Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A student’s question about whether anger at a person also colors the mind’s perception of their red coat prompts Geshe Pema Tsering, in this 29-minute session, to explain a foundational point: two main minds cannot arise simultaneously, and mental factors attach to whichever main mind is currently active. The session works through all five omnipresent mental factors — feeling, discrimination, intention, contact, and attention — with brief working definitions of each. Student questions then pull the discussion toward the Mind-Only school’s position on what is “merely imputed by mind” versus the Madhyamaka view, a preview of the full taxonomy of 51 mental factors (including the six root afflictions, among them anger), and a first pass at how Buddhist philosophy distinguishes interpretive from definitive scriptures across its four main schools. Suited to students already following the series.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 04 2006 09 21 M and MF.mp3
UUID: 88c0a100-5da1-4abe-92bf-1142f978dcd0
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Mind & Mental Factors (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2006-09-21
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 28.6 minutes
Words: ~1,562
We’ll stop here today. What date is today? Is it twenty Twenty first. Twenty first. Which month are we?
September. October. September ninth. Okay. Okay.
Yeah. Why? What? Yes. So many questions.
Hira. Okay. I I think mine is quite simple. Beyond the present mental factors, feeling discrimination, intention, contact and attention, understand all of them, but intention. The intention Wouldn’t you prefer to to wait until we get to this topic?
Because we are going to get to this topic. So then, intention is that mental factor which has the function of moving the mind towards the object of its object of observation. So then, Geshe-la will explain. So Geshe-la will explain. So then there is a of the five omnipresent mental factors, there is a feeling which is in the nature of experience.
There is discrimination, which then distinguishes or discriminates what the object is, what the object is not, and so forth. There is then an intention which moves the mind towards the object. There is a there is what’s called mental engagement or attention, which is then, how do you say it? Don’t know how to explain that one. You shall use that one.
You get it? Oh, which okay. Los, los, los, los, which which aims the mind at the object, so to speak. And then there is a contact, which then is is what what meets the meeting of the mind and the object. Yes?
Explanation of all of each one of the five omnipresent mental factors and all other mental factors. So nothing to worry about. There’ll be plenty of material to think about. Yes, Hira. Was talking about the two views that are according to the two between those views isn’t mind only that the view, mind only, is that comprised with the I think I understand.
I was just trying to translate your words and see if Geshe-la understands that. I I don’t need to understand. So then the this is this is not the mind only school does not posit, does not say that all phenomena are merely imputed by mind. They do not say that. Geshe-la explained that there are basically three distinctions.
The mind only school, they say that all all functioning things, all things, they are not merely imputed by mind. They say that every permanent phenomena, which are not emptiness, are merely imputed by mind. And but they say that emptiness, which is a permanent phenomena, but emptiness, they are not merely imputed by mind. So then, emptiness and functioning things, they are not merely imputed by mind.
And then, permanent phenomena, which are not emptiness, they are merely imputed by mind. That’s what they say. Yes. So is using a a philosophical terminology to explain this difference between the Madhyamaka, the middle way school and my own school. And I’m I’m I’m I’m going to I’m apologizing to Geshe-la, and I’m going to apologize to you also because I didn’t prepare to translate for this topic.
So I I know where to look. I I I was telling Geshe I know which which books to study, and I can prepare. And if Geshe-la wishes to explain that in the next class since he’s going since he’s going to explain the other topic about interpretive and definite definitive scriptures, I might as well just prepare for this topic also. And then we can get into that if you want. If if everybody wants, of course.
And yeah. But this is a bit technical. It’s a bit obscure. So yeah. Okay?
This is difficult. It’s not easy. Yeah, ten dollars. Yeah. So then, just as it was explained by a mind, a main mind, and these mental factors being concomitant in five ways, and they’re being of one nature.
They are not two different things. They are one and the same thing. Also, by by means of they have the same object of observation and and acquiring the same aspects. Mind and the mental factor, they have the same object of observation. The mind and the mental factor, they acquire the same aspects.
They they they they take on the same aspects relative to that object. And then, again, if the mind is afflicted, then, again, the mental factor is is afflicted in this way. What I’m well, I I understand what you’re saying. However, if I see a person wearing a red coat, yeah, I’m a and I’m angry with the person. I’m not angry with the color red.
The mental factor is So the main mind so there there will be there is one main mind which will be apprehending the mere the entity of the person. And then that main mind will have its own mental factors around it. And then there is another main mind, which will be apprehending the red apprehending the red color of the jacket. And then so there are two different main minds, and they will have different mental factors with respect to each one of them. And exist at the same time, switching between the two Yeah.
No. No. They’re nonexistent. Two main minds do not exist at the same time. And so then so then, again, guess I was explaining, so that these two main minds, they do not two main minds do not exist at the same time.
What comes at the same time is the mental factor that is related to that particular main to one particular main mind. But then I was asking to see if if it makes any sense to you, and then I was asking, but if if one main mind that is observing the color red, can that my mind have anger arising? And and he said, yes. Of all the mental factors, there are then the five omnipresent mental factors were mentioned today, but there are actually all in all fifty-one different mental factors. And within them, there is anger, for example.
And then, yeah, we’re gonna have an explanation of all that. Los. Los. So then there there are the the five omnipresent mental factors. There are the five object-ascertaining mental factors.
Then there is there are other groups of mental factors, and then there is the six root afflictions, and then anger will be within this group of six root afflictions. You wanted to ask something? Yes. Bring it on. I’ll do my best.
If cannot, I’ll tell you. Next time. Next time? Just in passing, I’m looking forward to hearing some what Geshe-la has to say about the the logic that determines whether a text is is definitive or You want to know that? I I would love to understand that.
A lot of religions. There’s that ongoing debate. Yeah. For example, in. This is this is, like, the caves of study for them.
So then So then I guess I’ll just explain. So then so I was translating what we were talking about, and then I was explaining to, that I need to prepare before, I guess, I can say anything about it. But, actually, I was briefly saying that illustrating to you, probably, there are many differences within the other religions. But in Buddhism, for example, you you have the four main Buddhist schools. You have the middle way, Mādhyamika, the the Cittamātra, the mind only, and Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika, which are the the lower schools.
So you have four main schools of philosophy. And then the the the whole idea, as I was explaining, is that is to bring is to to unify the whole system without incurring any contradiction among them. So then one makes the intention of the teachings of the Buddha all concordant and pointing to the same direction. So that’s the whole idea of deciding what is interpretive and what is definitive. So then, again, this is then the of the four schools of philosophy, we have the Sautrāntika and the Vaibhāṣikas, which are the the the of the small vehicle, the Hīnayāna. And then you have the Cittamātra and the Cittamātra and the Madhyamaka of the Mahāyāna. Yes.
And then there is the the the two schools, mind only and Mādhyamika of of Mahāyāna. And then each school has one way of interpreting it, of putting forth. Some schools accept some scriptures as interpretive. Other schools accept other scriptures as interpretive and and vice versa, and it goes a big debate. And says, if you really want to know it well and in detail this topic, then all I have to do is get ordained and go to Sera.
Oh, it’s a good word. And then, yeah, to to to have to go to debating grounds. Yeah. Debate. Very good.
Very good. Very good. Then you’ll know everything. Mhmm. Okay?
You have Svatāntrika and Prāsaṇgika. You have two different schools. And the diff What’s the meaning of the Prāsaṇgika word? Prāsaṇgika is a consequentialist. So, prasangika means consequentialist.
Middle way consequentialist. I see. Okay. Yeah. That’s It has to do with logical syllogisms and consequences consequences and stuff like that.
It’s the So I guess I was giving definition or the defining characteristics of consequentialist. I said, I cannot do that now. I have to prepare for that one. Yeah. It’s okay.
It’s good homework. Yes. Two weeks of homework. Yeah.