Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 36-minute session, Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen explores Buddhist epistemology’s classification of direct perception — sensory, mental, self-knowing, and yogic perceivers — and their subdivisions: what appears but is not ascertained; valid perception; and subsequent perception. Using examples of realizing impermanence and selflessness, he examines the first moment versus second moment of realization, highlighting Buddha’s unique status where even secondary moments remain direct valid perception. The latter half addresses the self-knower — a consciousness observing other conscious events — and how its philosophical standing varies across Buddhist schools: accepted in Vaibhāṣika, rejected in Prāsaṇgika. Advanced material for students with prior study of Buddhist logic.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 Lo Rig.mp3
UUID: 34812c65-9593-4257-aabd-583ed2c4ddad
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Nature of the Mind (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1995 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 36.4 minutes
Words: ~2,040
That is what the single-pointed concentration on object is. That is what calm abiding is — the meditative stabilization. So then especially insight here is the wisdom — the wisdom of analysis — that which you gain out of this, what you say, Shamatha. So the awareness in the continuum of ārya beings — the superior beings — that awareness which is generated out of that concentration, or the awareness which is generated through these two: the calm abiding and special insight. So I missed one part there with the definition, which is like the other awareness.
Probably I have to put “other” in at the top. Which means other here — I have to add this word — because other here means which is mainly this awareness that mainly apprehends the external phenomena, beside the subject or the person.
So then now as a division: if you look to the first three, which are that of the sensory perceiver, mental direct perceiver, and self-knowing direct perceiver, they have three divisions each. Each one has three. And this yogic direct perceiver has only two. You don’t have the third one — which is the object appears but not ascertained — this is not there.
So what you have is only the valid perceiver and the subsequent perceiver. So because there’s no — there isn’t the third one, which is object appears but not ascertained — because for yogic direct perceiver, if the object appears, then it is sure that it has been ascertained. So as an example to the direct valid perceiver — this valid perceiver: the first moment of direct perceiving of the subtle impermanence. The first moment of that. Perceiving of the subtle impermanence — the first moment of that is the valid yogic direct valid perceiver.
Then same with, like, realizing — the yogic direct perceiver realizing the subtle selflessness of the person. So all the — even the yogic direct perceiver perceiving the gross selflessness of a person — the first moment of that is also known as the yogic valid perceiver. So then the second moment of what has been perceived — like the subtle impermanence, or the subtle selflessness of the person, or the gross selflessness of the person — the second moment of that is known as the subsequent yogic direct perceiver.
So then if you ask a question again saying: if all the second moment of perceiving the selflessness of a person — does that have to be the subsequent perceiver of the yogic direct perceiver? Then the answer is no. It doesn’t have to be. Because for Buddha — for Buddha, all the second moment of perceiver — like, for Buddha, the second moment of perceiving the selflessness of the person, the subtle impermanence — even the second moment, for Buddha, it is the yogic direct valid perceiver. So because for Buddha, the second moment of perceiving the selflessness of a person is not a subsequent perceiver — because if it’s a subsequent perceiver, that means that subsequent perceiver has to, in order to have that realization, depend on the first moment. So for Buddha to realize that, he or she doesn’t have to depend on the first moment of realization. So for Buddha, the second moment — even the second moment — of perceiving the selflessness of a person is not a subsequent perceiver, because it is a direct valid perceiver — because it doesn’t have to depend, to have that realization, on the first moment. First moment of perceiving.
It doesn’t have to depend on that. So up to here, we’ve been talking mainly about the direct perceivers — the different kinds of direct perceivers: that of the mental direct perceiver, sense direct perceiver, self-knowing direct perceiver, and yogic direct perceiver. So now, again, we talk about the same subject — it’s continuous, talking about the same subject — which is: what we’ve been talking about is the direct perceiver, but now again it will be — what is it? Re-explained — adding the direct valid perceiver. Talking about direct valid perceiver.
So the direct valid perceiver — that of the direct valid sense perceiver, direct valid mental perceiver, direct valid self-knower, and direct valid yogic perceiver. So we’ll be talking on that more now. So we will be talking first about the self-knowing direct valid perceiver. And that is — as a meaning or definition — that which is new, incontrovertible, and non-conceptual, non-mistaken, which is directed inward, which is to the internal consciousness.
So which is like — this self-knowing direct valid perceiver is only directed towards the internal, which is the internal consciousness. And it has its own particular ways of perceiving the object. So here, then, like — new, or the fresh — the first part — this showed that the second moment of self-knowing direct perceiver is sort of: this shows that that is not included. So that is like the example that we use for Samkhya: that the bliss or the joy appears but not ascertained as consciousness.
That that shows that it is not the direct valid perceiver. So then the rest of the direct valid perceivers — like the mental direct valid perceiver and then the self-knowing direct valid perceiver. These will — thinking that to explain this it has to be explained in more detail — so he will do this in the next period.
So if you have any questions regarding this, you can ask. And last time we talked about maybe we could discuss a little bit more on this subject — how to make it more clear. We could like to make it more — I want to say — to understand the subject better. There was — we were talking to discuss a little bit about the subject, how we want to do it. But then, looks like there’s not many people today.
So whatever. If you have any questions, you can ask. So beside that also, if you have, like, personal questions or past questions regarding your own practice and things — or like different questions — if you feel like asking, if you don’t feel like asking here, then you can like come — you can make an appointment, and he can explain you the best way he can. Mm-hmm.
I’ll — call you start. Yeah. Sorry. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
It’s up. Mm-hmm. So this is like a — the self-knowing direct — the self-knower is that which is directed to the internal consciousness. So the internal consciousness — those of the eye consciousness and then the rest which is like up to the mental consciousness — these are all known as the internal consciousness.
And the self-knower is directed towards that. So when we say — so when I’m giving this example that of the subtle selflessness of the person and the gross selflessness of the person, this is like we’re talking about the emptiness. So the consciousness that realizes the selflessness of a person — there is a self-knower which realizes the consciousness that realizes the selflessness of a person. It realizes only the consciousness, but not the emptiness. I’ll say again:
This is like — there’s a self-knower, a self-knowing consciousness which realizes the consciousness that again realizes the selflessness of a person. It knows that, but it doesn’t realize the emptiness. How was it? Did you get it? Or is it still not clear?
So for the self-knower, one day, I would say, apprehends or experiences the yogic direct perceiver, but not the emptiness. And for the yogic direct perceiver — that which realizes the emptiness. So because the self-knower is only directed to a consciousness, which is the internal consciousness — there’s nothing beside that. So when it comes to realize emptiness, that means it’s realizing another thing.
So it’s no more only directed towards the internal consciousness. That’s why the self-knower is known as only directed towards the internal consciousness. Mm-hmm. Agreed. Yeah.
What do you say — that the self-knower is the part of us at night that we know? The self-knower — as a part. So as an example, like consciousness perceiving an object — who perceives that is the self-knower. Yeah.
The self-knower that perceives a particular eye consciousness perceiving an object. So right now, in this particular part here, the teaching is according to the Vaibhāṣika tenets. And Vaibhāṣika tenets — that’s the lower tenets. And Vaibhāṣika tenets — they accept the existence of self-knower. But then if you go to the higher tenets, which is like the Prāsaṇgika — which is a higher tenet — they don’t accept the self-knower. They don’t accept the self.
So what Prāsaṇgika explains is that because as long as it is consciousness, it is definite — it’s going to know itself. So there’s no need of another self-knower. So then the Sautrāntika, Mādhyamika, and below that, the other lower tenets — they assert this self-knower, which is like a self-knower which knows the rest of the consciousness.
If a question is asked or raised, saying that: the self-knower that knows — that which experiences the eye consciousness apprehending a form — is that self-knower the eye consciousness? Then, no. It is not. So then what is it then? They said it’s a part within the eye consciousness that experiences or knows the eye consciousness.
Which — a part within the eye consciousness which knows the eye consciousness perceiving form — is what is known as the self-knower. But that is not the eye consciousness. Because if it’s the eye consciousness, then it also has to perceive other forms. But it doesn’t. So, yeah, the yogic direct perceiver — one day — what do you say — is generated or produced through its uncommon empowering conditions, which is the union of calm abiding and special insight.
And that also has to be — how do you say — the awareness or the knower — the knower within the continuum of ārya beings, the superior beings. So because of that, like all the knower or the awareness within the continuum of ārya beings are known as yogis. So, like, the subtle and the gross impermanence will be explained more in the next coming teachings. But as a gross impermanence, which means like — what do you say — the building falling apart, or our body breaking into pieces.
This is what is known as gross impermanence. So then the subtle impermanence is known as the disintegration moment by moment — within our body or with the flower here — each moment of disintegration. That is what is known as subtle impermanence. And as we see, it’s much easier to realize the grosser level of impermanence, and the subtler one is much more difficult to realize. So as an example, if you look to your arm here — you’ll think it’s the same thing as what you had yesterday.
So but it is not actually true, because every moment the hand changes into something different. So what we have is very new. Every moment we have a new hand. So, anyway, this is what is known as subtle impermanence, and it’s harder to realize. Good.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that question. Direct perceiver and — ? Mm-hmm. I think it’s these two, yeah, meaning sensing.
Probably, my — I’m sort of — what do you say? Yeah, in different ways. Okay, that’s fine. Yeah. The difference is — what is it?
Direct perceiver and direct valid perceiver. Direct perceiver and direct valid perceiver. There’s a difference but not — I don’t think there would be another one. So one thing that we wanted just to make a little clear: the direct valid perceiver is only one thing. Like direct perceiver — then they — it can be divided into different divisions.
Which is like the subsequent perceiver, and which is direct. Again, direct perceiver can be divided into three, for example. Direct valid perceiver can divide into one. And then you can go to subsequent direct perceiver. And then, what would you say?
Normal. Mm-hmm. Now object appears but not ascertained — that also can be divided into that. Yeah, thank you.