what the real troublemakers here is, is our happiness, unhappiness, or neutral feelings because that’s suffering. And then you have craving. You crave very strongly to have it or not to have it and so on. Then the obtainer attitude, which can be attachment to the object that’s causing the craving. Craving is attachment to the feeling; the obtainer attitude is in connection with the object. And all of this is what triggers throwing karma for another rebirth.

So, really the crucial links, in terms of seeing how you really want to stop all this, start with happiness, craving, and obtainer. 

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: Well, no. She says feelings are not the real problem, but craving and so on are.

No, the feelings are the problem. What are the feelings? It’s the first two aspects of true suffering; it’s either unhappiness or tainted happiness. Those are true problems. Then we get the craving and so on. Those are in the category of true causes. What did you think?

Participant: I thought there was a step between feeling and emotion.

Dr. Berzin: A step between feeling and emotion? That depends on how you define emotion. But craving is a disturbing emotion. 

Participant: So, what if you had… for example, a Buddha also is happy. 

Dr. Berzin: A Buddha is happy. But the happiness of a Buddha is not tainted happiness; it’s untainted happiness. So, a Buddha wouldn’t have craving for that.

Participant: That’s why I said it’s the basis for…

Dr. Berzin: It’s a basis. But the twelve links are not talking about the untainted happiness of a Buddha or the untainted happiness of an arya during total absorption. They’re not talking about that. They’re talking about samsaric feeling. Samsaric feeling is a true problem; it’s true suffering. And on the basis of that – and what will be the cause for generating more smasara – is craving to be separated from that unhappiness or craving not to be separated from that happiness (both of which are based on exaggerating the good or bad qualities). Now, if you just experience the happiness and unhappiness without craving – then what? It will change. It certainly won’t last. So, that’s a help. And that brings about a very practical application. 

Now, you have the eight worldly dharmas, the eight worldly feelings: feeling happy when praised and unhappy when criticized; happy when hearing good news and unhappy when hearing bad news; happy when you gain things and unhappy when you lose things; happy when things go well and unhappy when things don’t go well. The point with these eight worldly feelings is not to act on them. There is no reason to… 

OK. Somebody just gave me something really nice, and somebody told me something that’s not nice. So what? It’s just the ripening of karma. If I feel happy or unhappy, I don’t get overly excited or depressed; that will pass as well. So, no big deal. It’s like when somebody dies or a relationship ends, you feel sad, but you don’t get into one of these worldly feelings of being overly depressed about it. “OK, I am sad; OK, I am happy. Alright, what else is new?” It gets back to that old saying, “What do you expect from samsara.” It will be up and down. I heard something I didn’t like, or I don’t feel well or something like that – well, OK, I am not going to get depressed about it (that gets into the eight worldly dharmas); instead, I will transform it, apply a method. 

When you are feeling unhappy, miserable, and sad, what is the best thing to do? Meditate on compassion. Think about tonglen, taking on the suffering of others. You stop thinking about yourself. If you stop thinking about yourself and think about others and their problems and wish for them to be happy and so on, your mood automatically changes – “May they be free.” Now you are, as His Holiness explains, voluntarily dealing with suffering and unhappiness rather than feeling oppressed – “Oh, I am so unhappy. This horrible thing has happened to me.” Voluntarily dealing with the suffering of others gives you strength and courage because it takes strength and courage even to acknowledge other people’s suffering and unhappiness. That actually works to get you out of your bad, unhappy mood. So, I would recommend trying it because this happens all the time. 

I don’t know about you, my days also go up and down. At some point in the day, I don’t feel like doing anything, or I just feel generally unhappy – not unhappy about something, just unhappy. And sometimes I feel happy. No big deal. That’s another way to deal with it. And perseverance – which is basically saying, “So what?” Whether I feel happy or unhappy, I just continue with what I am doing, which is engaging in something that’s for the benefit of others. That’s another way of dealing with it. There are many ways to deal with being unhappy.

So, she doesn’t understand the difference between the picture of the arrow in the eye and the picture of being in intimate contact with a partner illustrating contacting awareness and happiness. As I said, these pictures are intended, basically, for teaching what these twelve links are on the most, most basic level. But they cannot possibly be taken accurately. Like for example, a picture of a farmer planting a seed in the ground – that also is there, isn’t it, for consciousness? I think that’s the one for consciousness. I am not familiar with the illustrations. I’ve never really studied it. 

In any case, I don’t think that they are to be taken literally. These things are from Buddha himself. There are many things that Buddha said that are not to be taken literally. Just because something was said by Buddha doesn’t mean that it’s to be taken literally – unless you are a Vaibhashika who do not accept that there are things that are not to be taken literally. 

You can look at the pictures and say, “What does it say to me?” Well, the arrow in your eye – hardly anyone would find that pleasing. 

Participant: Looking at it, it’s not there to represent pleasing or unpleasing, but rather the simple fact that the senses are there for input.

Dr. Berzin: So, it doesn’t represent pleasing and unpleasing, but that the senses are just there for input?

Participant: To experience something.

Dr. Berzin: To experience something. Well, I don’t know. You could also have somebody holding an apple in their hand; you could have anything to illustrate just that. This is obviously illustrating something that would be very unpleasing. It’s a very brutal picture. So, it doesn’t have to do with just with experiencing something. In any case, what you understand from it and what I understand from it – again, this is relative. 

Participant: You have to read the explanations.

Dr. Berzin: You have to read the explanations. That’s right. For some people, maybe seeing a picture will teach them everything. Obviously, there are those who learn from signs, from symbols, from things like that. Buddha appeared as a musician, an artist, and taught that way. It doesn’t mean that that will work for everybody. In fact, for many people, maybe even most people, you need an explanation. And when you get an explanation, looking at the picture may help it to sink in better and to understand it better. 

Right. So, from the illustration of contacting awareness, you can understand comfortable, uncomfortable, and neutral, and from the feeling one, you would understand happy, unhappy, or neutral. But obviously, the arrow in the eye, the illustration for contacting awareness is a very unpleasing one. And the feeling one, illustrated by a sexual embrace, is also happy – for most people. Same thing with the arrow in your eye: it’s unpleasing for most people. In any case, let’s try to go past this point. 

We only have a few more minutes left in class. Do you have more questions, since starting the next topic, we are not going to get very far? 

The next point, the next link (at least we can try that) is happiness. Happiness… we will refrain from the John Lennon song, Happiness Is a Warm Gun. Sorry. That was a stupid, irrelevant remark, which, obviously, only somebody who was into Beetle songs in the 1960s would understand. It was my mistaken estimation that the audience sitting here in Berlin of German people would know such a song from the 1960s. So, that is an illustration of stupidity and incorrect consideration. So, let us go on to the explanation of happiness before we all feel unhappy!

Happiness, the definition, is that feeling that, when you experience it, you would like not to be separated from it. It’s not craving. Craving is much stronger. It’s just that feeling that you would like not to be separated from. And unhappiness is that feeling that, when you experience it, you would like to be separated from it. Happiness and unhappiness – these are ways in which you experience the ripening of karma. The circumstance for it is pleasing, unpleasing or neutral contacting awareness with something, although, if you really think about it, it may not necessarily be like that. 

I am thinking of the case when all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, you feel unhappy. What would you attribute that to? By the way, happy and unhappy don’t have to be dramatic. When you see that there is no chocolate cake left in the bakery shop, you don’t start to cry; you are not so unhappy (although you may be). It could be very low key. 

Happiness and unhappiness are mental factors that accompany sensory cognition and mental cognition. So, while you are seeing something or listening to something, that sensory cognition could be accompanied by the feeling of happiness or unhappiness. While you are thinking of something or just thinking of nothing, that mental cognition could be accompanied by happy or unhappy. So, when you are thinking of nothing, your contacting awareness of that could be unpleasing, and then you would feel unhappy. 

Contacting Awareness and Feeling a Level of Happiness Are Ever-Present Mental Factors

So, yes, the contacting awareness and the feeling links follow each other immediately, one after the other. I don’t think you could have a case of feeling happiness or unhappiness independently of contacting awareness. Contacting awareness, after all, is one of the five ever-functioning mental factors; it accompanies every moment of cognition, whether that cognition is a sensory cognition or a mental cognition, so it’s always happening. As is feeling – it’s also one of the ever-functioning ones.

Participant: But one follows another.

Dr. Berzin: They follow one another.

Participant: You are not really happy about the object. It’s really about the contacting awareness.

Dr. Berzin: Are you happy about the object or about the contacting awareness? The happiness is based on the contacting awareness.

Participant: Which is about the object.

Dr. Berzin: When you have craving, you crave the feeling; it’s like attachment to the feeling. When you get to the obtainer emotion, which is the next link after craving, there is also a desire, but that’s for the object. So, there is a difference between whether you have desire for the feeling of happiness or desire for the object that you’ve had pleasing contacting awareness of and experience with happiness.

Question About Contacting Awareness and Feeling in the Mind of a Buddha

Participant: I imagine that untainted happiness is always in the mind of a Buddha?

Dr. Berzin: Right. If we think of the Buddhas having ever-functioning mental factors, then the happiness that a Buddha would have would always be untainted happiness. The feeling that a Buddha would have would always be untainted happiness. Arhats, I believe, can have either untainted happiness or untainted neutral. There is no such thing as untainted unhappiness. 

Participant: Untainted unpleasing?

Dr. Berzin: I don’t think you could talk about that. Untainted contacting awareness – a Buddha would have to have that because everything that a Buddha has is untainted. But within that, would a Buddha have unpleasing contacting awareness? I don’t think so. 

Participant: His mind doesn’t go to something like that?

Dr. Berzin: It doesn’t go to something in an unpleasing way. Then you get into the whole discussion of whether a Buddha can be aware of suffering if a Buddha doesn’t experience suffering. And you would say, yes, a Buddha is aware of and experiences that suffering, but that experience is not the ripening of karma. It’s not that the Buddha experiences it in the same way that we would experience it – namely, in a samsaric way. If a Buddha didn’t know suffering, then a Buddha wouldn’t be omniscient. But how a Buddha experiences seeing or being aware of other people’s suffering – which a Buddha must, with compassion – is hard to say.

Participant: It’s quite difficult to talk about an omniscient mind having contacting awareness in the sense of something pleasing or unpleasing, because as you said, it’s like going to the object or something…

Dr. Berzin: Coming to the object.

Participant: Coming to the object. But then he’s coming to all objects simultaneously.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Buddha is coming to all objects simultaneously if a Buddha is omniscient from the Mahayana point of view of knowing everything simultaneously. Yes, but we don’t have to think of it in an active sense. In any case, it would be active because everything is changing from moment to moment. And because everything is changing from moment to moment… well, then you get into the whole thing that a Buddha knows the three times simultaneously. But that gets us into our discussion of time and the not-yet-happening, the past happening, and these sorts of things. It’s not that every moment of the continuity of something exists simultaneously. But that we will discuss in depth when we have our weekend on time. 

And now it is time. The time has come. The mind is going pleasingly or unpleasingly to the fact that the time has come to end the class.