Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen teaches Buddhist epistemology in this 35-minute session on the nature of the mind. Using concrete examples—seeing blue, perceiving distant fire—he shows how direct perception and inference work together to give us knowledge. He explains the difference between perceiving the mere appearance of an object (grasped directly by the mind) and knowing the object’s true nature (which requires additional reasoning). He then introduces three types of valid sources of knowledge: a valid person (one who understands and teaches the four noble truths), valid speech (teaching that withstands logical analysis), and valid consciousness (infallible perception). Suited to students beginning Buddhist philosophy or logic.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 16 Lo Rig.mp3
UUID: 31efb93c-46e4-4cc0-ac07-880ba1a2943e
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Nature of the Mind (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1995 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 35.4 minutes
Words: ~2,005
So like this, for example, one’s self may have this doubt. Do I have have I seen blue or not? Like that kind of appearance, kind of doubt one may have. So that like, kind of, what is it, doubt, which is like have within one, like within one is like So, like, when when you have this doubt, there’s like a You have a direct perception of blue. When you have doubt, whether I have seen blue or not.
That means you already have a direct perception of blue. So so it doesn’t have to be that you have to have seen before, Like this doubt that you have, whether I have seen blue or not. That just that very, like, the appearance of doubt. Like, appearance of blue in your mind. That even to to know that you have to depend on like depend on like another, which is the certainment that is, what do you say, induced by another.
You have to rely on another reason to know that. So going back to the first example that we gave, like the appearance of the object is ascertained by itself, but the truth of the object is ascertained by another. For example, there’s an example that the appearance of a blue color is ascertained by itself. Again, it doesn’t have to depend on that. When have appearance of a, sorry, appearance of red, red appearance, you don’t have to depend to know that to other reasons.
You can directly have, directly perceive that. So that and but but the the color red, whether that’s a color of fire or not. To understand that, you have to use another like a direct perception to to know that. So so to know to know to know this, what is it? To know whether the color of the that color is a color of fire or not, you have to you have to depend on another, which is another here, another valid perception.
So so to the to the person which have this doubt, like having and the appearance or like what is it? The the truth truth of the object which is like the red color being the color of fire. To know that one has to depend on a to know that one has to depend on on another. And So it is known as a like a valid cognitions. The the valid direct direct valid direct valid cognitions, a certainment which the certainment is induced by another.
That’s known as that. But but it is not a direct direct cognition. Sorry, valid cognition. So because one, like, one has one has the appearance of red color in the distance, but one has one hasn’t yet realized that the color is the color of the fire or not. So because of that, it is not a valid perception.
So so whatever is valid perception, it has to be a perception which is a or a certainment that is induced by self. It has to be like whatever is valid perception, it has to be a certainment that is induced by self. So even, like, by using using another direct perception that one come to understand the that whatever the color is, the red color being the color of the fire by using another direct perception. But when you wanna have direct perception of it, then one have the direct perception to oneself, like by itself. So so because of that, altered perception are known as self direct perceptions.
So, the certainty or what is it, the, like, how one come to know that the fire the color of the fire the red color is the color of the fire is depending on another valid reasonings. So from that one come to know, but when one come to know it directly, then it is like the certainment is induced through the self. And then now again, another division with a valid receiver or valid cognition, like there’s a valid person, valid speech, and valid consciousness. Yeah. Like three.
So so the as an example to the first one, like Buddha Śākyamūni as an example to the valid person. So, in So like how Buddha Śākyamūni is known as a direct valid person is that it is proved in in a text known as Namde. Namde. Pramānavārttika text. In the Pramānavārttika text that by in the second chapter by by the master, it’s Dharmakīrti, proved with, like, giving eight different reasonings.
So if Geshe-la is not going to say all the eight reasonings today, then he can get headed. Maybe he will explain it next time. So what what is known like, briefly what is known as a valid person is that a valid person is known as one who have a direct understanding of four noble truths. Four noble truths. What is like, what are to be what do you say?
What are to be adopted and what are what are to be abandoned. Knowing like completely all this all this and and plus one one is able to show that to others. To others like what is to be adopted and what is to be abandoned. One who can do this is known as a valid person. So, in the text called, it explains that one who knows this, like the complete understanding of four noble truths, What is to be abandoned, what is to be adopted.
And one who can show that to others is what is it, known as a valid person. So so then the valid speech, as an example, is like the the turning of the wheel, Like, the turning of the wheel of four noble truths. That that is done as, like, a valid speech. So so it is known as a valid speech or valid valid speech is because it is, what to say, That that that speech are like a refined with with three analysis. So, like, these three analysis that we we talked last time also, like, not having it’s not damaged by a direct valid perceptions?
And it’s also not not damaged by the inferential cognitions? So then, like, again, like, not been damaged by through not been damaged through, what do say, the inference through belief. Not been damaged by the inferential cognition, not known as in in inference through belief. As we have we divided last time into three, the inference through belief. You got it?
Yeah. So when one is analyzed with these three analysis, Like, it’s known as like a the valid speech or valid scripture. So so then the next is the valid consciousness, which is like here valid here valid means that one is not whatever one is perceiving, I’m not mistaken. Not mistaken with with the with with its objects. So here, like as invalid, it’s known as that which is infallible infallible or what is it?
Infallible which is whatever object you wanna perceive. Like a, you perceive the right object. The the word said, the right one. Not not so, like, yeah, it’s being like the the perceiving of the object which is infallible. So so as in conscious the valid consciousness, they are you can divide into two, the valid consciousness and inferential valid consciousness.
So for valid perception, there are two, which is known as the direct valid perception and the inferential valid perception. So then there are like two objects, also known as the like two object of knowledge known as the self characterized phenomena and the generally characterized phenomena, that too. When you say like functioning things, product, and impermanence, and like the compounded phenomena. And then like a like substantial phenomena. And then the like self characterized phenomena.
These are these are like synonyms. And then the generally characterized phenomena is known as the permanent phenomena. So we stop here and then we do some question answer. Because maybe it could become more clear. Only if Geshe-la talks then maybe you don’t understand.
So make a question and answer. So so for this, like, whether whether one have perceived blue or not, this this doubt has, both. Like, the conventional level of the blue and the ultimate, the absolute nature of the blue. Both to understand that you have to depend on another, what I say, another reason, another valid cognition. So so just the the appearance of the blue, just to have just to have the condition of that, you have to depend on another reason.
When you have this doubt whether I’ve seen blue or not, just just to have the appearance of of the blue, And you have to depend on another reason. And what to say, as divisions on this, it’s one of the divisions of certainment that is induced by another, which is, let’s say, the nominal one, just named one. That’s like a division which comes under. Nominal divisions. Okay.
Yeah. That that example can be used. So, like, that’s can be used as one of the examples. Like when you go out and you see a person, that is like a that being that object whatever you see as being a person, it’s like a certainment is induced by self. It doesn’t have to depend on others.
But then whether that person is polluting or not, you have to like depend on other reason. So, yeah, that can be used as for this example for the third one. So as an the first one as an example is like it’s something to do with the far distant. Quite far distant. They said there’s a fire there.
So so then from looking from a distance, you see color of the fire? So the that so that the appearance of the like, the color of the fire is like like a certainment by itself, But then the true nature of the fire, like truth or the the final nature of the nature nature of the object has to depend on another. So the appearance is just the the, what do you call, the reddish appearance? So that one sees directly. So then whether that is the color of fire or not, they depend on another.
So like like that, the red appearance, the appearance of red color and whether that color, the red color is a color of fire or not. Both of these to know that you have to depend on another valid cognitions or another valid reasonings. So then when you come to know that directly, then it is like this the one you come to know the when you have the direct perception of that, then it is always to to do with self. So the certainment that is induced by self. Because when you come to have a direct perception of it, it is done by, well, what would say? Direct perception is within one.
It’s not with the others. Good. Yeah. Quick. It depends how you relate to it.
But Geshe-la, I’m not sure whether I understood what you’re saying completely or not. So this was saying that was can be applied like this the same way, but then like if you have the doubt like you see there, you hear the the words, and if you analyze the meaning and then you have again when you have this when the doubt comes up. And then whether that doubt is valid or invalid, then it’s like that usually that kind of doubt is known as doubt tending there’s different kinds of doubt. Doubt mode is it? That turns into into truth like doubt that turns into into truth or the fact.
Doubt turns into untrue or false. So there are different kinds of doubt that explains also. So can be different too. Any other questions? Generally characterized.
Generally characterized, yeah. Yeah, functioning things. Is that like functioning things and product and impermanence and the compound phenomena and the self characterized. These are known as the synonyms. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yes.