After making this video, I thought it’d be fun to map out the sentence “I have a problem because my car has a problem” using the syllogism worksheet on the Understanding the Mind website. Here are the three modes of the subject (“A problem”), the predicate (“I have”), and the reason (“My car has a problem”):

• There is a problem with my car.
• Any characteristic or condition that my car has I have too.
• If I don’t have a certain characteristic or condition, then the car doesn’t either.

Checking the implications of the second and third modes led to some interesting counterexamples, such as “If my car is red, then I’m also red,” “If my car won’t start, then I won’t start either,” “If my car is dead, then I’m dead,” and even: “If I don’t have a car, then I don’t have a self.” Unfortunately, the last example is not an emptiness meditation, because it is referring to the conventional self.

If we do not understand with valid cognizers the objects to be practised and the objects to be abandoned our Dharma practice will be inconsistent. For example, some people are inspired by their first Dharma teachings and then apply themselves with great enthusiasm to meditation for a few months, but when they find that they have not made much progress they become discouraged and give up their practice. This kind of thing happens because we do not realize the meaning of the teachings with valid cognizers, and so our understanding remains unstable and vulnerable to doubts and wrong awarenesses. If we realize a Dharma subject with a valid cognizer, however, we shall never feel that we want to abandon our efforts to attain liberation.

In Part One of Understanding the Mind, Geshe-la presents a seven-fold division of the mind:

• Direct perceivers
• Inferential cognizers
• Re-cognizers
• Correct beliefs
• Non-ascertaining perceivers
• Doubts
• Wrong awarenesses

Geshe-la says that “The main purpose of explaining this is to show how we gain authentic Dharma realizations, and in particular to show the stages involved in attaining a direct realization of emptiness” (ibid., p. 88).

I have posted to the Understanding the Mind website a new 1-page chart which, hopefully, will help readers with their understanding of the mind. Unfortunately, for the sake of simplicity, I was not able to fit everything into such a small overview!

The chart can be downloaded as a PDF directly by clicking the image below:

Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata. (Buddha Shakyamuni, Neyyatha Sutta)

On the Understanding the Mind website, I briefly discuss whether Buddha’s teachings on past and future lives should be taken literally or merely metaphorically. My main point was this: “Of course, Buddha sometimes does use metaphorical language as a teaching device to convey a spiritual truth. However, we cannot say that the predicated truth of a metaphor—i.e., the truth to which the metaphor points—is yet another metaphor!” I would like to explain what I mean in more detail with the following examples as recorded in the Pali canon of Buddhist scriptures.

In Joyful Path of Good Fortune (pp. 135-136), Geshe Kelsang Gyatso relates the story of the blind turtle to help us recognize the rarity of our precious human life. This analogy was originally taught by the Buddha in the Chiggala Sutta aka “The Hole”:

“Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?”

“It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole.”

“It’s likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It’s likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It’s likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.

“Therefore your duty is the contemplation, ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress.’ Your duty is the contemplation, ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.’””

A predicate is that which is affirmed or denied about a subject. The predicated truth of the above analogy is the rarity of our precious human life, i.e. how rare it is to create the cause to be reborn as a human being and to practice Dharma. Why should the rarity of gaining a human rebirth also be only a metaphor? That is not how metaphors work.

Here is a second example. In Meaningful to Behold (pp. 151-152), Geshe Kelsang Gyatso explains that the word Dharma means “to hold,” in the sense that “Dharma practice holds us back from falling into the three lower realms.” We can see this originally illustrated by the Buddha in the Papata Sutta aka “The Drop-off”:

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha at Vulture’s Peak. Then he said to the monks, “Come, monks, let’s go to Inspiration Peak for the day’s abiding.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded.

Then the Blessed One together with a large number of monks went to Inspiration Peak. One of the monks saw the huge drop-off from Inspiration Peak and, on seeing it, said to the Blessed One, “Wow, what a huge drop-off! What a really huge drop-off! Is there any drop-off more huge & frightening than this?”

“There is, monk, a drop-off more huge & frightening than this.”

“And which drop-off, lord, is more huge & frightening than this?”

“Any priests or contemplatives who do not know, as it actually is present, that ‘This is stress’; who do not know, as it actually is present, that ‘This is the origination of stress’… ‘This is the cessation of stress’… ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress’: They revel in (thought-) fabrications leading to birth; they revel in fabrications leading to aging; they revel in fabrications leading to death; they revel in fabrications leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Reveling in fabrications leading to birth… aging… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, they fabricate fabrications leading to birth… aging… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Fabricating fabrications leading to birth… aging… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, they drop over the drop-off of birth. They drop over the drop-off of aging… the drop-off of death… the drop-off of sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. They are not totally released from birth, aging, death, sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. They are not totally released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.”

The predicated truth here is that at the time of death and after death, only Dharma can protect us from falling into the lower realms. It is the same principal at work in any analogy.

For example, in Living Meaningfully, Dying Joyfully (p. 62), Geshe-la explains that “Our death is like a bird flying from its nest; our body is like the nest and our mind is like the bird.” The predicated truth of this analogy is that the mind is a separate entity from the body. We go to what can be called the “literal extreme” by thinking that “our body is like a nest, and our mind is like a bird,” which clearly misses the point of it being an analogy. Conversely, we go to the “metaphorical extreme” by thinking that such analogies can only be saying something about this life rather than saying something about what happens after this life.

The middle way is to avoid literalizing the metaphorical, while not de-literalizing its predicated truth. You are welcome to test this out with one more example.