Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 41-minute talk, Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen examines the self-knowing direct perceiver, the third of four types of awareness that cognize objects directly. He anchors the study in practice: cultivating renunciation (disgust with saṃsāra) and compassion for all beings, so learning becomes a path to enlightenment. Self-knowing awareness is defined as non-conceptual, non-mistaken cognition that apprehends itself, divided into three kinds: the valid perceiver (the fresh moment when eye or ear consciousness first apprehends form or sound), the subsequent perceiver (apprehending what that first moment already knew), and appearance-without-ascertainment (where an object shows but its nature is misidentified). He illustrates the third using non-Buddhist schools—Samkhya, Vaisheshika, Charvaka—showing how philosophical traditions misunderstand consciousness. Suited for serious students of Buddhist epistemology.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 Lo Rig.mp3
UUID: 6ffcd308-6e9d-44d5-a9a7-40ce2e5d1842
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Nature of the Mind (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1995 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 41.4 minutes
Words: ~2,358
So through extensive listening, what one should be able to do is that one should be able to put it in practice, which means that which leads one or which frees one from the lower states. So with extensive listening, the result of extensive listening is — there are many — which one is freeing oneself from the lower state, and secondly, a second type of result: that freeing oneself from the state of saṃsāra, which is like freeing from this, leaving this contaminated body. And extensive listening is one of our best — I want to say — friends or companions that which is not only for this life, but for all our future lives. It can be the most best friend, which brings — which gives us the different different levels of happiness. And like the normal friend, that we so-called friend — that we have friends.
These friends are something which changes time to time. And then the friend that we know as the hearing or extensive listening — that’s known as the supreme friend — which even when we are very poor, when we are in a very poor situation, even at that time comes and helps. But the normal friend that we so-called friend — this can change. At that time it’s sometimes not a friend at that time. But then extensive listening is what brings happiness and wealth as well, to all the times, which is like looking to all different situations.
So engaging in this action of listening — that action of listening shouldn’t only be like a — shouldn’t only be led by the motivation of self-liberation, but it should be conjoined with the thought of benefiting others, or with the thought of bodhicitta. So the one won’t experience — like, I want to say — not wishing the sufferings, the sufferings of saṃsāra, the sufferings that one goes through — experiencing these sufferings and not wishing that is what is known as renunciation. Not wishing that. Not wishing for saṃsāra is what renunciation is.
And looking to others — others being suffered in saṃsāra and seeing that and wishing them to be free from this state of sufferings is what is known as compassion. And generating that type of compassion to all other sentient beings is the great compassion. And with having this kind of great compassion, one should listen to the teachings. So all the actions that are motivated by this great motivation, or the great compassion, or the bodhicitta, become a cause for liberation as well as the full enlightened state. So then finally when one dedicates these merits — whatever one accumulates during this listening, if one dedicates that in order to achieve the full enlightened state for the sake of other sentient beings — then up to that time when one comes to achieve the full enlightened state, one can enjoy the result of those good actions.
So as an example, it’s like a glass of milk. If you drink it — just one glass — then you can easily drink it. But then if you pour it into the ocean, then the glass of milk can remain there, mixed with water, until the end of all the oceans. Until the ocean is completely finished, dried up. Up to that time the milk will remain in the oceans.
So in the same way, the merit that we dedicate towards the achievement of the fully enlightened state will remain there until one actually achieves the fully enlightened state. So now we’re going to the topic that we discussed last time. And we’re talking about the direct perception or direct perceiver. And there are four different kinds of direct perceiver. That of sense direct perceiver, mental direct perceiver, and what we call self-knowing direct perceiver, and yogic direct perceiver.
So there are four of these. And the first two, which I have explained already. So now we come to the third one, which is the self-knowing direct perceiver. So this self-knowing direct perceiver is explained in two parts, which is: one is the definition, and the second is division. So the self-knower and self-knowing direct perceiver — these are two different.
Self-knower and self-knowing direct perceiver. One is perceiver — self-knowing direct perceiver — and one is a self-knower. Self-knower, which has a definition: a self-knower is that which has the aspect of apprehender. That which has the aspect of apprehender. That is the definition of self-knower.
So this — that which has the aspect of apprehender — which is mainly this kind of self-knower is not mainly directed inward, which is to the internal consciousness. It apprehends only the internal consciousness. So as the definition of self-knowing direct perceiver, it is: non-conceptual, non-mistaken, that which has the aspect of apprehender. That is the self-knowing direct perceiver. The definition of self-knowing direct perceiver.
So a self-knowing direct perceiver should be like non-mistaken or non-conceptual. Non-conceptual or non-mistaken towards the object that which it actually has. And that self-knowing direct perceiver has three divisions, three kinds. That is: that which is a valid perceiver, that which is a subsequent perceiver, and then that which is inattentive — which is like: object appears but not ascertained. There are these three kinds.
So as an example to each of these three divisions — the first one as in: the valid self-knowing direct perceiver. For that: the first moment of self-knowing perceiving the first moment of eye consciousness apprehending a form. That is like the example of the first self-knowing direct perceiver which is the valid perceiver. So whatever the first moment of eye perceiving a form — or can be the first moment of ear consciousness hearing a sound — that which is perceived by the self-knowing perceiver perceiving the first moment of that, which is eye consciousness perceiving a form, can be ear consciousness perceiving a sound. So that one has to be valid — which means that which is newly perceived, and it’s also incontrovertible. So it should have these qualities. So it should have these.
It should have these qualities. So then the second moment of that — which is the self-knowing direct perceiver apprehending the eye consciousness apprehending form — that second moment is known as the subsequent perceiver. So this part — this is the subsequent perceiver — it is known as subsequent perceiver because it is also non-mistaken towards its object, what has been perceived. But it only perceives what has been perceived. Nothing more than the first moment of perceiving. There’s nothing more the subsequent perceiver perceives — only what it is perceived — only what is perceived by the very first moment.
So then the example to the third one — that which appears but not ascertained: as an example, is that the example they use for Samkhya. It’s one of the non-Buddhist schools — a non-Buddhist practitioner who for him or her, experiencing happiness as consciousness. Experiencing the happiness being consciousness. That is like the example to the third which is: object appears but not ascertained.
And that can be used again the same — like for another non-Buddhist, again known as Vaisheshika. That’s another non-Buddhist practitioner. And it’s also like for that practitioner experiencing happiness as consciousness. That also is used as an example.
And then another example they use — like another non-Buddhist, again known as, in Sanskrit they call it, Charvaka. And for that practitioner — what do you say — for that practitioner, his or her perceiving or experiencing the inferential cognition as existing. So that is the example that is also used for: object appears but not ascertained. There will be more explanation on these three. So the happiness that we talk about — the Samkhya’s happiness — is not sort of like what you call ordinary happiness.
They have a like — it’s much more than ordinary happiness. Their happiness. So what here — to this Samkhya — the practitioner accepts there is the happiness, but doesn’t accept or assert that happiness is consciousness. But then what has been proved is that there is a self-knower which knows that — I would say, a self-knower that which knows this particular happiness. Self-knower that which knows that particular happiness.
So there is this — to that particular practitioner — he or she has this self-knower, which knows that happiness — that happiness being, what do you say, consciousness. That sort of appears — that is what appears — but that practitioner doesn’t ascertain that. So to this Samkhya, or to the practitioners, that happiness or that joy appears, but it is not ascertained as its being a consciousness. So this happiness over here, I think it’s better to translate it as bliss — as in happiness. And what is meant as in happiness or the bliss here is that it’s much more than extraordinary happiness or bliss — which is in non-Buddhist traditions like as in they get initiated through the Shiva Lingam.
That’s the Shiva Lingam where they show respect to the Shiva Lingam. And when this Shiva Lingam and the female secret organ, when they come together, then at that point one experiences a joy. And that joy is what is known — they call that the path. That is sort of the — so that type of joy — I’m sorry, I’m using these three words together — joy, happiness, bliss together — but that joy that is known as a path to that practice, but not consciousness. So when one practices this path, which is like when the drops melt, or when the drops drip, then one has this joy. They regard that as a path, but not a consciousness.
So that is what is referring to the first part — what we said was the example to the third which is: object appears but not ascertained. That is what the example is used for.
So here, they are called Samkhya schools. And in English it can be translated as countable school — because they have this tenet: their tenet is that they can assert all phenomena, all objects of knowledge, into twenty-five categories, into twenty-five groups. So they can count all things into twenty-five groups. So that’s why they are called Samkhya.
So these twenty-five are like objects of knowledge. They are known as: the main, or the principle — that’s one. And second known as the great. And thirdly, it’s known as the pride. And then the fourth one is known as the five objects, which are the form and so forth. And then fifth is like the five elements. Which is like the four elements. On top of that, the space element.
So then there are eleven faculties — that of the six senses, and then another five. So total of these, they are all together twenty-five. So they enumerate all of these into these twenty-fives. So then the same with Vaisheshika. That’s another school, another school known as the particularists.
They also follow the same — they also assert that the bliss or the joy appears as consciousness, but it is not ascertained. And then the other school known as the Charvaka, another non-Buddhist school. And their self-knowing direct perceiver which perceives the existence of the inferential cognizer or inferential perceiver is the example that is: object appears but not ascertained. So for this particular school, non-Buddhist school, they said — they assert that whatever is a valid perceiver, it has to be direct valid. There’s no inferential valid cognizer.
That’s what they assert. And they don’t accept the existence of inferential cognizer. So what here the inferential cognizer means — that, for example, for one to realize that sound is impermanent. And to realize that, someone gives a proof saying how sound is impermanent — giving a proof or a reason that makes you realize that sound is impermanent.
Giving a reason. This is what inferential cognizer is. So direct valid perceiver — which is like you don’t have to rely on any reasons or signs, and you can perceive the object directly — that is what direct valid perceiver is. And then inferential cognizer or inferential perceiver — which is that you have to, in order to have that realization, depend on reasonings.
So these Cārvākas — they don’t believe in the law of karma, in the law of future lives. They don’t believe in refuge. And so which literally as in here has a meaning of like — is it, thrown or sent far. What is it?
How do you put this? Let’s see. One is being sent far away from liberation or from enlightenment. That is what Charvaka means. And how?
Because they don’t believe in the law of karma, future lives, and the refuge — because of that, because of this wrong view, they are like thrown or sent far away from liberation. So among these different practitioners, this is known as one of the worst ones. According to Buddhist explanation. So then now we go to the next which is the yogic direct perceiver. And that is explained in two parts, which is: definitions and its division.
So as a definition: the awareness in the continuum of ārya beings — the superior beings — that which is generated or produced from a concentration or samadhi, which is the union of calm abiding and special insight. That which is the Shamatha and the Vipassana. So that is the definition of yogic direct perceiver. So for example — with the example that the yogic perceiver perceiving the selflessness of the person — that has an uncommon empowering condition. That is what is known as the uncommon empowering condition — which is the union of Shamatha and Vipassana, which is the calm abiding and the special insight.
That is its uncommon empowering condition. So here, the uncommon empowering condition means that which has complete power in order to produce its result. That is what uncommon empowering condition is. So the union of calm abiding and special insight. Here, calm abiding is the meditative stabilization is