Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Starting with the claim that great compassion is the indispensable root of bodhicitta, Geshe Pema Tsering opens this 45-minute session with a brief meditation on compassion and love before turning to the Sūtra School’s systematic map of the mind. He defines valid awareness, then distinguishes its two branches: valid perception in four types — self-perception, sense perception, mental perception, and yogic perception (the last arising only in meditators who have directly realised emptiness) — and valid inference in three types, illustrated throughout by the syllogism “sound is impermanent because it is produced.” He then works through five categories of non-valid awareness — subsequent awareness, wrong awareness, doubt, correct belief, and inattentive awareness — giving the most attention to correct belief’s five subtypes, each distinguished by a different kind of defective reasoning. Suited to students following a structured course in Buddhist epistemology.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 Tenets 2001 10 30.mp3
UUID: 103cea82-7de7-442f-b0b4-deb450c2a54d
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Principles of the Tenets (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-10-30
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.4 minutes
Words: ~3,284
Hello? This one is too. Yes. So initially, there’s a statement that occurs in Madhyamaka where it says, the root of that is great compassion. So in fact, here’s talking about the root of bodhicitta is great compassion.
Great compassion gives rise to bodhicitta. So initially, we should contemplate both bodhicitta and its root, great compassion. Here when it says the root is great compassion, root here means the cause, the main cause that gives rise to bodhicitta. So the root cause, the main cause of bodhicitta is great compassion. So therefore, one requires the root of great compassion in order to give rise to bodhicitta.
If one doesn’t have great compassion, then bodhicitta has no way of arising. So initially, one seeks to establish great compassion. So because we need bodhicitta, absolutely, initially, we need to meditate on great compassion. So what is great compassion? Great compassion is this mind that wishes that all sentient beings without exception be free of suffering.
On the other hand, the type of mind that wishes that all sentient beings be happy, all sentient beings without exception are happy, is the mind of great love or the type of awareness called great love. So therefore, the type of mind that’s associated with both great love and great compassion is concordant with those two mental factors and aspires to attain the state of enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings is bodhicitta. So now, initially, we need to meditate on this type of mind. So what we’re meditating on here is the type of mind that’s associated with this this aspiration that all beings without exception be free of suffering and also that all beings without exception are happy. And this type of mind is aspiring to attain the state of enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings without exception.
So what we’re seeking here is to meditate, to generate that type of mind in our continuum. So we should now just meditate on that. This is a smaller number of people tonight. Maybe the text is difficult. So we started the sūtra school, didn’t we?
And I think we reached the stage dealing with valid awareness. Is that true? You nondeceptive cognition is the definite definition of valid awareness. Alright. Do draw such.. Page number ten.
I think we finished the definition of valid awareness. So then at the bottom of page number nine, we have, a further classification of valid awareness. So valid awareness has two types, valid perception and valid inference. Is everyone found that spot? So initially we have the definition of perception itself.
So, no mistaken cognition free from conception is the definition of perception. So here when it says free from conception, it’s talking about non conceptual. So something which is not conception and it’s also non mistaken. Then under that, we have the definition of valid perception. So that’s new nondeceptive cognition free from conception.
So here we have the definition of valid perception and it has a number of components such as new, non deceptive cognition and free from conception. If we were to just put non deceptive cognition itself, that would be the definition of a non mistaken type of awareness. Yeah. Then if that perception is classified, then it has four types. Unlike the previous, the great exposition school, which had three types.
So there we have valid self perception, valid sense perception, valid mental perception, and valid yogic perception, those four. So initially of those four, the first is valid self perception. So this is something that was not accepted by the great exposition school, the Vaibhāṣika school. So here the definition of the valid self perception is given as new nondeceptive cognition free from conception, which separates the subject and is directed only internally. Now in that definition, it’s also said, is directed only internally.
So that indicates that it’s not taking an external object. That in fact, it’s only taking internal objects and here internal objects refer to awareness itself. Another part, another component of the definition is which separates the subject. Here, for other types of awareness, there are objects, external objects which are taken as the main object which that awareness is holding. But here, it’s said to focus only on the subject, which refers to awareness itself and the component of clarity and cognition of awareness itself.
So for that reason, it’s said to separate the subject and therefore is directed only in turn internally. And then the initial part of the new nondeceptive cognition free of conception or free from conception is similar to the definitions that were given previously. So that’s the definition given here of valid self perception. Then the second definition is given here, of valid sense perception and the definition is new non deceptive cognition free from conception which occurs in dependence on a physical sense power as its specific empowering condition. So here in fact, right at the end of the definition, it talks about an empowering condition.
And in general, there are four types of condition that are listed in the treatises. And here, of those four, we’re talking about empowering condition. Here, condition in general refers to a cause. So the four types of condition are the causal condition, the empowering condition, the focal condition, and the immediate condition. So there are these four types of condition that exist.
So in fact here of the four conditions, the sense power exists as the empowering condition. And the empowering condition basically refers to the sense powers, such as the eye sense power, the ear sense power, the nose, tongue, body sense power, etcetera. And they act as the main condition for the arising of this type of consciousness. Otherwise, in the definition, you nondeceptive cognition free from conception is similar to what was stated before. Then the third one here is valid mental perception.
So that’s new non deceptive cognition free from conception, which occurs in dependence on a mental sense power as its specific empowering condition. Now the difference with this type of awareness is that its specific empowering condition is mental sense power. Here, mentality or the mental sense power itself is the main condition giving rise to it. Also here, for each of these types of awareness, types of perception, there is a specific empowering condition and a common empowering condition. For all of these, the common empowering condition is really the previous moment of awareness, whether that’s eye awareness or ear awareness or nose awareness or whatever.
So that’s regarded as the common empowering condition, for these awarenesses. On the other hand, a specific empowering condition is the specific, sense power that gives rise to that type of awareness, whether it’s the eye sense power, the ear sense power, and so on. Then the definition of the fourth one here is valid yogic perception. So that’s primordial awareness perceptually comprehending either subtle impermanence or gross or subtle selflessness, in dependence on the concentration uniting calm abiding and insight as its empowering condition. So in fact this type of awareness, yogic valid yogic perception doesn’t exist in the continuum of an ordinary being.
It only exists in the continuum of an ārya being. So in fact here the empowering condition is this type of concentration which unites śamatha or calm abiding and vipaśyanā or insight. So here the this type of awareness, valid yogic perception, in dependence on the empowering condition, specific empowering condition, which is concentrating and uniting, calm abiding and insight, takes three different objects, focuses on three different objects. So the first one there is subtle impermanence. So subtle impermanence is this momentary change in impermanent objects, momentary destruction of impermanent objects.
Then gross selflessness. And gross selflessness is the fact that beings are free of a permanent single self powered self or subtle selflessness, which is the fact that beings are free of a self arising, self arisen, substantially existent self. So in fact, yogic perception, which exists in a continuum of an ārya being, is taking, any of these three as its object. So then, if classified yogic perception has three types: valid yogic perception, perceptually comprehending subtle impermanence valid yogic perception, perceptually comprehending gross selflessness and valid yogic perception, perceptually comprehending subtle selflessness. So these three exist as just mentioned.
So that completes the four types of perception that are asserted by the Sūtra School. So the initial classification was into valid perception and valid inference, and then valid perception was given four types. So we’ve completed the four types of valid perception. And now we start with the second division that is of valid inference. So the definition here is new nondeceptive conceiving cognition generated in reliance on a correct reason, its basis.
And that is the definition of valid inference. So here it’s stated to be generated in reliance on its basis, which is a correct reason. So in fact, here this type of awareness only arises when a correct reason is formulated. And on the basis of formulating and expressing, for instance, a correct reason, then this type of awareness is generated. So the correct reason and the formulation of it is its cause.
New non deceptive conceiving cognition therefore refers to the fact that it is conceptual, not perception. So that again is divided also into three types. Inference through the strength of fact, inference through renown, and inference through conviction. So the first one, the instance of the first one, is inference comprehending sound is by reason of being produced. So it’s three I think Yep.
So the example here is formulating a reason such as the subject sound. It is impermanent because it is produced. So in fact here we have a thesis sound being impermanent, and we need to find a reason that will establish it being a sound being impermanent. And the reason given here is it being produced, the correct reason. So in dependence on that, then this type of inference, inference comprehending sound as impermanent, can arise.
So in dependence on formulating that reason of being produced in order to establish predicate sound is impermanent and contemplating that, then later, in a following moment, the inference comprehending sound is impermanent can arise. Okay. In general, there are two types of reason, correct reason and a pseudo reason. So in fact, the inference only arises on the basis of a valid reason or a correct reason, not on the basis of a pseudo reason or an incorrect reason. So then the second one here is the instance of inference comprehending that a rabbit possessor is suitable to be called the moon through reason that it exists as a well known object of conception.
So here the reason given is that it exists as an object of conception. And in fact, existing as an object of conception is pervasive for all valid dharmas or all objects which exist. So here, in fact, the the reason or the what is formulated is firstly the subject, the rabbit possessor, and then the predicate attached to that is is suitable to be called the moon. So the rabbit possessor, of course, refers to the moon. And that the fact that the rabbit possessor of the moon is suitable to be called the moon is established by this particular reason because it exists as an object of conception.
Then the author gives an instance for the third inference through conviction, and that is inference comprehending that scripture stating from generosity comes resources, from ethics comes bliss, is nondeceptive to its stated meaning through reason of being scripture authenticated by three analyses. So in general, all the teachings of the Buddha, all the scriptural works attributed to the Buddha are scripture authenticated by three analyses. So in fact, here, what the three analyses refer to is that all objects which are obvious or perceptible are not harmed or those objects taught in scripture that are perceptible are not harmed by perception or a sense perception and so on. Those objects, that which is taught within scripture that is hidden, that is not harmed by inference by the strength of fact. And that which is taught in scripture, which is extremely hidden, is not harmed by inference through conviction.
So if it those three examinations apply to scripture, then it’s scripture authenticated by three analyses. Here, the subject matter of the scripture given is that from generosity comes resources or wealth, and from ethics comes bliss. To actually establish that as being authentic is extremely difficult. Here, in fact, for us, it’s extremely difficult to authenticate that or even our speech that if we were to say that, it’d be very difficult for us to authenticate it. But if the Buddha, if a fully awakened being has stated that and it’s established that his speech is authentic, then that can be established.
There is a means of actually establishing it to be true. So then it says that inference through renown, which is the second of the three types, must be inference by the strength of fact. That must be the first type. So then after that it states the perception is not necessarily valid perception because both the second moment of sense perception, etc, are subsequent types of awareness. In fact, is perception which is subsequent awareness is what it’s saying.
So therefore, perception is not necessarily valid perception because both the second moment of sense perception holding form and the second moment of inference holding sound is impermanent at subsequent awareness. And that is proven because this particular text called states. So this text is a text by Gyaltsab Je, who is the foremost disciple of Je Tsongkhapa. And he states, both the first moment and inference are valid awareness. Because the continuums are not established distinct from them, their latter continuums abandon, valid awareness.
So that therefore completes the two types of valid awareness. So there and our initial division there was a valid awareness, into valid perception and valid inference. So both of those now have been completed. So initially, we had a division into valid awareness and non valid awareness. So now we start with the second one, nonvalid types of awareness.
Here the definition of non awareness is given, which is cognition which is not new or new and deceptive. So here it’s the opposite of the definition of valid awareness which was new non deceptive cognition. And then within that we have five divisions of non valid awareness. So within that, then we have subsequent awareness, wrong awareness, doubt, correct belief, and inattentive awareness. So the definition of the first, the subsequent awareness is cognition comprehending the comprehended.
So here, this is referring subsequent awareness is referring to the second moment of valid awareness, which is subsequent awareness. Second moment and third moment on. So therefore, then having given that definition, it’s classified into two. So the first is subsequent conception. And then the second is subsequent to non conceptual awareness.
So there are those two types. So for example, the example of the first one there there is the recalling awareness, recalling blue initiated by sense perception holding blue. So this is a type of memory or a type of recalling or recollection, recalling awareness. And a further example there is the second moment of inference holding sound as impermanent. Then the example of the second is that is subsequent non conceptual awareness is the second moment of sense perception holding blue.
So that’s non conceptual subsequent awareness. So here the definition given of wrong awareness is cognition incorrectly engaging its object. So there it has two types, conceptual wrong awareness and non conceptual wrong awareness. So the example of the first is conception holding sound is permanent. So here in fact, it’s when sound is actually impermanent to hold it as existing in the in an opposite way to that, meaning holding sound to be permanent, is wrong awareness.
Similarly, holding objects which are not truly existent to be truly existent is again wrong awareness. So for the second one, they’re non conceptual wrong awareness. For example, sense awareness to which one moon appears as two moons or sense awareness to which a snow mountain appears as blue are non conceptual wrong awareness. So the definition of doubt then is a mental factor wavering between two alternatives by its own strength. So here, as it continues to state that mental consciousness concordant with that doubt and feeling, etcetera, also concordant with that doubt in the retinue of that mental consciousness, did not waver between two alternatives by their own strength because those waver between two alternatives by the strength of doubt.
So there again, we have three types of, doubt. And so doubt tending to the fact, doubt tending away from the fact, even doubt. So the first one there, for example, doubt tending to the fact, doubt reflecting sound is probably impermanent. So then the second one is doubt turning away from the fact, and that is doubt reflecting sound is probably permanent. Yeah.
Yep. Then the third one is even type of doubt, which is, for example, doubt reflecting sound may be permanent or impermanent. It’s somewhat in the middle. So that completes their doubt. So then we have the definition of correct belief.
And here, that is given as authentic conceiving cognition, deceptively conceiving its object. So here it says, it’s talking about its object, conceiving its object. That correct belief actually conceives of its object, but it doesn’t actually comprehend its object. So in fact, because it’s stating conceiving its object there, it really indicates that it’s not actually its object. So then if classified, there are five types.
Correct belief without reason, correct belief by excluding reason, correct belief by indeterminate reason, and correct belief by non establishing reason, and incorrect belief not proven by reason though the reason exists. So for example, the first one, correct belief without reason is like discernment holding sound is impermanent. in dependence on a mere term, sound is impermanent. So that’s the instance of the first because the other term sound is impermanent expresses the thesis sound is impermanent. It does not express the correct reason establishing sound is impermanent.
In fact, it’s just the conception holding sound to be impermanent simply on the strength of the thesis being expressed that sound is impermanent. So the second one there is correct belief by excluding reason, and that is, for example, discernment holding sound is impermanent by reason of being empty of function. So this is an excluding reason because the reason given, that is, being empty of function excludes sound because sound actually possesses a function. It’s not empty of function. It possesses function.
So for the reason given, it contradicts the nature of sound itself. It excludes sound. So therefore, it’s correct belief by an excluding reason. So the example then of correct belief by an indeterminate reason, is, for example, discernment holding sound is impermanent by reason of being an assessed object. And that’s an indeterminate reason because being an assessed object doesn’t prove that sound is impermanent or not impermanent because an assessed object being an assessed object includes all impermanence and permanence.
So therefore this is an indeterminate reason. It cannot determine sound to be impermanent. Alright. So the fourth one here is correct belief by nonestablishing reason. So for example, discernment holding sound is impermanent by reason of being held object of eye awareness is an instance of the fourth because a held object of eye awareness is a non established reason for establishing sound is impermanent.