Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A student’s question — “Why study awareness and knowledge at all?” — draws out a clear, practical answer in this 49-minute session: we must identify skillful and unskillful mental states so we can subdue the unskillful ones that generate negative actions and suffering. Khensur Rinpoche opens by completing his survey of the seven types of consciousness, defining doubt as a wavering two-pointed mind and wrong consciousness as apprehending an object opposite to its actual nature. He then unpacks the definition of direct perceiver — a non-mistaken knower free from conceptuality — using vivid examples: two moons seen by pressing an eyeball, white paper appearing yellow in hepatitis, trees seeming to move from a moving car. The Q&A that follows probes inferential cognition, including a memorable exchange on whether a red face reliably signals anger.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 04 AK 1988-10-06.mp3
UUID: 1cc23d28-f37d-4440-8fbd-1ab3478bfbb7
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Awareness and Knowledge 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1988-10-06
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 48.8 minutes
Words: ~2,456
Which is wavering between thinking it is this way or it is that way. So it’s a mind which is wavering between, for example, thinking, is it a person, is it not a person, is it a pot, is it not a pot, is it permanent, is it not permanent? Wavering between these positions, it’s a two-pointed mind which cannot stabilize on understanding the object. A two-pointed mind which wavers between two different positions. For example, you wake up in the morning and just think, should I go to work today or shouldn’t I go?
That’s doubt. And it’s such a in such a position, you’re while you’re staying in that you’re only stay you’re in that position, you you’re not enjoying yourself in that position, nor are you going to, you know, actually, can you accomplish what you’re what would bring you happiness? Why this why this doubt exists? And then the seventh is wrong consciousness. And wrong consciousness is the consciousness which apprehends the object in an opposite way to its actual nature.
For example, thinking that even though the actual nature of this table is impermanent, conceiving it to be permanent would be a wrong consciousness. It’s apprehending in the opposite way it actually exists. So we’ve, this is just, we’re just roughly going through these seven types of consciousness. In the future now we’re going to this is just to give you a sense, an idea of what’s coming. And now we’re going to, in the future, go into each of these in detail so that you can understand them each thoroughly.
So we’ll begin with explanation of direct perceiver. The definition of direct perceiver is a non mistaken knower that is free from conceptuality. A non mistaken knower that is free from conceptuality. A non mistaken knower that is free from conceptuality. So this definition is a composite of three different, concepts.
First is what we mean by non mistaken, knower, and free from conceptuality? So we have to begin by understanding what we mean by conception. Now, thinking, the thinking mind, which reflects upon what your room might look like, what the path outside looks, what the road looks like outside, to that mind appears that object. Your room appears to that thinking, to that thought consciousness. Path, the road appears to that consciousness.
This type of mind, the consciousness to which these objects are appearing, is what we mean by conception. For example, you know, if someone had not, who had never gone to Bodh Gaya, which is in India, and just in dependence upon my describing Bodh Gaya, I said, you know, there’s a very big stupa or reliquary monument. And I describe the stupa. And then the bodhi tree is there. And then behind the bodhi tree is a Buddha sitting there.
It just depends upon my speech, my description. Some image begins to form in your mind, some concept about what Bodh Gaya must be like even though you’ve never been there. This mind in which this idea about Bodh Gaya is forming is what we mean by conception. So simply in dependence upon my speaking words, the words enter into your ear and you hear the words and you begin to think about what, for example, Bodh Gaya is like. And so this image, the mind which forms in this way, is a conception which follows in dependence upon terms or sound.
It’s a conception which follows upon sound. So all these various consciousness which think, thought consciousness, we’re thinking, oh, this is blue. This is a man. This is a house. All these consciousness would think this is this.
This is that. These are all conceptions, conceptual consciousnesses. So when we say in the definition of prime cognizer, we say free from conceptuality, we mean non conceptual, not conceptual. When we say free, we mean it’s not conceptual, that it’s free from all this type of thought consciousness. So then the second term that we have to understand is non mistaken.
Now, if we were to look up in the sky and we were to see two moons. In fact, there’s only one moon in the sky. But if we were see two moons, that would be a mistaken consciousness. For example, if we press on the eyeball, we can see two images of the moon. And this, this, the consciousness perceiving these two images would be a mistaken consciousness.
Another example is that someone who is suffering from bile disease. For example, if someone has hepatitis. When they look at a white piece of paper, the white piece of paper appears yellow due to the illness. This perception, this apprehension of a yellow piece of paper would be a mistaken consciousness. So another example of mistaken, a mistake would be if we got in the car and we were out driving and we passing some trees.
Now, we can become mistaken to what is actually moving. It can appear to us that the trees are moving, where in fact the trees aren’t moving. It’s the car that is moving. So this appearance of the trees moving is a mistaken appearance. It’s mistaken.
So what we’re talking about here is something which, that which is not mistaken, that which is in accordance with the way the thing actually is, in accordance with its actual nature. It’s non mistaken. Have we taken another example? To our direct perception, to our eye consciousness which perceives the flower? The flower, what appears is the flower, and we’re not mistaken with respect to the flower because it actually is a flower.
Something which is not a flower is not appearing. We’re not mistaken because what is actually a flower is appearing and it is in fact, that’s the way it actually exists to our ends. Therefore, the eye consciousness which perceives the flower is not mistaken. And then this third term was knower. And when we explained the definition of consciousness, that that which is clear and knowing, we went into the explanation of knower.
And therefore, we’ve explained the three terms within this definition of direct perceiver. So we’ve we’ve we’re going to spend the remaining part of the teaching of our period answering questions. So if you have any questions that you’d like to answer, we’ll answer them. Pardon? Definition of knower.
So the term knower itself does not have a definition, but it has a sense. It has a meaning. And the meaning of the term knower is seeing the object. That, the meaning of knower is that to which an object appears. That to which an object appears.
That to which an object appears is the meaning of knower. It also can be that to which an object is reflected. That to which an object is reflected. So, when we talked about the nature of consciousness, it’s as if the consciousness, we use the analogy of a mirror, that the object is able to be reflected in the mirror, but unlike a mirror, which is able, the mind reflects the object, but unlike a mirror, it’s actually able to move forward toward the object and apprehend the characteristics of the object. So this the quality of the knower.
It is the ability to move toward and actually to comprehend the characteristics of the object. So first is the object comes toward the consciousness and is reflected just as in a mirror. And then the consciousness actually moves toward the object and is able to, comprehend its characteristics. So I’d Okay. That’s it.
Yeah. Let me just point out that this is a very it’s not quite the definition. It’s a rough. Uh-huh. Yeah.
Okay. I I don’t think I used the word realizes. No. It doesn’t realize. It doesn’t realize.
Okay. Go ahead. I’m sorry. When I think of a baby, it’s like even though it doesn’t label its mother, it’s using reason and experience to start to respond positively to her. You mean when you do examine an object that you always are relying on reason or experience?
I can’t think of any example where I died. Okay. I just wonder if you could explain that. Right. Yeah.
Wrong. You Jenna? You So when you examine something, it’s not necessary that you have to depend upon either experience or reason. For example, if someone said in this room there was an image of a Buddha, and you had never seen an image of a Buddha. And you came in this room and you stand in front of this particular image and you say, I wonder if that’s a Buddha or not.
You’re examining this image, but you’re not relying, your examination is not relying on either reasoning or experience. Some other label or I’m getting a bit confused because I think that most people would have an idea from their reading and experience who We’re talking about a person who doesn’t Uh-huh. For example. So you’re saying they have nothing. They don’t know anything about Buddha.
Yeah. We’re using that as a as an example. They’re examining, but they’re not relying on either reasoning or experience in the process of the examination. And the the killing, Yes. Yeah, that’s right.
So if someone were just to You’re just depending upon You don’t understand what a door is, what the Tibetan, what he means when he says the word door, you’re just using a label and applying it without any reason. Yeah. Wish I gave two examples for I think it’s for indirect cognition. Indirect? Sorry.
Inferential cognition. And one of them which was smoke for fire, except that the other one which was that having a red face implied anger, I didn’t feel that I felt that that was a valid Oh. Yeah. So just just on the basis of a sign of red face by itself is not a correct sign to infer anger. But if this person’s face was not red when you began speaking with him and as you spoke with him, his face became red, that could be a quick sign of independence over which you could infer that he’s becoming angry, he’s angry.
Just in general, red face doesn’t mean a person’s angry. No. But also, one possibility, if he wasn’t didn’t have a red face to begin with and his face became red, it could be because he was embarrassed. Embarrassed. Oh.
So in dependence upon what you’re saying to this person, you know, then you can infer by his red face that he’s becoming angry. And also by other signs that, for example, if he became, if he was becoming embarrassed, then there’s a tendency to shrink back. And his face may become red, but there’s other signs that you would take into consideration. His attention to shrink back, and when a person becomes angry, he kind of blows up. This kind of becomes bigger.
So in dependence upon what you’re saying and all these various signs taken together, but mainly the the red face. So, Rinpoche apologizes to anyone who, just because they have a red face, that they think Rinpoche thinks they’re angry. He doesn’t mean to infer that they’re all angry just because they have red faces. Yeah. Is the prime is the prime cognizer the mind or part of the mind?
Is the prime cognizer what? Well, what is it? I mean, is it the mind that’s what what what part of this does it belong to? Is it is it us? Is it our minds?
The. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. So in different individuals at different times within their awareness, a prime cognizer arises. Different individuals at different minds, different individuals at different moments. Within their awareness a prime cognizer arises.
And what is it? What is a prime cognizer? So a prime cognizer is a new incontrovertible knower. A new incontrovertible knower. How does that relate to like, of us that come over to Buddha House and we hear lectures about the mind, in what way does that relate to my sort of very basic understanding of mind?
I mean, isn’t is it must be part of the mind surely if we’re thinking it. Yeah. It’s a it’s a part of mind. Yeah. And if we’re looking at things all the time, isn’t it aren’t we doing it all the time?
Making sort of those at the the levels that you read out. I mean, are we are we constantly doing that all the time looking and These seven consciousnesses? They’re basically happening all the time, really, aren’t they? Every time while we’re awake, we’re on those different seven levels, So, yeah, so in the case of, for example, a Buddha, he only has direct perceivers. He doesn’t have any of the other six.
Whereas in the course of ordinary people, each moment of consciousness would be classed as one of these as either one of these seven. And could you ask him why the Buddhist study this then? Is it sort of part of learning to see more clearly? Why why study awareness and knowledge? There isn’t Yeah.
I mean, is it to sort of become more clear about what we see in our perception. So this is in a room. There are a variety of material objects. Likewise, with respect to the mind, are a variety of various states of mind which arise. Some of these states of mind are skillful, some are unskillful.
So in order to achieve Buddhahood, we are seeking to enhance the skillful states and to eliminate the unskillful states. This is the method of achieving enlightenment. Therefore, we have to know which minds are skillful, which states our minds are skillful and which are unskillful and begin to decrease the power of those unskillful ones and increase the power of the skillful ones. And therefore, it’s necessary to know all the varieties of types of mind. So it’s important that we understand how our mind is operating because we have many types of mind arising.
For example, we have skillful states of mind, unskillful states of mind, and dependence upon unskillful states of mind, we engage in negative actions. And dependence upon negative actions, we experience suffering. And therefore, if we finally want to bring an end to our suffering, then we have to bring an end to our negative actions, and therefore we have to subdue our unskillful states of mind, unskillful varieties of consciousness. Therefore, we have to be able to recognize them. Therefore, it’s quite necessary to study them.
So no more questions? Okay. What is the question? Can you make your question a little bit clearer? Okay.