Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The question of whether the Buddha taught contradictory things about the nature of mind gives this 70-minute commentary its most striking moment. Geshe Pema Tsering opens by completing his review of the five concomitances that link main minds to their mental factors — illustrated with a vivid example of faith toward one’s lama collapsing into anger and being restored by patience — then defines primary consciousness as “the knower distinguished by merely knowing the entity of the object.” He walks through the six sense and mental consciousnesses and explains why the text covers only these six: to clarify how karma and afflictions bind beings to saṃsāra. The session closes with a genuinely difficult doctrinal contrast: Asaṇga and Vasubandhu assert a mind-basis-of-all (Mind-Only school), while Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva deny it (Madhyamaka), each camp reading opposite sets of the Buddha’s own sutras as definitive — a puzzle Geshe Pema Tsering says requires years of rigorous study to resolve. Students with some prior background in Buddhist philosophy will find the most traction here.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 03 2006 09 21 M and MF.mp3
UUID: b98aadf8-dc69-4d75-97a7-f508561f76b6
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Mind & Mental Factors (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2006-09-21
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 70.0 minutes
Words: ~4,777
So then telling us that we must then give rise to a good motivation. And then having in mind that all sentient beings just like ourselves then wish to have happiness and do not wish for suffering, and still they destroy those causes of happiness and and and they accumulate instead the cause of suffering. And then for that reason, then one must then attain enlightenment to bring all sentient beings to the state of of of enlightenment. And then to accomplish that, then one is now going to study in the the the text on minor mental factors in order to in order to accomplish that enlightenment. So then thirteen.
Actually, ten. So we we follow-up from the last class where the text gave first from the treasury of knowledge what are the five concomitances between main minds and and and mental factors or secondary minds. And now we we began already in the next in the last class, what are the the five concomitances according to the Compendium of Knowledge. And then we we went back to then to the beginning of that part of the text, which which then starts quoting what are the five concomitances from the Compendium of Knowledge, which are then concomitant substance, and then concomitant object of observation and aspect. And thirdly, concomitant nature or entity, then time, and realm and level.
Okay? What is the meaning then of concomitant substance? And then the text is explained, how to say together with one mind, or around one main mind, only comes there only arises one mental factor or secondary mind of a concordant type, such as feeling, and there does not arise two mental factors of a concordant type of different substances. Okay? So then and then next, we follow then what is the meaning of object of observation and aspect and concomitant nature or entity.
So then the text is is Geshe-la was then explaining. So then the the just as it was explained before from from the the other quotes from the treasury of knowledge. So concomitant observation means that when one main mind is observing an object that the mental factors around it, then observe the same object. And then, so also, as for concordant aspect or concomitant aspect, it will be meaning that those mental factors around that main mind are going to take the aspect of the object that the main mind is observing, just as well as as the the main mind is taking that aspect also. Okay?
And then, the text goes on to say then, so then the text was saying that the object of observation is is is the same. They have a it’s one object of one object of observation, which is concomitant. Then it goes on to say that by the means of the object of observation and the aspect, then the main mind and the mental factor are going to be afflicted or not. So then, I guess, I was then explaining, meaning, what the text is is telling us that is that if the main mind is then afflicted by an afflicted conception or emotion, then the the the mental factors around it will also be afflicted. And then if if the main mind is not afflicted, then the mental factors will also not be afflicted.
And then the text itself is telling us that if a main mind becomes afflicted, then the mental factors around it will also turn out to be afflicted. So, Geshe-la is giving you illustration. For example, one were to be observing one’s lama or bearing one’s lama in mind with with faith. And then by any if if by by any means or at a certain point, then the lama does something that undesirable, that one does not wish for, and then one then gets angry towards the Lama, or with the Lama, then that main mind will change so that that that faith will cease, and that the main mind will will then become an afflicted mind afflicted with anger in this case. And then those the the secondary minds or the mental factors around that main mind will also then become afflicted.
Okay. And then and then if if by by any means, then one gives rise to patience, then at at that at that time, and then one can then how do you say? If the object that one is observing, or the person that one is observing, there’s something desirable, one then gives rise to patience, then that anger will cease to be, and the mind will turn that mind will will change its aspect from an afflicted aspect to a non afflicted aspect, and then by by by the force of of that anger in the main mind, and then the secondary minds or the mental factors also will will take this nonafflicted aspect. This one. Okay?
So then and then the text goes on to say, if the main mind is is a non contaminated, a non contaminated mind, then the the minds or the mental factors around it will also become uncontaminated. And then Geshe-la was then giving an illustration for them when when the when the Geshe-la says that that when the the text is talking about contaminated or uncontaminated minds, it is talking about a mind or consciousness which is directly realizing emptiness. And then those are not not contaminated minds. And then those consciousness which are not direct realizing emptiness, they are contaminated minds. So then, Geshe-la was in the same so then, such a consciousness as consciousness, which is direct realizing emptiness, then that that is an uncontaminated non contaminated mind.
Okay. And then as for the meaning of concomitant time, then again the text is giving us when a main mind and mental factors around that main mind, they they arise, they abide, and they cease to be simultaneously. And because of that, they so to them, because they are called again, la said, because of that, they are called they are said to be concomitant. They have have concomitant times. And then, again, Geshe-la was saying.
So then the the both the main mind and the mental factor, they arise simultaneously. Both the main mind and mental factor, they abide at the same time. And again, both the main mind and the mental factors around that main mind, they cease to be simultaneously. So because of that, again, they are called concomitant minds, concomitant times. And then as for the concomitant realm or or level, then firstly, Geshe-la was explaining for as as for realm, you have the desired realm, the form realm, and the formless realm.
And and as for levels or or was translated here in the English version that you have as as path path or grounds. It’s it’s actually same meaning as as realm. Again, it’s it’s the desire. If you use the this this translation that Geshe-la was explaining, it will be the desire ground, the form ground, or the ground. So I think it’s better to translate as level.
But, anyways, the same meaning as as realm. And then the text is giving us that around a main mind of of of of of the desired realm, then the it is impossible to arise as a mental factor of the form or the formless realm. And then, again, the text is telling us around a main mind of of of the form realm, it is impossible to arise a mental factor of the desire realm. And then around main mind, which is included in a certain realm, there can only there will only arise, how to say, mental factors which are included. Included.
They must only arise mental factors which are included in that realm. Okay? Then we go on following on on the text and saying, the text is then is then coming back to the to the topic of of main minds. So then as for minds or main minds, then from the from the this tax, which is called the distinguishing the five aggregates, if if you if you ask what is primary consciousness, then it is that which which knows knows an object of observation. And from the Treasury of Knowledge, you have it is that which it’s a conscious which knows distinctly or in in individually.
And then omniscient Gyaltsab Je is giving, saying that the defining characteristic of a mind is a knower which is distinguished is mainly distinguished how do you say? By merely knowing the entity of the object. Okay? So then Geshe-la is then, as you could hear yourself, Geshe-la is emphasizing one particular word, which means which which is the merely. Where is it?
Knowing the mere entity of the object. So then Geshe-la was then emphasizing this word, mere or merely knowing the entity of the object. And Geshe-la was then saying that consciousness is only knows the the entity of the object without thinking about the particularities or the specific characteristics of the object. Okay? So so then, Geshe-la is, again, back to that to that to that sentence, then again, nowhere that is distinguished.
Yes. So I was then was then explaining. So then that that mind, that main mind, that that is called called so from the perspective of how do say? From from the perspective of of it only merely, again, merely apprehending the entity, the general entity of the object. And then from that perspective, it is called telling us that we must know we must know what is meant by mind or primary consciousness or a third word that Geshe-la was giving.
We have many words in Tibetan that refer to the same thing, but the same thing that but this word, third word is usually translated as mind. So then, again, one must know what is being referred for to as as when one says when talking about mind or primary mind, and then it is it is this it is this definition. It’s it’s that knower is that knower which is distinguished by merely knowing the entity of of the subject. So then is telling you to to repeat after him, knower the knower which which is distinguished by merely knowing the entity of object. In English.
In In English. Say it again. The knower which is distinguished by merely knowing the entity of the object. So then, when you think about mind, that’s what you have to think about. And then the text goes on to say to us that the way of explanation of the ornament of reasoning or valid cognition has already been described above, and Geshe-la is reminding us when the there was was given a definition of of main mind as being that which is concomitant in five ways with its mental factors, and and and then that’s the defining characteristic of our main mind, and then defining characteristic of mental factors that which is concomitant in five ways with its main mind.
So that’s the way it’s referring to. Even though there is a different use of words in both ways of explaining a main mind, then it is still the meaning is still the same. It is it is it is that knower which is distinguished by merely knowing the entity of the object or or knowing the mere entity of the object. Okay? And then if you divide primary consciousness, And then Geshe was reading for text, Geshe-la was reading for the text, and the text was reading, if one then divides primary consciousness, then you have six groups of primary consciousness.
Then Geshe-la was then saying that, generally speaking, you have an infinite number of consciousnesses. But, generally speaking, you can can group them in in in six different categories. Okay? And then the text is then saying, as for those those six groups of of primary consciousness, then from the the compendium of knowledge, we have a quote from the compendium of knowledge, which is then asking what is then primary consciousness? Then our primary consciousness are this there there are six groups of primary consciousness.
Then there is the eye primary consciousness. There is ear primary consciousness. There is nose primary consciousness, tongue primary consciousness, and body primary consciousness, and then mental primary consciousness. Okay? And then so then the text goes on to ask what is then a non-primary consciousness?
Then it is that individual knower, that consciousness which knows individually, which is supported by the eye, and observes form. And then Geshe-la was then referring to the last part, how is it in English? Individual knower. So then, here, when the text is talking about individual knower, then the text is Geshe-la was then explaining. So then when he’s talking about individual knower, he’s talking about mind.
He’s talking about that knower which is distinguished by merely observing the entity of the object. So then, Geshe-la was explaining, so then that way, it is supported it is supported by the eye. Geshe-la was explaining, when when when the text is talking about eye, it is talking about a very subtle matter that exists within the eye, which is we cannot see, and it’s very, very subtle, but it is matter, how to say, which is the eye sense power. That’s what that’s what it is referring to. So then that’s that’s eye primary consciousness is is supported by the eye sense power.
And then Geshe-la is then explaining that if if if there is a fault or deficiency occurring in the eye sense power, then one won’t be that primary consciousness won’t be able to see. Okay? And then, again, I guess I’ll just add one more thing. That I when he’s talking about I, which is referring into the I sense power, then also Geshe-la says that is then the governing condition, what is called the governing condition that we have studied in the previous course. And then, as far so then it is supported by the eye, and then what is the subject of observation is going to be form, it observes form.
And then from that form, is going to, how do you say, apprehend only the mere entity, or is it going to merely apprehend the entity of that form? And then so then, Geshe-la was then saying, so then that eye consciousness, which is distinguished by merely apprehending the the the entity of a form, then that is the the how to say? The defining characteristic of our main primary eye consciousness. And then if having understood, then the eye primary consciousness, Geshe-la was saying, it is the same for the other sense consciousness. And then as for the ear, what is then the ear sense consciousness, the test is asking.
And then it is that individual knower, which then is supported by the ear, and observes sound. Okay? Then again so then again, that individual NOA, which then is supported by the ear, and then here again supported by the ear. The ear is again referring to that very subtle matter that exists within the ear, which is then the governing condition, which gives rise to then supports that ear consciousness, ear sense consciousness. And then again, the the object of observation of that ear sense consciousness, which is then sound, is is the the observed condition of the three conditions.
And then the first moment of that consciousness is then the immediately preceding condition. And then again, as for the what is then how to say? A nose nose primary consciousness. And then, again, is that individual knower, which is supported by the nose and observes has its observation and smells. And then, again, I guess I was gonna say, again, it is talking about when the nose is when it’s referring to the to the nose sense power, which is then the governing condition of is then a tongue tongue primary consciousness?
It is then that individual knower, which is supported by the tongue, and then has its its observer object of observation, different tastes. Tastes. This one. Okay? And then again, what is then body primary consciousness?
It is that individual knower which is supported by the body, and has as its own object of observation, tactile objects or objects of touch. Plus. And then what is then a mental primary consciousness? It is then again that individual, individual knower, which is supported by the mind and observes phenomena observes phenomena or observes yeah. Observe phenomena.
Okay? So then and then the text goes on to say then of this the in the text, the author is telling us that in the different in in the higher and the lower tenet schools, there are many differences of how to say that appear in this many different distinctions, many differences that need to be distinguished as the way to posit the three conditions for the six engaging consciousnesses. And then again, the six engaging consciousnesses are again, I primary consciousness, ear primary consciousness, so on and so forth. And then the the three conditions are the observed condition, the the the the governing condition, and the immediately preceding condition. And then the, again, the different schools of philosophy, of Buddhist philosophy, have different ways to to to explain them, which ones they are, which ones they are they are not are not present and so forth.
And the the author is then saying that he’s not going to elaborate on this topic here. And then this goes on to to explain that Asaṇga and his brother Vasubandhu, in the in the in the within the the scriptures that they have composed, then one finds an explanation of what is called two other consciousnesses, which one is called the mind basis of all, and the other one is an afflicted consciousness, or afflicted intellect. Then Geshe-la is the same. So then we just had an explanation of six primary consciousnesses. And then Asaṇga and Vasubando, they say that there are, instead of six primary consciousnesses, there are eight primary consciousness.
On top of the six, which are the five sense consciousnesses, and plus the the mental consciousness, plus the five sense consciousnesses, plus mental consciousness, you have one that is called the mind basis of all, and the other one which is called afflicted intellect. So then Geshe-la goes on reading from the text. Geshe-la was then saying that so then in the Tibetan, you have that first sentence about the mind basis of all and afflicted intellect. Then Okay. It starts with although the so called mind base of all and afflicted intellect are explained by Asaṇga and Vasubandhu.
So then, Geshe-la was then saying that, in reference to that, even though Asaṇga and Vasubandhu have written about these two minds, then Geshe-la has then explained that the author here is indicating that he’s not going to talk, he’s not going to write about these two minds, when he says although. And then he goes on to say here, then this, So then, here, the authors then say that in the context of observing the stages of the path of enlightenment, having as an object of observation, the existence of the stages of the path to enlightenment. And then in the context of the practice of the beings of middling scope, which are then meditating on the true origins of suffering, which then reflect on the thoughts observed and reflect on on on the faults of on the shortcomings of cyclic existence. Then at that time, then in order to understand how is it that actions and afflictive emotions that bind us to cyclic existence, then he how do you say? This this explanation of factors was given, or the author wrote this explanation of mind and mental factors for that purpose only.
And I guess I wasn’t saying, so then one whilst one is observing then this the the this path of the beings of middling scope of of the of the stages of the path to enlightenment, then one is is directly dealing with this six primary consciousness. And one then has to know about them in order to understand how is it the stages of engagement in Samsāra. How is it that one is bound within Samsāra or bound to saṃsāra? Okay? So then, again, I guess I was reading through the last sentence of this paragraph, which was then saying again that in order to to recognize that he he wrote he he wrote this text just in order so that we could recognize, again, these factors, which then how do you say?
Which is gonna help us to understand, to know the way that we that the karma and afflictive emotions bind us to cyclic existence. Is that okay? Is that making sense? And then as for their existing or not existing mind based, so on and so forth, The way to explain the existence or non existence of a mind basis of all, then it’s a very difficult point, it’s a very difficult, uncommon point, how to say, of the higher and lower schools of tenets, which is very, very extensive. And then Geshe-la was then saying, so then the author, when he’s saying that, he’s already indicating that, again, he’s not gonna get into this into this topic.
And then so then, nevertheless, then when Asaṇga and Vasubandhu, who are followers of this sūtra that unravels the thought of the conqueror, when they were deciding, or they were were deciding the, how to say, the interpretive or definitive meaning of the scriptures of the the the teachings of the Buddha, then posited the mind basis of all. And how do you say? The that they also thought that all phenomena are in the nature of mind only. Okay? So then so then they are, again, referring to the mind only school of Buddhism.
And then then the the the text goes on to say that Nāgārjuna and his spiritual son, Āryadeva. They are followers of the king of concentrations sūtra, and the sūtra of the teachings of And then when they were distinguishing when Nāgārjuna and his spiritual son, Āryadeva, was then distinguishing between the interpretive and definitive meaning of the scriptures, then they did not posit they did not talk about a mind basis of all, did not posit a mind basis of all. And they they furthermore, they said that when our mind bases of all was explained, in those sutras, was how do you say? When those sutras were where there was mind base of all was mentioned, then those sutras are of interpret interpretive meaning, and they have an underlying intention. And and also so then the and then saying this, they conclude that every all phenomena, they are merely imputed by conceptions.
Okay? So then Geshe-la was then in the so then they are not as as the mind only. They are not in the nature of of mind only. They are every phenomenon is being imputed by mind. Did you understand Geshe-la if you understood?
And then again, so then there is this this teaching this teachings on emptiness, and then the of the sutras of the Buddha who talking about some sutras talk about this mind basis of all other sutras do not talk about this mind basis of all, say that there is no mind basis of all. So there is apparently it is contradictory, but then there is an underlying as explained, there is an underlying intention to that. And then so then, again, Asaṇga and Vasubandhu, they assert that there is a mind basis of all. So then then indicating and and they indicate the mind only school. They are indicative of the mind only school.
And then Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, they say that it does not exist in mind base of all, and they are indicative of the Madhyamaka school of thought. Something it’s a very difficult point because this is the the very speech of the Buddha himself. And in one sūtra, which is one one of those speeches of the Buddha, the Buddha says that there is a mind basis of all. And in another sūtra, another speech of the Buddha, then the Buddha says that there is not a mind based of all. So then it becomes very complicated, very difficult, isn’t it?
So, yeah, as I was coming back here. So there’s a very difficult point. And as it was mentioned here in the beginning of the second paragraph of page fifteen, again, the text is saying in the English translation, you can see, especially crucial and difficult point, which is uncommon, which is a meaning, this is a it’s an extraordinary point topic. And then, again, saying it’s extremely difficult point. And then, it’s a very difficult point, and one must look into the sūtra that unravels the thought, and one must look into the king of concentration sutras.
One must study also this third sūtra, which is the sūtra of the teachings of Akshayamati. And then one must investigating how to say, refine, verifying, refine investigation, and one must look for the differences and it understand this topic. So then, again, I guess, sense it’s very difficult topic. So then, Nāgārjuna and his lineage of teachers, then they assert that the sūtra that unravels the thought, which is is an interpretive interpretable scripture. The king of concentration sutras and the other the third sūtra of the teachings of Akshayamati, they are of definitive definite meaning.
And then on the other hand, you have Asaṇga and Vasubandhu who then assert the other way around. They say that the king of concentration sutras and the teachings of Akshayamati, they are of interpretable meaning, and that the Sūtra that unravels the thought is the one which with a definite definitive meaning. So, then this this and they are all teachings of the Buddha, they are all So then they were all they are all the very words of the Buddha himself. So then deciding this this topic, which is the interpretive or or definitive meaning of of the scriptures, then he says, again, is a very difficult topic. So then Geshe-la is saying, those scriptures of definitive meaning, Geshe-la is giving a very, very lay explanation of what are the scriptures of definitive meaning.
There are there are those where where you can take you can take them literally, word by word. And so those will be the ones of definitive meaning. And those that that it is not alright to take them literally, that you have to to investigate what is the underlying intention of of of the text. Those are of of of interpretable meaning. And then Geshe-la was then was then giving some technical terms.
There are three, how do you say, parameters to decide if a a scripture is is interpretable interpretable or definitive. And Geshe-la was then given this this this words in Tibetan. I’m so sorry. I cannot remember the translation of these words. Cannot even remember the meaning of these words.
This is a again, it’s a very difficult topic, and we didn’t go into this topic in our in our school. But then, I guess, was then saying it is not something that one decides randomly. This is definitive. This is interpretable. There is a very rigorous, rigorous logical framework to go through in order to decide that.
I guess, I was gonna say, this is years and years of study in in the GESHE degree. So you said so you said there is. Is that what you said? Pardon? You said there is.
She said there is. There is what? There is a frame. Yeah. Yeah.
A very logical and rigorous framework to decide what is definitive So then Geshe wants to stop here. Geshe-la wants to in the next class, he would like to to get further into this topic of the interpretive and and and definitive meaning of the scriptures. So then, yeah, I’m going to study that Geshe-la with a in respect. Respect. Okay?
Next week, think there’s a very good class. Next week, there is no class. And then there is the kangaroo island retreat. So for two weeks, there’s no class. It’s two weeks.
Yeah. Two weeks? Two weeks. No class. Yeah.
This is the last there’s been a class. Two weeks. For two weeks? Yeah. Thanks.
Yeah. Class. Two weeks. For two weeks. Yeah.
Think so. Yeah. Two weeks.