Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 72-minute session, Geshe Pema Tsering anchors an abstract scholastic distinction in a recurring car analogy: the aspect of mind that perceives “car” as a unified whole is the main mind; the aspects registering its color and shape are mental factors. Drawing on the Treasury of Knowledge and the Compendium of Knowledge, he argues that these are not two separate entities but one nature — illustrated through the image of a mirror holding multiple colors in a single reflection. He then works through the five concomitant aspects (shared basis, object, aspect, time, and substance), pausing to untangle a dense passage in the English translation. Student questions about ascertaining consciousness and the speed at which mental events alternate give the session a live, dialogic feel. Suited to practitioners working through Buddhist philosophy of mind at an intermediate level.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 2006 09 14 M and MF.mp3
UUID: 09238c90-47e7-4f14-9eee-e78b72fba627
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Mind & Mental Factors (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2006-09-14
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 72.2 minutes
Words: ~4,626
For the sake of all sentient beings, we wish to attain enlightenment. And in order to accomplish that enlightenment, then we are going to study mind and mental factors. And in this way, we we aim at attaining enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. So then so we got into the main part of the text, which is then the part on mind and mental factors. And then and so then one one chapter a chapter on main minds, and another chapter is a chapter on mental factors.
So we start with the first one of them, which is then the explanation of minds or main minds. So then the text asks what is the difference then between mind and mental factors. And then from the distinction of the middle and the extremes, a text called the distinction of the middle and the extremes, we read Tibetan is then saying that which sees the object, then is a primary consciousness, and that which is the characteristics of that, then is is a mental factor. And then and then Geshe was then giving an illustration. So, for example, taking as as an an example a car.
So then that mind which which then sees the car with with disregarding the particularities of the car, disregarding its color, its shapes, and so forth, The mind perceives that big object to be a car. And then on the other hand, you have that other aspect of the mind, which then perceives the color white or red or whatever shape the car is. So then that one mind perceives the object in general to be a car without holding on to its particularities will be then the main mind, and then that mind which perceives its colors, its distinctive features, its particular shapes, and so forth. It will be those will be mental factors. Okay?
And then also, there is another quote from the treasury of knowledge, another text called the treasury of knowledge from, I think, from Vasubandhu. And then which is then saying, so then the primary consciousness is, how to say, is primary consciousness of how to say? Primary consciousness is a consciousness of individuality, which sees individually or Does that make sense? Is that following the text you have? No No individually.
Yes. Okay? And then we follow on. So then there’s this and many other sayings like this in these texts. And then it goes on to say that so then that which merely knows the nature or the essence of the object, then is is the main mind.
And then that which on the basis of that object, of the observation of that object, then knows its distinctive characteristics by means of the isolatable factors, such as its function, etc, and so forth, then it engages the object, those are mental factors. That making sense? So then firstly, forgot to mention that the one illustration, again, that Yela gave to the previous part of the text that was that was just explained. Geshe-la said, so then, again, Geshe came to the example of the car and said, so then that which perceives the car, nature of the essence of the car, then it will be the main mind. And then we go on then to a quote from the omniscient Gyaltsab Je, which is then saying, main mind, like such as a sense consciousness perceiving form, and then Geshe-la was then saying, so then it would be an eye sense consciousness perceiving form, then knows the object singly, it is explained to be that which knows the object singly or individually.
And it does not depend on the production of an ascertaining consciousness. It is it is is distinguished as by how to say, merely how to say? It’s distinguished by merely being that which merely observes the form or the form. That’s how it is distinguished. So so then, again, I was asking I was asking to to to say a little bit about ascertaining consciousness.
So then, again, Geshe-la was then giving you examples. So for example, if if yesterday we had seen a car, and then today we were to think about it, then that consciousness that will be exclusively a mental consciousness, again, I was just saying, that consciousness which is recollecting the car, then again, that will be on the basis of an ascertaining consciousness. So then the main mind is merely observing the object, is is is not in saying there’s not much thought to it. There’s not much doing. There’s not much thinking involved.
This is just the mind that observes the object crudely, I have to say. Main mind. Yeah. That’s the main mind. But the ascertaining consciousness, is that more thinking about?
I still don’t quite understand what that is. So then, I was asking if then what I asked then is if if the this ascertaining consciousness works on the basis of functions on the basis on dependence upon a main mind. I guess, was gonna say, no. The the ascertaining consciousness, there are main minds which are ascertaining consciousness and main minds and secondary minds which are ascertaining consciousness. And then, I I was saying, the point which is being made here is that for them to be ascertaining consciousness, it must it must have been an object which was perceived before.
And and in the case of main mind, what you’re trying to illustrate here, I guess, as say, is just yeah. It’s just it’s just Yeah. It’s a nothing else. Yeah. Without details, without elaborations, anything.
It’s just that that scene, crude, raw And then then main mind or mind was just explained, and then accompanying that, is the mental factor. And then having as a basis the observation of that form, move by means of various functions such as moving the mind towards the the the that that form or or having previously realized that object, then forgetting, Geshe-la then explained, with respect to mindfulness, means of its functions and its various functions and characteristics, so then the functions as moving the mind towards the object, and the characteristics of non forgetfulness, of mindfulness. Then they know the object in this way. Then Geshe-la was explaining, so then the mind is that which merely sees the object, sees the form, and then the mental factor is that which will perform functions such as dividing it in different categories and so forth, different parts and so forth, or not forgetting it and so forth. Okay?
So then and then, therefore, then the task goes on. And therefore, that that which then is distinguished by merely observing the object, and then and is not how to say? And does not need to be posited by means characteristics of the object, that consciousness then, that which knows the object in this way, that is then main mind. And the main mind and mind, and also what was referred to as primary consciousness, they are all the same. It’s different names for the same thing.
And then and then that which having takes take taking as a basis observation of that object itself. And then by means of various isolatable factors and characteristics, such as the as by means of the various characteristics, the characteristics, how to say, the particularities of are the isolatable factors, then how to say knows the results of the functions of that object and so forth, and in this way engages the object, so then that consciousness then is called a mental factor. Is that clear? Is that making sense? So that explains those texts.
And then and then and then the text is then asking is then is then putting forth. So then it is the mind and the mental factor, or the the primary mind and secondary mind, or the main mind and subsidiary mind, are they of one nature, of one essence, or are they of different nature, different essence? And then Geshe-la was then saying so then the text is asking that to us, and Geshe-la was already answering. So he said, it is of one nature, one essence. And then the text quotes then the Treasury of Knowledge.
And from the Treasury of Knowledge, in the Treasury of Knowledge it reads that the mind and the mental factor, they are definitely simultaneous. And then Gestrelaw was then saying, so then if they are simultaneous, that means that they are of the same nature, of the same essence. Okay? Of one one nature, one essence. Is that making sense?
Yeah. And then again, in the next sentence, read: They occur in the same time, they occur simultaneously, and they are not of a different nature or essence. They are of one nature, one essence. Okay. Mind and the object is one.
Mind and the mental factor? And then again we go on furthermore the text says, then the main mind and its attendant secondary mind, of them, they are of one essence, of one nature, and they have five concordant or concomitant aspects. They are said to be, again, are said to be then concordant or concomitant in these ways. And that being said, then So then, saying that the mind and the mental factor are not concordant in time, that they are not positing that they have a different essence and that their their objects of observation are distinct, then all these, they are unacceptable. Unacceptable propositions.
Okay? I’m fine. Okay? So are you following if if you understand? And then the text goes on to say that in order to make it clear, to explain it clearly, then the text says the object, such as a form, in the mindfulness, how to say, at the time of the production of that mindfulness, which then is observing an object such as form, then the main mind and its attendant mental factor, which in this case is mindfulness, both of them, then they are concordant, even though they are concomitant in that they are observing the same object, which is form, then still they are posited distinctly or differently.
Then so then why do they why is that? The text explains then because that which knows then the object form how do say? Say, knows merely the nature of that object, which is form, then that is the mind, or the main mind. And then, once more, that which has the function, that aspect of the mind, has the function then of not forgetting the object, that then is posited as mindfulness, or the mental factor of mindfulness. Is that making sense?
Everybody’s following? So then, and then the text goes on to make it clear then, it is not that they have the mental factors, that they are of different nature, as a pillar and a vase are of different nature. They are one. So mind manifest is one. So then if I ask you, do you understand So then Geshe-la is then explaining Geshe-la then asking, so then when we talk about mind or main mind, and then mental factor, or the secondary mind, then we is talking to us directly.
Then we then think of two different entities, or don’t we? And he says, no, they are not different things. They are one thing. It’s it’s very difficult. This this to to understand one’s mind in this way is is very difficult.
So then then give you another illustration. And so then you another illustration, this is taking taking as as an example, a mirror. Okay? And then if in the mirror, we we get a reflection of of that piece of of cloth here, which has different colors, has red, yellow, blue, and and and so forth. And then, so then, in the mirror, we can see the red, the yellow, the blue, but we cannot say that it is all in the same mirror, it is all in one mirror.
So Geshe-la is saying we cannot point to a different substance, the reflection of the whole cloth and the colors and this particular aspect of the cloth, they’re all in the same mirror, in one mirror. And the same goes for that clear and knowing consciousness then and and and the so then the the minds its minds the mind and the mental factors. They’re just like they’re just like the mirror. Is that making sense? It’s not making sense?
Inside the side mirror. You have one mirror. And then when you when you get a reflection of the different colors, you cannot point to the to the to the yellow of the cloth and the blue of the cloth in the mirror and say that they are a different mirror. Different mirror. Yeah.
You see, you have only one mirror. And within that mirror, you have the whole cloth, and you have the particular aspects of the cloth and particular colors of the cloth. Particular colors of the cloth. It’s one reflection. It’s one one reflection only.
And the same goes for the minds, the main minds, and the mental factors. They’re just like the mirror. Okay? And then again, then again, Gershell, let’s take again the example of the mirror, and again if you have a reflection of the car in the mirror, then observing that consciousness then will be the clear and knowing, which is then consciousness, compared to the mirror again, and observing the car, and then that which knows its particular features of the car, the specificities of the car, and then again will be the mental factors such as belief and mindfulness and investigation, etc. So And Geshe-la was saying, it’s like the mirror.
And then And Geshe-la said before, so then you have the main mind and the mental factors such as investigation, belief, feelings and so forth. They’re all here in the mirror. They’re all together. So then we cannot this mind, the fact is not something that we can point at. We cannot see because it is not form.
So then we have to rely on our minds to try to understand it. Because of that, it is difficult to understand. Okay? Then these these different modes, all these different modes, they are established just just as it was taught in in this in this particular text, which is called the essence of the ocean of knowledge, which is an explanation of the compendium of knowledge of of. Okay?
And then and then from the ornament of reasoning, then we have the definitions again, defining characteristics of of minds and mental factors, main minds and mental factors. And then so then that which is has five concordant is concordant by means of the five concordant concomitant aspects to to its attendant factors, then that is called the main mind. And then that which is concordant by means of five concomitant aspects to its main mind, then there is a mental factor. That’s the definition given in the ornament of reason. Okay?
So then so then the the text introduced then because I was the idea of the five concomitant or concordant aspects. Then as for these five concomitant aspects, then there is the mode of explaining them that is presented presented in the compendium of knowledge, in the in the in the Treasury of Knowledge. And then there is another mode of explaining them, which is from the compendium of of knowledge. And then from the Treasury of Knowledge, we have how is it explained in the Treasury of Knowledge? Then you have the concomitant basis, you have the object, you have concomitant aspect, concomitant time, and concomitant substance.
And then, then Geshe-la says what is meant then with this concomitant? Just saying concomitant basis means you have the same basis. Concomitant object of observation observation is the same object of observation. Concomitant aspect is the same aspect. And concomitant time, again, is the same time, and concomitant substance, again, is the same substance.
Mind and mental factor have the same substance. So then, as for the the meaning of each one of them, then the first one you have if the text is then telling us that because whatever mind there is, because it relies, it is supported by that sense power, because that mental factor is also supported by that sense power, then we have the concomitant basis or concomitant support, if you wish. And then Geshe-la was explaining, because if if the main mind, for example, is is an eye consciousness, then how to say? If the main mind is is then supported, has this basis the the eye sense power, then, again, the the the mental factor companion that may mind then will have the same support, which is that eye sense power. And again, if it is ear consciousness, then has it supported the ear sense power, then again, that mental factor or companion that that main mind, again, will have the same ear sense power.
And in the other way around, I shall explain also that if that mental factor has an eye sense power as a support, then that that main mind also have the eye sense power as a support. And and the and the other way with the other sense powers also, the same way with the other sense powers. Okay? And again, because the object of observation of whatever main mind there is, because that is also the object of observation of its mental factors, then they have again the concomitant or concordant object of observation. So then again, if Geshe-la was then given the illustration of an eye sense consciousness observing a car, then the mental factors would also be observing the car.
Okay? And then, again, because that the mind, for example, which is produced with an aspect of, say, blue, then because the mental factor of that main mind also then is also produced in the aspect of blue, then they have, again, concordant or concomitant aspects. And then again so then, again, Geshe-la said, again, if if the the mind is perceiving blue, that that that mental factor will also come in the aspect of blue. And if if car appears, then the mental factor is going to be perceiving car, and so forth. And then, as for concomitant time, then you have the mind and the mental factor.
Both of them are produced, they abide, and they cease simultaneously. And because of that, they are said to be of concomitant time. So then Geshe-la was saying, so then again, they produce simultaneously, they abide simultaneously, and they disintegrate or they simultaneously. And because of that, again, Geshe-la says, then they they they have concomitant time. Okay.
Yeah. It’s like this. It’s, again, this is a terminological division of so then that aspect of the mind, which is then just observing the essence, merely observing the nature of the object, that is called primary mind. And then that which is perceiving, that which is observing the characteristics, the particularities of the object, that is called mental factor. So then Geshe-la is then giving again an illustration of a car.
So then if you take a car, then there is one mind or one aspect of one’s mind, which then just merely observes the car itself, that that that thing in front of you, which appears to you as a car. And that appears in one one one whole, one wholesome picture, one one integral picture without parts or divisions or aspects. That one aspect of your mind, is then apprehending that merely apprehending that object, merely observing that whole object, that one piece there, which is called a car. That is a main mind. And then, again Geshe-la explains then that that other aspects of your mind, which are then separating the car in different parts and observing its different colors and different features, then that is a part of your mind, of that main mind, would would the aspect of your mind, which you you will call mental factors.
Again, if if you see a car, you see that the the car is is black. The color of the car is black. And, again, you might see so then you have a mind which main mind which is is distinguishing the car. It was observing the car, and then a mental factor, which is observing the black characteristic of the car, and then different types of black, and there are different features. And then I was then saying that the minds and the mental factors that accompany them, that come with them, they occur very fast, one after the other.
So then, Geshe-la then talking about the the five concurrent concomitant aspects. Then, again, when you’re talking about this this concomitance, we talk about concomitance with relation to one mind only. So this is one mind there. There’s a it’s not different more than one mind. So one mind has this five concomitances.
So then again, have a main mind which perceives the hand, and then you have mental factors, which you distinguish, you know, the thumb, the indicator, and every different finger. But again, question remains. And again, the same moment that main mind is observing the hand, then at that same moment, you have the mental factors that are accompanying that mind. They come together. But in the same way, I answer your question, in the the same way that you have a hand, and you call this a hand, and also distinguish the thumb and indicator because it helps you to understand, for example, evolution.
You know? Because it helps you to understand and and and manipulate the world in the same way you distinguish mind and mental factors. So that’s the point, isn’t it? It’s a way of classifying things to understand It’s knowledge. Or it’s a normal It’s knowledge.
Yeah. Rather than a sort of separate thing. It’s just a way of looking at it so that you can understand it and dividing it Yeah. Yes. Yes.
So then it is not that they are abiding simultaneously. These two main minds, are abiding simultaneously. They are so fast. So then they they don’t they don’t come together. They they’re just alternating very fast.
Minor mental factors. Minor mental factors. That’s it. So then, again, Geshe-la is coming back to the example of the mirror. And as I’m saying, again, the the reflection of an object in the mirror, you have so then the mind is that mirror, and then you have the reflection, and you have the the the the color white of that object, and the color red, and the color green.
And then you cannot say that that that color green and the color white in that object, they are in different mirrors. They are in the same one mirror. So then again, in one television, many things will appear. Many different things will appear. But it’s one television.
And and, again, in this And then again, again, Geshe is saying again, in the same way as the illustrations that Geshe-la gave, the mirror, the television, so forth, then you have mind and mental factors. And then, again, you have all these concomitant features, again, the concomitant basis or support, and then which again is the sense power which is supporting the mind, is then the same sense power which is supporting the mental factor. And then again, the concomitant object of observation, so then the same object of observation of the main mind is the same observation of the mental factor. And then again, if the main mind has the aspect of white or blue, then that mental factor will have, respectively, then the aspect of white or the aspect of blue. And then time, again, mind is produced or is born at one time.
At the same time, the mental factor accompanies it will be born, and again, it will cease to exist again at the same time. And again, the substance, again, they are the same substance. Did you understand? So then now we get we get to a a sentence in the English. And then we get into a sentence in the English version, which was a bit obscure.
It’s on the page thirteenth. So then I’m I’m not for me, the the English version was a bit obscure, so I’m going to say what Geshe-la was explaining to me, the the meaning of this sentence. So the meaning of this sentence is is that for each mind, main mind, there will be only one mental factor of a kind together with it. So if there is one main mind, there will be, for example, one mental factor of feeling, feeling mental factor together with it, or one belief mental factor together with it, not two mental factors of feelings. There will be only one together with each main mind.
And because of that, then they are called again, they have a concomitant substance. Okay? I was confused with the English. It suggested that there are distinct substances, and then it says that they are concomitant substances. And what the text is saying, what Geshe-la explained, the text is saying, is that for each main mind, there will be only one mental factor of each kind, of each type.
In this way, they are said to have the same substance. How was I? Mental factors such as feeling and so forth. Okay? If you say if you’re observing an object, The feeling is not of liking and disliking.
Feelings are of pleasure, pain, or neutral. So when the feeling has changed, the mental factor of feeling has changed, then that that main mind also has changed together with it. Cool. Isn’t it? It’s just that this mind is becoming very fast, extremely fast.
And then and then so then we have we have this five concomitances explained according to the the Treasury of Knowledge. And then while we have an explanation of the five concomitances concordances as as as it is given in the compendium of knowledge, which is another text. And then the compendium of knowledge is giving us concomitant substance, the concomitant object of observation and aspect. Then Geshe-la was then stopped here and then said: in the Treasury of Knowledge you have concomitant object of observation and concomitant aspect given separately, and here they are being given together. And then you have concomitant essence or entity, concomitant time, and then concomitant realm and ground.
Is all the same. All realm or level. Yeah. And then the text goes on to explain, so then as for the meaning of concordant substance, concomitant substance, how to say, attending together with one main mind, you have only one mental factor, such as feeling, so to speak, a similar similar type arising together with it. You do not have two of a similar type with different substances, and different substances arising at the same arising.
Does that make any sense? Okay? There? Substance. So then the substance so then the substance here, in this case, which is referring to consciousness, then Geshe-la gave the characteristics of consciousness, then it will be clear and knowing, that which is clear and knowing, which is consciousness.
That’s the substance. It is consciousness. Same consciousness, one consciousness. It’s not easy. It’s not easy.
Essence. Essence. Is often said as entity or nature or essence. In this text here, think it was such as entity, isn’t it? I think it’s entity.
One entity. You want to know what is Yeah. When when he uses the word essence, so you translate Yeah. Using word essence. What what what does he mean?