Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen opens this 46-minute teaching with Dromtönpa’s story of a monk repeatedly changing his practice—circumambulating, praying, meditating—only to hear each time that true Dharma requires removing attachment to this life. He then explores valid cognition, Buddhism’s epistemology, focusing on three types of inferential knowledge: inference through fact, renown, and belief. Examples include sound’s impermanence and specific karmic results: generosity yields wealth, morality yields higher rebirth, patience yields beauty. He carefully distinguishes three categories of phenomena: manifest (directly known), slightly hidden (requiring logic: impermanence, non-true existence of the aggregates), and very hidden (karmic results requiring faith in reliable sources). The talk covers three analyses for verifying teachings and introduces the sign-apprehending mind—the reasoning faculty at the heart of inference. For practitioners studying epistemological texts.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 11 Lo Rig.mp3
UUID: a456a230-9352-4859-bdbb-65de8195ea82
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Nature of the Mind (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1995 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.0 minutes
Words: ~2,352
So, Lama Tsongkhapa explains in his teachings saying that by meditating on the precious human body and meditating on impermanence — these two — by doing meditation on these two, one removes or gives up attachment towards this life. So, for example, like taking as an example to myself and others — most of our Dharma practice becomes mainly a cause of this life, this very life. So that is because we want happiness for this very life, and we are dependent on the conditions that bring about happiness, which is like food, shelter, and clothing. So, in order to make our practice pure, one needs to remove the attachment towards this life.
So, to do that, there is this explanation, these teachings — that one should meditate on the precious human rebirth and impermanence. So there was this master, Dromtönpa. When he was walking, he saw a monk going around a stupa — circumambulating the stupa. And at that very time Dromtönpa told the monk — said something like — it’s better if you do a Dharma practice. That’s what the master said.
So then, the monk thought that maybe he should do another thing — another, which is like — maybe just going around, circumambulating, is not a Dharma practice. So he thought that, and the next day he sat close to the stupa and did his prayers, and then again, master Dromtönpa came by and told — said to the monk that it’s good but it’s better if you practice Dharma. Again, it said — so next day again the monk thought — because he told him it’s good but do a Dharma practice — and then the next day he thought maybe what he’s doing in reciting prayers is not a Dharma practice and he thought maybe to do meditation. And then he went there and did meditations.
And then again, Dromtönpa was walking by and said in front of him, it’s good you are meditating but do a Dharma practice. And then, so then the monk didn’t know what to do and he asked this question to Dromtönpa — that if going around the stupa or meditating and reciting prayers are not Dharma practice, then what kind of Dharma practice should I do? What kind of Dharma practice is that that I can do? So then Dromtönpa told the monk saying that you should, like, you should remove or you should give up the attachment towards this life. So, like, going around a stupa, reciting prayers, and doing meditation — these are Dharma practice. But then that became — those practices, if it is done with the thought of benefiting only for this very life, then it doesn’t become a pure Dharma practice. Pure Dharma practice. Because at that very time this monk was thinking for this very life and doing these practices for that. So because of this reason, when Atisha first taught to his disciples in Tibet, he said to remove attachment to this life or to remove the attachment to this life and meditate on love, compassion, and so on, and didn’t really give other higher teachings.
Only mostly he gave teachings on these. So whatever normal practice we do, it should be done purely, and for example, a person like me — whatever practice I do, it is mixed with the thought of all the concern, and that is like just working for this very life, and that is for food, shelter, and clothing. So it’s easier for us to remove the attachment towards food and clothing but not easy to remove the attachment towards our fame and reputation. So because of this — fame and reputation — most of our practice becomes for that purpose, like for fame and reputation. So because of that, whatever virtue we do, we should do those virtues for the sake of other sentient beings — like oneself and others, thinking others are more important — and doing meditation on compassion and bodhicitta, like meditation on bodhicitta for others.
For the purpose of others. So, in short, like doing meditations on bodhicitta — these different practices are like the accumulation of merit, and meditating on right view or emptiness is the accumulation of wisdom. And by accumulating these two, one comes to achieve the true bodies of the Buddha, which is the Dharmakāya and Rūpakāya. So like the past Buddhas — like for example Buddha Śākyamūni and so on — there are many other Buddhas who have achieved these bodies, the Dharmakāya and Rūpakāya, this form body and the wisdom body, through the accumulation of wisdom, through these two accumulations — that is the accumulation of merit and the accumulation of wisdom. So through these accumulations they came to those states, or they came to have those bodies. And same with us — we should generate this thought which is bodhicitta and listen now to the teachings.
Oh yeah. So last time we talked about the valid perceivers — that are the direct valid perceiver — and the direct valid perceiver we have finished explaining. And now, the second valid perceiver is that of inferential valid cognition. So this part we will talk about. So the inferential valid cognition or perceiver — as a definition — it is a new, incontrovertible knower that is a reasoner dependent on a right or correct sign.
Dependent upon a correct sign. So there are like three types of inferential valid cognizers, which are known as the inference through the power of the fact, and inference through the power of renown, and inference through the power of belief. Oh yeah. Through the power of renown. Not reason. It’s something — yeah — renown, which is something known — non by renown? Yeah, renown. Which is commonly known in the world, like renown.
So as an example to the first — the inference through the power of the fact — that is the inferential understanding or inferential cognition of sound being impermanent because it is a product. This statement, or this, is used as an example to the first one. So then the inference through the power of renown — which is like the inferential cognition — inferential cognition of — what is it — rabbit possessor as a moon. That is like — so, like, as a subject, for example, which means rabbit possessor.
One that possesses a rabbit. So, we call the moon with a different name. That is — the rabbit possessor — which is because on the face of the moon there is a shadow of a rabbit. So because of that it is called the rabbit possessor. The teacher is — yeah. So that — as in our subject — that is that which can be called moon. I need to be in — let’s start like this. So then, the reason that it can be called moon is because it is an object of that thought. So, with this statement, with this reasoning, one comes to have inferential cognition, and that is known as inference through the power of renown.
So, then next is that inference through the power of belief, and this one — like the words or the teachings of the Buddha — it is refined with three analyses. So that is what — Buddha’s words — what is — that is the reason — it is refined through these three analyses, and because of that the line which says — by giving, one receives wealth, and by practicing morality you are born into higher states. This line one has faith in. So this line is infallible or incontrovertible. Because yeah.
This line is infallible because it is refined through the three analyses. So with this kind of reason, whatever one comes to know — that kind of knowing is known as the inference through the power of belief. So these are the three analyses. So the three analyses are used to determine whether words of the Buddha are mistaken or not. So like, the three things — there are three kinds of objects of knowledge — that one kind that is the manifest one.
And then second one is the second kind of object — the slightly hidden one. And then the third kind of object is the very hidden one. So there are these three kinds. So for example, in the words of the Buddha — like, for example, as in the Heart Sūtra — using whether there is a manifest mistake or not, using the direct valid perceiver to analyze whether there is a mistake or not. So which is like — and then the second is that, for the slightly hidden phenomena, whether it has, again, whether it has a mistake or not — you apply the inferential cognitions to see that.
So then those which are very hidden — to them, you apply this analysis — among them, whether they have contradictions or not. And analyzing within — like what is said in the beginning and what is at the end and in between — whether there is a contradiction or not. Like with these three analyses, if it is refined with these three analyses, then it is like a — what is it — a reliable one. So, like, manifest phenomena — what we mean by manifest phenomena is that, for example, for an ordinary person, to realize something they don’t have to depend on a reason. They can have the experience of it without putting any reasons.
That is what, like, manifest phenomena. So then the slightly hidden phenomena which are, like, as an example — sound being impermanent, and the aggregates not truly existing — non-truly-existing aggregates — and these are known as slightly hidden phenomena. So these slightly hidden phenomena — for an ordinary person in order to have the realization of those slightly hidden phenomena — they have to depend on reasons. Without depending on a reason they are unable to have the understanding of these slightly hidden phenomena.
So then the next one — like, very hidden phenomena — which are like — by practicing giving, one receives wealth, and by practicing morality one is born in the higher states, and by practicing patience one has a beautiful appearance. So these are known as very hidden ones. So these phenomena are known as very hidden phenomena because to have an understanding or realization of them you have to depend on a correct sign, that is belief, and which is not understood just by giving some reasonings. But one has to depend on a sign which is the correct sign of belief.
So these are the understandings of manifest phenomena that which is directly experienced. As an example, when we see smoke coming from fire. And another example like a sprout from the seed. So these are examples of manifest phenomena which we understand through inferential cognition. So how one puts the reasons to have the inferential understanding of manifest phenomena is — because there is taking the smoke as a reason — because there is smoke, there is fire.
And similarly, on a smoky mountain. On the smoky mountain a person who has doubt whether there’s fire or not — like, you put this reasoning saying that on that smoky mountain there is a fire because there is smoke. So putting these kind of reasons, you prove that. Yeah, you prove. Putting this kind of reasons, you prove that.
So then, again, like these — another division of inferential cognitions — that is which is inference of self and inference of another. Are these the same? Inference of self — that is like — it has the same meaning as inferential cognition. These two are the same. So inference of another — here it is showing to — okay — like, whatever one has understood or whatever one has seen, like showing to others or explaining to others with the correct sign. That is with the correct sign.
That is what is known as inference of another. Which is also like an approved statement that you make — like, you prove a statement to someone else about what you have known already. So, when you show others this proof statement — that is like these correct signs, what we have realized — when you show it to others, then through that the others again have inferential cognitions. So it’s called inference of another because it is the result. This proof statement is called inference of another. It’s a — but that itself is a result. That itself is a result but here it is used as a cause — the name of cause.
So now we talk about — like, a sign apprehending mind — sign apprehending mind. So this sign apprehending mind is explained by — explains just after this — what is it — inferential cognitions. So, what is known as the sign apprehending mind is that all these different reasonings — which is that sound is a product, and whatever is a product, it necessarily has to be impermanent — so which here means that this sign apprehending mind is a cause of these two which we just went through. The sound being a product and these two reasonings. The sound being a product and whatever is product necessarily impermanent.
These two reasonings are the cause of these two. And which is a cause of these two — and like having — so the knower within the person who has been proven with these different reasons that we just — like, these two different reasons — which has been proven with these two different reasons — is what is known as sign apprehending mind. So for example, with this sign — for example, sound — sound is — so, we need like to do this — we need two persons here. So one who is, like, asking the questions. And the person who is, like, answering the questions. So the person who is giving the answer knows that sound —