Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Khensur Rinpoche opens this 50-minute commentary with the Buddha’s own instruction to test teachings as a buyer tests gold — burning it, scratching it, rubbing it on black stone to check its quality. From this image he builds the session’s framework: because the Buddha tailored teachings to different students like a doctor prescribing for specific ailments, some teachings appear contradictory and none should be accepted on faith alone. The remedy is a threefold analysis keyed to three types of phenomena — manifest, slightly hidden, and extremely hidden — each requiring a different type of inferential cognizer. Rinpoche works through all three carefully, using the example “sound is impermanent because it is a product,” then closes with Tibetan masters’ insistence that any day without meditation on impermanence is a day of practice wasted. Suited to students already engaging with Buddhist logic and epistemology.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 10 AK 1988-10-27.mp3
UUID: 796ee9f7-9a2f-4b35-8d7c-0846eaaba2e7
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Awareness and Knowledge 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1988-10-27
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 50.3 minutes
Words: ~2,420
So the Buddha himself said that you should not accept my teachings out of respect for me, but you should assay them as you would gold. You should examine them as you would gold. So the Buddha said that whatever he taught was only taught to benefit his students. And that he, knowing whatever he would determine what that particular student needed, the disposition of the student, and in terms of the disposition and the need of that student, he would give them a teaching which was beneficial. For example, a doctor, upon making an examination, if you had a cold disease he would give you a medicine in accordance with something that would cure cold disease or if you had heat disease, hot disease, he would give you a medicine in accordance with the hot disease.
The doctor always prescribed you medicine in accordance with the particular illness of the patient. Likewise, all the Buddhist teachings were prescribed in accordance with the dispositions and needs of particular students. So accordingly, the Buddha gave many different varieties of teachings to some students. He said that phenomena truly exist. To some students, he said phenomena don’t truly exist.
To some students, he said that external objects were there were objects which were externally established. To others, he said there were objects which no objects were externally established. Therefore, whatever was going to benefit that particular student in accordance with their needs and dispositions, that’s the teaching that he would give them. Therefore, from this perspective, from the perspective they gave so many different seemingly contradictive teachings, that it’s not sufficient for a student simply to say, Oh, out of great faith for you, I’m going to believe whatever you said. You know, that whatever you say, I’m going to believe that.
For example, if someone was going to buy gold, he wouldn’t just take anything which was presented to him just because someone said it was gold. He would test it. He would assay it. So there said to be three ways of assaying gold as to its quality. One way is, the first way is to burn it, to melt it down, to check for its quality.
The second is to scratch it or to cut it. And the third is to rub it with a particular dark stone, a black stone, which in order to determine its quality, guess it’s carats. Yeah. Anyway, it’s quality. So just as in the case of this gold buyer, the person who was going to buy gold, he purchased it, would assay through these three tests and only then would he go ahead and buy it.
Likewise, the Buddha taught a variety of teachings to different disciples. And so it’s not sufficient just to accept anything which he said. Just because he said it, we should also test it for ourselves. And we make use of a threefold test before we should accept a teaching of the Buddha. So we talked about the three types of phenomena, manifest phenomena, slightly hidden and extremely hidden.
We should make use of these three types of if it’s a let’s see. The Sangagi Sundar. So if his teaching concerns a manifest phenomena, then we should check with our direct perception to see whether it’s true or not, since we realize manifest phenomena with our direct perception. If his teaching is about a slightly hidden phenomena, then we have to use a, inference through the power of facts. Inference by the power of facts in order to test what his teaching says. If his teaching is on extremely hidden phenomena, then we have to make use of an inference to the power of belief.
Extremely hidden phenomena, we have to make use of inference through the power of belief. Now, the teaching is able to withstand these three tests, then it is said to be a teaching which is certified as pure through a threefold analysis and thereupon can be accepted. It is certified by threefold analysis, pure as by way of a threefold analysis and thereupon can be accepted. So, we have a teaching by the Buddha, and we make use of this threefold analysis. Now, if through this process of applying a threefold analysis, if we can in no way harm, find fault with what is said, then we can accept that statement as literal as, as we can accept it literally.
If, if, if our threefold analysis in no way harms what is said, then we can accept what is taught, the object of that teaching, we can accept it as literal. Whereas, through this threefold analysis, if in some way we can harm, we can find fault with the object which is taught by this teaching, then we cannot accept that teaching literally. We cannot accept it literally. So this brings into question the definitive teachings and the interpretive teachings. If it can be accepted literally, it’s a definitive teaching.
If it cannot be accepted literally, it’s an interpretive teaching. So within the great vehicle, there are the two tenets of the mind only school and the middle way school. Now in trying to determine whether a teaching of the, of a mind only school is to be taken literally or is necessary to interpret it, we can rely upon the explanations of the great charioteer, Asaṇga. Whereas for the middle way school, to understand whether teaching can be taken literally or is to be interpreted, we rely on the explanations of the great charioteer, Nāgārjuna. Hundred percent.
So the Buddha in many discourses prophesied that there would be two individuals who would be able to commentate unerringly on his teachings, where they could be relied on, or could have one hundred percent conviction in their explanations. And these were Nāgārjuna and Asaṇga. The fact that we’re all here together, that we’re listening, reflecting, that we’re practicing the Dharma is a sign that we have been born as a human being. And additionally, that we’ve been born as a human being is a sign that we practiced, we observed ethics in a past life. But if we said, you know, well, this is all a result of having observed ethics.
Now when did you observe this ethics? It was in a past life, but we don’t, we don’t know this. There’s no way, way we can realize this on our own, that we have to rely on the scriptural quotation by the Buddha where he, he states that such a result arises from the observance of ethics. So we went into this explanation of the three types of phenomena manifest slightly and extremely hidden in order to understand that when we come to inferential cognizers, we make use of inferential cognizers in order to understand hidden phenomena. We make use of inferential cognizers in order to realize hidden phenomena.
So the definition of a inferential cognizer is determinative knower. A determinative knower. This means a conceptual knower, a conceptual awareness, a thought consciousness, a determinative knower. Now, since it is a knower, it’s an awareness, it arises in dependence upon causes and conditions. Now what cause, in dependence upon which does it arise?
It arises depending on upon a basis. It depends upon a basis. What is that basis? That basis is a correct sign. That’s, or you could say a quick reason, but sign is technically more correct to say a correct sign.
And it is incontrovertible. That is to say, it realizes its object. It understands its object. So we say it’s incontrovertible with regard to its object of apprehension. And what is that object of apprehension?
It is a hidden phenomenon. It is a hidden phenomenon. So if we were to give that definition, it is a determinative knower which, depending upon its basis, a correct sign, is incontrovertible with regard to its object of comprehension, a hidden phenomena. So there are two types of inferential cognizers. There are inferential prime cognizers, inferential prime cognizers, and inferential subsequent cognizers.
Inferential subsequent cognizers. So if we were to give the definition of inferential prime cognizer, we would give that definition that we gave before, but we would add new and we would only add the word new. We’d be new and incontrovertible. Yeah, we just add the word new to that, you know, we said a correct sign is new and incontrovertible. Okay, we just add the word new.
That would make it the definition of an inferential prime cognizer. Whereas, with an inferential subsequent cognizer, We wouldn’t add the word new. So with respect to inferential cognizers, it is never a consciousness to which an object appears and is not ascertained. It is not it is never a consciousness to which an object appears, but which is not ascertained. So there are three types of inferential prime cognizers.
Three types. There’s inference by the power of fact, inference by the power of fact, inference through renown, inference through renown, and inference through belief, inference through belief. So we said that the inferential cognizers arise in dependence upon a cause, and that cause was a correct sign. So each of these, and the correct sign upon which they develop is that in the case of inference by the power of fact, it develops in dependence upon a correct sign. A correct sign of the power of fact.
A correct sign of the power of fact. And then inference through renown arises in dependence upon a correct sign of renown. And inference through belief arises in dependence upon a correct sign of belief. So that an inferential cognizer arises in dependence upon a correct sign is set forth in the text which takes up the explanation of prime cognizers by Dignāgā and Dharmakīrti. So there Rinpoche was quoting Sanskrit verses from Dignāgā and Dharmakīrti that both that the various types of prime cognizers, inferential prime cognizers arise in dependence upon reasoning.
He was reciting Sanskrit verses. If we give an example of a reason a quick a quick reason of the power of fact. We can take, sound. Now, the, some non-Buddhist schools hold that sound is permanent. Whereas in the, in the, within Buddhism, it is held that sound is impermanent.
And that we can give a, you know, we can give reasons proving why sound is impermanent. We can, for example, say sound is impermanent because it’s a product. That is to say, it is created by causes and conditions. In dependence upon this correct sign of causes, it’s created out of causes and conditions. By the power of this fact, we can come to understand that sound is impermanent.
So, we were talking about earlier that these three types of analysis that we could perform in the case of that sound is impermanent. This is a slightly hidden phenomena. And as we said, with respect to slightly hidden phenomena, we can establish we can come to realize them through inference. And in this case, specifically, the inference by the power of fact. Inference through the power of fact.
So we can understand, the impermanence of sound through an inference, the inference of the power of fact, the impermanence of the flower through an inference, through the power of fact. The impermanence of our self by means of an inference through the power of fact, the impermanence of that room, by means of the inference through the power of fact. All the functional things can be established as impermanent through this second type of analysis, inference, which is inference through the power of fact. So we can understand that the flower is impermanent by making use of the reason because it’s a product. What we mean when we say that is because it’s created in dependence upon causes.
It’s created in dependence upon causes and conditions. For example, develops from a seed, develops from water, from earth. From these causes and conditions, the flower rises. The dependence upon that, we can understand that the flower is impermanent by the power of that fact. When we understand that the flower is momentarily created and disintegrating, moment by moment being created and disintegrating, then we understand the impermanence of the flower.
So we can understand, we can apply this same reasoning to all things and come to understand their impermanence. And coming to understand impermanence is extremely important, the Buddha, when he in his very first teaching that he gave in Varanasi, he spoke about the impermanence of phenomena. And then through his intermediate years, he was always speaking about impermanence. And finally, when he was about to die, said, Now I am going to pass into parinirvana, into parinirvana, because all things are impermanent. Shows that by his own example of his teachings, importance of understanding, realizing impermanence.
So many of the great lamas, teachers in Tibet, they would said, they said that if you didn’t meditate on impermanence that day, then that day would, would go to waste. If you didn’t meditate on impermanence in the morning, then your morning would be wasted. If you didn’t meditate on impermanence in the afternoon, that afternoon would be wasted. If you didn’t meditate on impermanence in the evening, that evening would be wasted, that is to say, you would not practice the Dharma purely. So then the second type of inferential cognizer is inference through renown.
Inference through renown. And this would be, if we take an example, at the full moon is often called the rabbit bearer, rabbit possessor. The full moon is a rabbit possessor. So we can say that the rabbit possessor is suitable to be termed moon because it is an object of conception. The rabbit possessor is suitable to be termed moon because it is an object of So, this is an is an example of inference through renown.
So then the third type of inferential cognizer is by which we understand extremely hidden phenomena. And if we give an example, the from the scriptural citation where, which states that through in dependence upon generosity, we acquire resources, in dependence upon ethics. We acquire a happy migration that is incontrovertible with the subject taught because it is the scriptural citation, the purity, the scriptural citation purity of which is testified by the threefold analysis. The scriptural citation, The purity of which is testified by the threefold analysis. And dependence upon that reason, we can develop an inference through belief.
This is a little bit difficult to understand.