Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The philosophical distinction between faith and attachment — why both produce clear mental engagement with their object yet differ in whether qualities are superimposed or accurately perceived — drives the second half of this two-hour session with Geshe Pema Tsering. The class begins by completing the five omnipresent mental factors: contact, defined as the aggregation of object, sense power, and consciousness that supports feeling, and mental engagement, which directs the mind to a particular object rather than a general one. Geshe-la then opens the five object-ascertaining mental factors with aspiration, tracing how faith generates aspiration, aspiration generates enthusiasm, and enthusiasm overcomes three types of laziness. The session closes with a sustained student dialogue testing whether money or a lama can be genuine objects of faith, and why attachment and faith — though structurally parallel — are mutually exclusive mental states. Suited to students already working through Tibetan Buddhist psychology at a textual level.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 13 2006 11 09 M and MF.mp3
UUID: 75845ba8-2820-468c-9b6c-7db7290c1064
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Mind & Mental Factors (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2006-11-09
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 120.9 minutes
Words: ~6,331
So I think I should ask asking you then to give rise to a good motivation. And so then thinking then wishing then to to attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings, and one is now going to study the topic of mental factors and then meditate well, and then well attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. So then we start today with the fourth omnipresent mental factor, which is contact. So we have been through feelings, feeling, discrimination, oh, good lord. What was the third one?
Intention. Yes. Feeling, discrimination and intention. And so now we start with contact. And then in the very beginning, we have a quote from the Compendium of Knowledge, which then sets forth question, what is then contact?
And we are told that it is that which, how to say, thoroughly distinguishes the transformation of the sense power after aggregation of the three. And then it has the function of supporting, being a support for feeling. Okay? Oh, And then we are we are we have a we are we are told then that explaining those previous two sentences, then we have that this contact is then this knower, which then thoroughly distinguishes the object, which then is in accordance with the main mind, the primary mind, which which which comes with it. And then also which then then distinguishes the transformation of the experience of of pleasure and so forth, of of feelings after the aggregation of the three, which are the object, the sense power, and the consciousness.
And then Geshe-la was then saying, as for object, sense power, consciousness, you have then these five different objects for each one of the five different sense powers and so forth. So you would have form for for a visual sense power, for a nose sense power, and then you have a sound for an ear sense power, and then taste for a tongue sense power, and so forth. So then, so then, was then explained. So, again, that contact is that which which distinguishes then the object in terms of of the experience of either pleasure, pain, or or or neutral feelings that come upon aggregation of the three. Again, object, sense power, and and primary consciousness.
Geshe-la explained that it is because because there is contact, that feeling comes about, the feelings of pain, pleasure, and and neutral feelings come about. Without contact, then there is no no no place for feeling to come about. So then, again, it is upon the contact, the aggregation of the three that that feelings come about, the feelings exist. So then we then read on in the text, and we have then so what what is then here? What what is meant by the transformation of the the the sense power?
And then we’re we’re given as as an an illustration, then just like just like the feeling of of pleasure or of happiness that comes about when the eye sense power meets with an attractive or a pleasing object, a pleasant form, then serves as turns into the causes for attachment, then in the same way by contact, then contact itself, then by distinguishing then the attractive form or the pleasing or the pleasant form, turns into the cause of the feeling of pleasure. So in the same way, we are told that it is in the same way. And then Geshe-la was explaining. And when we’re talking about cause here, we’re not talking about a fully characterized cause as as in cause and effect because because these mental factors here, they are omnipresent and they are concordant. They are concomitant in those five ways.
So they arise at the same time. But it is to say that without it is that contact which serves as the basis, as a support for feeling, and without contact there wouldn’t be the feeling that comes with it. Okay? And then again here, we have division of six by means of the basis of contact, for contact, and then we have, again, so then the contact that it comes about by the aggregation of, how to say, a form, an eye sense power, and an eye sense consciousness, and then, how to say, an odor, a nose sense power, and a nose consciousness, a sound, an ear sense power, and an ear consciousness, a taste, a tongue sense power, and a tongue consciousness, and then a tactile object, and then a body sense power, and a body consciousness, and then, again, a mental a mental phenomenon, then a a mental sense power and a mental consciousness. This one.
Okay. And then Geshe-la is explaining. So then there are three different feelings, feelings of pleasure or happiness, or the feelings of pain or suffering, and then their feelings, their neutral feelings. So then again, contact will then distinguish the contact will then serve as a support for these three different so there will be then three different contacts. We can divide contact in three according to the that it supports.
And then in this way you have because we have six basis for contact, which is which are the six sense powers, and for each one, you have three feelings that can be supported by contact, then you have a total division of eighteen. Okay. So then, again, of the five omnipresent mental factors, did the first four. We did feelings, discrimination, intention, and contact. And now we start already with the fifth and the last one of the five omnipresent mental factors, which is then in the text that you have, it is translated as attention.
And there is another possible translation, is just mental engagement, and it will become clear why why the wise of of calling it mental engagement. So then in the in the compendium of knowledge, again, we have what is then attention or mental engagement. So then we are we are told with all the words in Tibetan that it is an engagement of the mind. And that engagement of the mind has the function of holding the object holding the mind to the object of observation of observation. Okay?
So then Geshe-la was already going ahead of the text, and then I was reading the next sentence, and it is saying that it is that knower which is concomitant with its main mind and at in focus or aims the mind at a particular object of observation. So then, again, Geshe-la emphasized these these words of the Tibetan, which are saying that it aims or it focus the mind at a particular object of observation as opposed to intention, which focus the mind to to general objects of observation. And and then now the text is then saying what Geshe-la already said. And so the text is saying, so then what is the difference between intention and mental engagement? So then intention then moves the mind towards a general object of observation, a general, yeah, a general object.
And then mental engagement then directs the mind to a particular object. I was just asking then to give a to explain or to give an example or an illustration of of what will be a general object and a particular object. And then was then saying, so then a person is will be general or generality or general object, and then Rodrigo would be a particular object. And then, again, Geshe-la was saying, so then if if somebody from outside says, oh, is there anyone inside here? And then and then and then we we answer him.
Yes. There are there are people in here. So that’s a general general object. And then, so then who is in there? And then Rodrigo is in here, and then oh, that’s a particular object.
And then and then we are told so then this this five omnipresent mental factors, feeling, and so forth, the five omnipresent mental factors, why is it that they are called omnipresent? And then we are told they are called omnipresent because they are mental factors which are concomitant or or accompany every main mind. So Geshe-la is explaining. So Geshe-la is explaining then that a main mind or a conscious if if there is a consciousness, if it is a fully characterized consciousness, then it has it is pervaded by there being the five omnipresent mental factors. The five omnipresent mental factors are necessarily there.
Now if one of the five omnipresent mental factors So Geshe was then giving an explanation, and then Geshe-la found out that in the text itself is is explaining the text itself is explaining what Geshe-la was was explaining, and the text is telling us that if any of the five factors are missing, then how to say, the the object will not be will not be thoroughly made use of by by by the mind or will not be thoroughly enjoyed, so to speak, or experienced or by the mind. So then and then we we are explaining that if there is if if feeling is absent, if there is no feeling, then the the the consciousness cannot experience the object. And I guess I was gonna say that the consciousness will not experience the object as either pleasurable or painful or neutral, and so forth. And then if there is no discrimination, then the consciousness will not be able to distinguish the uncommon signs or marks, will not be able to apprehend the uncommon signs or marks of the object. If there is no intention, then the mind will not or will not be moved or moved towards the object, will not be directed towards the object.
And then if there is no mental engagement, then the mind will not be focused or aimed at particular object of observation. And then, again, if there is no contact, then there will be no support. And by there will be no support. And in this way, how to say, the in order to to fully experience, thoroughly experience the object, then the five omnipresent mental factors must be all of them must be present, we are told. And then as for the the the last one of this, in the absence of feeling, there will be no support.
Then, I guess, there will be no support for feeling. Again, without content, there is no support for feeling. And then, again, without feeling, there is no experience of the object and so forth. So then Geshe-la is explaining that these five omnipresent mental factors, again, are concomitant in those five ways and they must and they arise simultaneously. But then we are explained.
We are we are taught about them in a in a way that that says if if one if this one does not arise, then that one cannot arise, cannot perform its function. And if that one does not arise, that one cannot perform its function. So then one depending on on on the next one or arising or being able to perform its function or arising dependence on another one. We explain this in this way, but it it is, in in fact, they all arise at the same time. So then again explaining that they do not necessarily come in stages as we are taught this subject.
They are concomitant again in five different ways. So then if if you take, for example, an an eye sense power, an eye an eye consciousness, then an eye consciousness having these five omnipresent mental factors, all these five omnipresent mental factors will be having as an object of observation, then a form will have the same form. And so then that’s one of the concomitances by means of the object of observation. Then we’ll have as it support, again, the eye sense power. And then this, again, these five mental factors will have as the aspect, the same aspect as the form, the aspect of the form that is being observed.
They will have the same time. They will be concomitant with with respect to time. So that means that they arise at the same time. So then again, Geshe-la concludes then the thought as in stages, but they actually, they have the same time, same aspects, and so forth. Copy copy No.
I’m just I’m just I forgot to bring the next few pages. No. I have I have in English. In English, I just I just made made a copy, but I don’t have it in Tibetan. So I forgot to bring.
So we we no. Because we’re going to start now with the five object ascertaining mental factors. So then we have, again, a second major division of the text, the second part of the text, is then on the five ascertaining object, ascertaining mental factors. And then we have then aspiration, belief, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom. Those are the five objects that are attaining mental factors.
And then and then so then we start then with the first one of those five objectives, which is then aspiration. And then we are given again a quote from the compendium of knowledge, which says, so then what is what is aspiration? Then aspiration is then that which wishes to be endowed with or to have object of of desire or or that thing which which is desired or the thing which is desired. Yeah. And then we are told that mental factor, which then wishes to be endowed with the object or the thing that is desired, then serves it functions as a support for the the the enthusiastic, how to say, enthusiastic perseverance or Into yeah.
Into Into yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So then we are told that it is is that after that quote from the the Compendium of Knowledge, we explained that it is that that knower, which then observes and strives, having you observed the the object which is in one’s mind, which is then the or the object of the desired the desired object, then strives for that object.
So then is the is the is that mental factors that mind is wishing, may I have that? This one. And then so then we we are explaining. So then what is what what is the way then that that aspiration then supports or serves as a basis for enthusiasm. And we are given a quote from a text from the Madhyanta Vibhaga, a text of Maitreya.
And so then we this this verse a bit abstruse, it just say the support and the supported by it, and the cause and and the and the result, the effect. And then Geshe-la was Geshe-la was explaining that this is has to do with this student, the aspiration, and the relationship of the aspiration and the enthusiasm. So then first, there is faith in the object, faith that arises from conviction in the qualities of the object. Then there is aspiration, which then aspires then to have that object, that desired object. And then from aspiration, enthusiasm develops, enthusiasm for striving to obtain the object.
And then the result, the last lastly, that we have the result, which is then the the obtainment of that object. Okay? Okay. This one. Loose.
So then Geshe-la started reading the the quote also from the the the great the extensive the extensive exposition on the stages of the path to enlightenment, which from from Lam Rim Chenmo, which is then saying that in order to engage in, how do say, in order to engage in concentration, in the practice of concentration, then one has to arrest the laziness, which does not take delight or which has no enthusiasm for the meditating and concentration. And then Geshe-la was then from from from this first sentence, which is the one that I have here in my hands, Geshe-la was then going back to the to a more ordinary illustration saying, then, you know, let’s not talk about concentration, let’s talk about money. So then first we have faith in the qualities of money. Have this faith that arises from conviction in the qualities of money. And then Geshe-la again we have the enthusiasm, which is to acquire the money.
And then from that enthusiasm, then we have the, sorry, the aspiration, aspiration, which is to acquire the money first. And then from that aspiration, we have the enthusiasm that that that takes joy in striving to obtain the money. And then and then lastly, as a result, we obtain the money. But in order to be able to accomplish that, we must first get rid of that mind, which is laziness, which is then is is is takes no joy in striving for for for money, for for the sake of money. So then, in order to be able to to develop develop these these paths, concentration, so forth, within one’s mind stream, then one has to get rid of of of laziness.
In order to accomplish anything, one has to get rid of laziness. So then if one has not rid oneself of laziness, then then faith will not develop, nor enthusiasm, nor aspiration, nor enthusiasm, and so forth. So then Geshe-la was saying, as for laziness, there are there are three major divisions of laziness. In the laziness that that keeps on performing bad actions, the laziness the laziness that does not practice, that does not engage in practice. And then the laziness that that how can I explain that?
The laziness, there is a change of of heart. It starts doing something, but then changes it. Somebody changes the mind, changes the heart, isn’t it? Isn’t this the expression change change of heart? Pardon?
Not the strategy. It starts. Change of heart. Yeah. You start, but then you you change your mind.
So then again, so as for the first one of those three, which is then which is then the the laziness that practices bad actions, then it has to do again with somebody who is disregarding, who dis a mind or somebody who disregards cause, actions, their results. Disregarding actions and their results then readily performs non virtuous or engages in non virtuous deeds and doesn’t perform virtuous deeds. And then the the laziness laziness to practice, then again, it is it is just that attitude of not wanting to to to do a job, a certain job, a certain work, a certain activity. It’s not wanting to to to practice or to do whatever activities at hand. And then the the laziness, which is a change of mind or change of heart, then again is is that having started a certain work, a certain activity, then when one meets with some some difficulty, then one puts leave abandons abandons the activity, the project, or whatever we all we all have then to to arrest, to stop these three minds of laziness because we are not able to perform to stop performing non virtuous.
We’re not able to engage in virtues and so forth, so we must all abandon these three laziness. So then we are all like this, not only with with Dharma practice, we we all keep on engaging non virtue. We cannot stop from engaging non virtue, and then we cannot we we always turning turning back from from starting practice of engaging in virtue. And and and even when we start to do something virtuous, then we we meditate for maybe five or ten minutes, and then we say, oh, there’s nothing is going to come out of it, so we we we give give it up. And then get some of us to say, so then it was not only Dharma practices to accomplish to accomplish anything, then we must get rid of these three.
So then I was asking something for Geshe-la I think misunderstood my question. Geshe-la was then saying that laziness then stops us from accomplishing our welfare, not only in this life, but also in in the in the future lives, the the the the happiness of future lives, the happiness of liberation, the happiness of enlightenment. And even even this life, whatever little happiness, laziness stops us from from being able to accomplish it. But So then I was I was just asking, so then what was it that we have to do in order to get rid of of laziness? And so that that would which opposes directly opposes laziness is then enthusiasm.
And then in order to get to to produce enthusiasm, then one must then previously produce both aspiration and faith. So then and then so then we must see the the qualities of the object at hand, and knowing the qualities of the object, then faith is produced. And then faith faith being produced in aspiration to to acquire that the wish to acquire that object comes about, and then enthusiasm is produced. And then Geshe-la was then saying, then faith, it works. Geshe-la said, it works in the same way as attachment, but attachment is is a mind that works in relation to worldly objects and faith for religious or dharma objects.
And then he’s he stopped himself because he said that it’s it’s a very complex subject, and there’s a very lot to be said about this this two, the relation between the similarities between these two. So then, as soon as Geshe-la started explaining, generally explaining, so then attachment is the mind which superimposes qualities to the desired object. So then the object has certain qualities, and then the attachment exaggerates those qualities of the object, and then develops that wish to acquire that object. And then faith, on the other hand, sees the object for what it is. So then it sees one dollar as the value, in the sense of value of one dollar as being one dollar and the value of two dollars as being two dollars and not more than that.
So it doesn’t superimpose, doesn’t exaggerate the quality of the object. It just so this in this way, it is a correct, Geshe-la is saying, it’s a correct mind. It is correctly apprehending the object, but it is not to say that it that it it it understands or apprehends the ultimate nature of the object, the the way that the the manner of existence of the object because that will be referring to the wisdom, realizing emptiness. And then and then Geshe-la again stopped himself again and said it. There’s a lot to be said about it.
It’s very complicated. Sorry. One word one word is not coming across. Is so is making reference to a mind which is not It’s making reference to to both both the faith and attachment, then there are minds which how to I find it difficult to translate this word, but it’s they are clear clear about the object, their object. So then guess, was then giving giving an analogy that will help to help clarify the meaning of whatever word it is that he was trying to convey.
So then there is for example, he was asking me if if I like the Dalai Lama. And I said, yes. I like the Dalai Lama very much. And do you also like money? And I said, yes.
I like money very much. So it is the same. So then the minds one, for the Dalai Lama, I have faith, and for the money, have attachment. And this this both faith and attachment direct direct me to to the respective objects in the same way. Is it is it like saying focused?
It’s not about focus, but it’s about being clear about the object. And Gesham was then previously giving an analogy of of of water, which is filled with dirt and and clear water. So they are they are is is they are very clear about the object, so to speak. There is another translation for, but then the the translation is pure. And it’s hard to translate to associate purity with attachment, isn’t it?
I guess. So then it is because of this analogy that Geshe-la was then giving that faith and attachment. They’re directing me to my to the respective objects, directing the question to respective origins in a very it’s very lucid and clear way. Not lucid back. Lucid again is very good, but clear in the very okay?
So they are they are they are are similar in this way. So then they have the same function, they are the same with respect to the function that they do to the mind, but one is faith and the other is attachment. So then we stop we stop Michel wants to stop here, I’ll mark again from the beginning of this quote from the great exposition of path. We start from there next Thursday. Yeah?
Did you say that the plane has it its object objects is down, whereas attachment doesn’t did you say that earlier on? Geshe-la said that yeah. Attachment is in relation to worldly objects. Is then saying the difference is not even in terms of word and religious. Geshe-la was then saying that the object of attachment is is there is this the superimposition.
There is this exaggeration. So then the object of of attachment are exaggerated or they are superimposed with qualities that they do not have, or more qualities than what they have, more quietly than what they have. And the object of attachment is is correct the object of faith, and the faith is correct with respect to the value or the nature of the object. It is not superimposing or exaggerating the object, the quality of the object. One exaggerates.
No. No. No. Then then you can show that then put aside the previous one differentiation. This this is the differentiation.
One exaggerates the quality of the object, superimposing, and the other one does not. So again, is a difference. The difference is again with imposing or superimposing or exaggerating the quality of the object and or and and not doing so. So then, again, when we had when one when one has faith towards the Dalai Lama, one has this faith because the Dalai Lama is the one who then who teaches the path to liberation and omniscience. And that’s just and that’s and that’s what the Dalai Lama is.
And then, as for money, for example, it has attachment to money because one thinks, exaggerates the qualities of money saying that it will give one it is the source of happiness or it will provide oneself with happiness whilst in actuality, money can can can give you either suffering or happiness. This this is this is Geshe-la was trying to explain the meaning of of of a word, which is usually translated as as pure or clear. And as far the the furthest I could get to So then, again, now now Geshe-la is playing with every word. So then it’s when you talk about because I will say the water, pure water, if I translate it literally pure water. So then it’s this is also to mean clear water.
There’s no dust, no particles, and you can see clearly. And I guess I wasn’t saying so then the mind, pure mind, which is and then say, is is a mind that clearly engages. Just said, is a mind that clearly engages. So then, again, it engages the mind more clearly to the object. The mind is clear about the object.
You said a clear engagement in both cases, attachment and faith? Yeah. That’s why they are similar. So where does the dirty word come into it? The the Geshe-la was then trying to explain the meaning of the word, so she was giving the opposite.
Not clear. Clouded. So then the tea is not clear, and the water is clear. But you understand it. Then faith is directing me is directing you to to the Dalai Lama Right.
Right. An attachment to to to to money. But in the same the the way that they act to direct you, to aspire towards this this object is the same. You know, the way that they turn your mind to eating, they see make your mind see and look at it, you know, engage make make you engage the object is the same. Yes?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That’s correct.
That’s correct. Isn’t that what we all do all the time? Can faith be transformed? Can attachment be transformed into faith? Okay.
So then so then, again, so there’s a lot to be said about it. And then I was I got confused. Oh, I was I got confused. Confused. So then I I didn’t give the example of a partner.
Okay? Was giving the example of money. Okay? So then if at first I had attachment for money, and then I was thinking, oh, this money is gonna give me a lot of happiness. And then with time, I realized, oh, this money is not going to give me only happiness.
It’s gonna give me suffering also, and maybe some neutral feelings. So then so then, is that the case? And then I asked, is that the case that this attachment is turned into faith? And then Geshe was and Geshe-la confused me when he said, no. Money is not an object of faith.
So then and then I said and then I got really confused. So then so then Geshe-la was then first explaining that it is the case that the attachment has diminished. Yes. But it’s not the case that it became an object of faith because money cannot be an object of faith because it is actually true sufferings. It is it falls under the category of true sufferings.
Okay. So then so then so then, again, Geshe-la was then giving the giving illustrations and analysis. Geshe-la was then saying that we might be talking about a worldly object, a word a a worldly object such as tea, for example. This is just an hypothetical example. And then then we might have we say, oh, this this tea is very good.
And people might say, in Tibetan, people say that, oh, this person has a great faith in the tea, but in fact, what is meant by that is what they actually have is attachment. It is not faith. And then I was saying, so then, okay, but and I stopped Geshe lah because I didn’t understand what is then objects of faith. So then what what what are suitable objects of faith? And then as I was saying, so then objects of faith are those which are apprehended without exaggeration, without to them anything on them or exaggerating them.
So then I ask Geshe-la, please give me examples of what are objects of faith. And Geshe-la was saying, Buddha Śākyamūni is an object of faith, and then the Dharma is an object of faith, the Sangha is an object of faith, actions and the results is an object of faith, virtues, deeds are objects of faith, and so forth. So then again, we fall into that. And then we’re referring to that that that conventionally, colloquially, people misuse the word faith to mean things that that doesn’t actually mean. What it actually refers to is attachment or something like that.
So Geshe-la is then giving another illustration. So then the liking that we have for for our our parents, for their good qualities, their great kind ness, and so forth, and the faith that we have in them. Those are genuine. They are and they are so. And then I guess I was then giving another illustration, which then the liking that we have for our partner or boyfriend or girlfriend.
And then he said that is not actually liking. The word liking, translating is usually translated as liking. That is not liking. That is attachment. To to go for this distinguish distinctions is very difficult.
There are many distinctions to be made. So then they cannot coexist. It’s not possible to have faith or to like as as Geshe-la puts uses the word in Tibetan, it’s been translated as like, it’s not possible to like and have faith in your parents, and at the same time, have attachment for them. Because attachment and faith are contradictory, and they contradict each other. So either one has attachment for one’s parents, and that is possible.
There are people who are attached to their parents, who have attachment towards their parents, or you have liking and faith for them. So then both the the the mind of of the mind of liking the mind of liking that that’s being referred here in this context, and explains explains it is is a correct mind, and then mind of attachment is a a mind which is superimposes and exaggerates the object of attachment. So what what is the question? No. Disliking is not liking.
You might not like and still not get angry. But if you do not like, then you do not get I you don’t don’t have there’s no faith. Yes? Wouldn’t that be great? So then what you said is that what you said is that if you have attachment for your parents, you will necessarily have attachment for all the parents.
That’s what you’re saying? Faith. If you have faith in your parents, you would necessarily have faith for all of the parents. And the so so so then, what is the the you said something about having faith in your parents, and then if you have faith in your parents, have to have faith in all other parents. What what does that that come in?
I scrubbed that because Okay. That that’s just confusing. Then you don’t understand how is it that you My parents are not looking. They did a really great job for me. Okay.
So, how is it that you How is it how is it how is it you explain you having both faith and attachment for your parents? Yeah. So then So Geshe-la is asking you to think about how is it that you can posit one mind that has that is that has both faith and attachment, one consciousness. And then, then furthermore, we we have we have Geshe-la was trying to make clear that the idea that there is a colloquial usage of the word faith. And here, in this context, we’re talking specific mind amongst many minds and mental factors.
We’re talking about one specific mental factor, which is called faith. And then we have another mental factor, which is called attachment. And context, in this context here of mental factors of Buddhist Tibetan Buddhist psychology, you cannot have both. Either have one. Yeah.
You either have one or you have another. Like this? Yes. Like this, you can have, but not one one mind. Important to to situate the context.
There is not one mind that has both. So it’s either attachment or faith. Okay? Cannot I cannot translate that. It would be good.
It would not sound good in Tibetan. If you say they’re attached, you’re attached to the lama, it doesn’t sound good. It’s true. Oh, is it? Is it?
Because the word in Tibetan that is translated as attachment is a very strong word that is used to refer which my my teacher, who is an Englishman my English my my Tibetan teacher, who is an Englishman, used to translate it as lust. What do mean that the? No. I I I translate it, but then it’s that’s a meaning that comes. And that that’s what come across.
If you say a woman saying that it has attachment, and if I say that in Tibetan, that has attachment for a man, a lama, that that’s how it comes across. It’s a that’s a different thing. So then I think I wasn’t saying again, all depends on one’s motivation. And then if if one sees the Dalai Lama and and things, oh, he’s he’s a great teacher and so forth. Anyone has faith.
But if one and with the wrong motivation, with a confused, deluded mind comes comes and starts thinking, oh, how how good it will be if you were my husband or something like that, know, that’s that’s attachment that’s mistaken. That’s why I’m confused. Anyway yeah. I know I know that’s not what you meant, but it’s it’s hard to yeah. It’s hard to compare.
Anyway, I I put everything in the context of examples and illustrations. So attachment is something which is very very specific. That maybe in a colloquial situation, you would translate that as attachment. You can translate that as attachment. There are other ways that people would choose to translate that.
But in this context, attachment is something very specific and is not necessarily the wish to have somebody giving you reassurance or looking at you or something like that. In colloquial usage, it has many meanings. In in in this context, it has one specific meaning. We’re going to get there. We’re going to go for a touch.
So then, yeah, so then it’s in colloquial users, it has it has many different meanings, and you have to see because I was then then telling you, we have to see what is the meaning that you are giving in this context that you are talking about. What is the meaning behind that word? But in this context of the mental factors, you have one specific meaning, and we’re going to go through that. Okay? So this is going to come in the six six root afflictions, the section on the six root afflictions we’re going to cover this word, which is to handle as attachment.
Okay? Okay. Okay. Yeah. I see.
I see. So page twenty-six.