Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute talk, Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen teaches Buddhist epistemology, focusing on invalid cognition—the five types of knowing that fail to grasp their objects reliably. Beginning with the foundation of compassion for all sentient beings, he systematically explains subsequent cognition (the second moment of perceiving an object already known) and presumption in five varieties: grasping without reasons, with contradictory reasons, with incomplete reasoning, with unestablished reasons, and with correct reasons but not fully grasped. He illustrates each through concrete examples—a vase seen twice, sound claimed to be impermanent, clairvoyant perception of others’ minds. The teaching concludes with inattentive cognition: clearly hearing a sound while absorbed elsewhere, unable to ascertain it. For practitioners studying Buddhist logic.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 13 Lo Rig.mp3
UUID: 1d451d72-cad9-4fb3-b6d1-2ae9f428f68e
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Nature of the Mind (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1995 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.7 minutes
Words: ~2,484
So what Nāgārjuna explains is that all the sufferings that we go through at present is because of, like, cherishing self. So and the same thing other way he said is that all the happiness that one goes through, one experience, that’s because of cherishing others. So we have taken human birth, human birth like many times in our past lives. But this one at present has been the most the best one. So this precious human rebirth that we have right now is the best of all.
Why? Because one have met with these precious teachings and also one have met with a with a precious guru or teacher who explains that. So so what one should do, one should train oneself to cherish others. Cherishing others is what what we need to like, what we need to do. And, like, not instead of, like, cherish himself, you cherish others.
And and others here includes, like, all sentient beings, like, the beings of the hell, the beings of the hungry ghost, and the rest, all all of the sentient beings, and thinking of their sufferings, meditating on compassion, and and wishing them to free from leading them or bringing them in the state of happiness which is meditating on love. And with this basis, with this foundation as a love and compassion foundation, having this foundation for all sentient beings, we meditate for a few minutes on bodhicitta. So last time, like the past week what we talked about is we talked about the mind, mind which are valid mind and those of the invalid minds. So most part of the explanation on valid mind is completed. So among these two, the valid mind and the nonvalid or invalid mind, will explain today the invalid or nonvalid mind.
So, when we talk about the valid mind, that is as a definition, has two points which has to be new something has to be newly realized or newly perceived and has to be like incontrovertible, infallible. So this is what the valid mind should be. So so then the non valid mind is the opposite of that which is is not new or or uncontrollable. Just the opposite of that. So, this non valid mind are five kinds, five types.
So, the five are the first one is the subsequent cognition. So second is the presumption. And the third one is inattentive cognition. And then the fourth one is doubt. Doubt.
Doubt. Like doubting consciousness. And then the fifth one is wrong consciousness. So the first one is that of the subsequent cognition. So as a subsequent cognition, as a definition or its meaning is that a knower which perceives which perceives something that which is already perceived, that which is already been perceived.
So with the example, like the vase, the first moment of perceiving a vase, that is a direct perception of a vase. That is direct perception. So the the first moment of perceiving a vase, that is the valid valid perception of vase. So so it’s that it’s second moment. Like, what is it?
Second moment of that perception becomes like a subsequent cognition. So, this subsequent cognition perceives only what is being perceived by the first moment of perception. So, one has the second moment of perceiving a vase or second moment of perception of the vase or the second moment. Moment. That is what is induced by the first moment of perceiving the vase.
So so that’s why, like, that’s why this, like, perceiving of a vase or the second moment is what it what is known as subsequent perceiver or subsequent cognition that we just already once already perceived and perceiving again. So, the subsequent cognition, there are four types. If you divide then, that is like the sense, the sense, like subsequent perception. And then second one is mental subsequent perception or cognition. And then third is self knowing subsequent perception.
And then fourth one is yogic, I would say, subsequent perception. So as an example to the first one, the sensory subsequent perception. That is the second moment of sense perception perceiving a form or a blue. Like, the second moment of sense senses perceiving the form or blue is is the is the example to the first one. What is this one. Or the other example is like the second moment of eye consciousness perceiving the form.
So all this, like, second moment of eye consciousness perceiving form, the second moment of ear consciousness or hearing or perceiving sound, and so on of this five second moment of that is what is known as the subsequent perception. So so then the second one is the mental subsequent cognition, second one. And as an example to that is Now, like, the second moment of mental second moment of mental perception or or second moment of clairvoyance perceiving others’ mind. Second moment of, what do say, clairvoyance perceiving others’ mind or the third moment also is is used as an example. The third second or the third moment of perceived third moment, a clear one is perceiving the other’s mind.
So, then the third one that is like self knowing subsequent cognition. And as example to that is, self knowing, the second moment of self knowing perceiving or self knowing perception or self knowing perceiving the eye consciousness. So so then the the fourth one, that is Yogic subsequent perception. That is also also the second moment of, like, realizing selflessness in a person within the ārya beings or the the superior beings. So understanding other example, like, the second moment of realizing the impermanence by the ārya beings.
That is also another example. So this now that is what the subsequent cognition and second one is the presumption. So the presumption, again, has is explained its definitions and divisions. The presumption is like a knower that sort of like knower that apprehends its principal object. Like principal object, what do say?
Principal object of clear, like sort of knower that apprehends its object, like clear. Apprehends its principal object. Not always say. No one that apprehends its principal object. Principal object of engagement, but not clearly realized or clearly understood. So so the hearer, it’s like principal object of engagement here.
Object of engagement. That the It’s object like a conceived object, object of engagement. These are, I wanna say, similar. So so the principal object of that mind, whatever whichever mind is, is known as the it’s object of engagement. So, like As an example, like as an object, like a sound being impermanent.
That that is that it has an object. So, like a mind which Their mind is almost come to realize sound being impermanent. Not at, but almost going to realize sound impermanent. That is what we say presumption is. So like the apprehension of sound or the perception of sound being impermanent.
That is what is presumption for that mind. So, this presumption, you can divide or has five types, five kinds. So, the first one is like a presumption without reason. And then the second one is presumption contradictory to its reason. And then the third one is presumption with, what do call, incomplete reason.
Like inclusive, in order to say enough reasons. Like, which don’t have all the reasons. And then the fourth one, which is the presumption the reason is not established. Mhmm. And then the fifth one is presumption with the correct reason with the correct reason, understood.
So the example to the first one, like, remember, presumption without reason. As example is, Just hearing the word saying sound is impermanent. Yeah. Just by hearing this word, like apprehending or holding sound being impermanent. That is the like just by hearing this word, sound being impermanent, hold or apprehend that sound is impermanent.
That is the first example for the first one. So so this, like sound being impermanent is just a mere mere word. It’s a mere like words. Not how to say, not giving all the reasonings.
So so just just on the on the basis of mere word, sound is impermanent. One holds sound being impermanent. So so there there isn’t it’s not as it’s without the reasons. So so then the second one is like presumption with contradictory reasons. And that is like giving a reason but giving a contradictory reason.
That is like saying sound is impermanent and giving the reason because it is It is because it is non functioning thing. Like, and saying this non functioning thing is what is a contradictory reason. So, like functioning things are known as compound things. Compound things and functioning things are known as compound things. So so the the uncompound phenomena or things are known as the nonfunctioning nonfunctioning things.
So because so when we give this reason around that, sorry, sound impermanent and because giving this reason that it is non functioning thing, then this is like a contradictory reason that one is giving. So, like, the nonfunctioning thing and impermanent. These two are contradict these two are contradiction. Oh, So, now we go to the third one, which is presumption presumption without complete reasoning. And that is like if you say sound is impermanent because it’s object of knowledge.
So this this, what you say, this not like this reason is not completed. Just saying sound is impermanent because it’s object of knowledge. That doesn’t complete all the reasons because all the object of knowledge is not impermanent. So it’s incomplete. So, like object of knowledge or what do you call, established base.
That is like all things that which exist are included within category called object of knowledge or established, what do call established base. And there you have like the permanent and impermanent phenomena. Like the permanent phenomena are not impermanent. So because of that, like just this reason that we give, it’s not completed. So then the fourth one is presumption, whatever, the reason is not established or reason is not given.
That is like sound is impermanent and then why? You say reason because because it is perceived by the eye consciousness. If you say this, then the reason is not established. That’s yeah. Not proved.
So it’s not established because sound cannot established or cannot be proved for eye consciousness. So, the sound is only perceived by ear consciousness. And then, what do say, the forms are only perceived by eye consciousness. So in for an ordinary being, like sound sound perceived by eye consciousness is contradiction. It’s contradicts.
So the fifth one is that presumption with correct reasoning but not well understood is like giving correct reasons. That is sound is impermanent because it’s product. And this is like a correct reasonings. But but then for some with this, they don’t come to they don’t get the full understanding. So so in other words that like, to to that person, like he or she holds that sound is impermanent just by this word and without using these other reasons.
This is saying that sound is impermanent and accepting that is what is known as presumption with correct reasons, but not what I understand, which is not applying all the reasons. So, then now we go to the third one. That is the inattentive cognition. So again, it has is explained under its definitions and division. So with its essence definition, that is like knower whose object is clearly appearing, knower whose object is clearly appearing which is the object like here like specifically characterized phenomena, specifically characterized phenomena.
So, I go it again, like knower which engaged object is clear, like I say, knower which engaged object is clearly appearing to one. That is the object is like the specifically characterized phenomena. But it is not induced. But it is unable to induce certainty or ascertainment of it, of the object. So so this, like, object, like, let’s say, the engaged object appearing, clearly appearing to one.
The engaged object here is like the engaged object which is like a specifically characterized phenomena. This this one, this is like the explanation of this one is according to the Sautrāntika. So so in in school, what is meant by or the self, like, what is self characterized or like specifically characterized phenomena is, I wanna say, that which Or in that things that which exist And that is like that is that is known as like self characterized phenomena or specifically characterized phenomena. So, is thing thing exist from its own side, not merely by what’s it? Not merely by labeling.
Like thing existing from its own side. Not not not merely it it existing not merely by label, but it existing from its own side. Like, that’s what the like, the Sautrāntika School says. So, like, thing existing from its own side are known as the functioning things. And things which is not existing from its own side are known as those which are permanent phenomena in the Sautrāntika school.
And those are like the space and and the, like, permanent phenomena. The other permanent phenomena. So as example, like a a person whose mind is completely Like a person whose mind is completely attracted to a beautiful form. So, we just like more clear going with that. First, you see a beautiful object through your eye consciousness, and then that to the power of your eye consciousness, the mind, mental consciousness which gets attracted to the form, to the object.
And while at that very moment when when you hear a sound. So so so hearing sound, that this sound is known as like That example is known as the inattentive cognition. The hearing of the sound. When the person is completely attracted to the form or the object. So like, the specifically characterized phenomena as an object.
Oh. That is like the sound in this case. And the person, like, clearly hears the sound or To the person, clearly the sound clearly appears. But then, like, unable to but then to its object. It’s unable to get the certainment or become certain become certain of the object.
So so at that, like, the sound is clearly heard by the person, but then it’s been unable to ascertain it because because this person is completely attracted to the form. His mind is completely attached to the form that if he or she is asked what does the sound meant then the person doesn’t know what to say. What what is said in the sound? So same thing with another example. Like, is one of the like non-Buddhist proponent.
Within like known as in Sanskrit and like the Charvaka. So the inferential cognition within within the continuum of the Cārvākas. That that is That that also is the example to the inattentive cognition.