Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Completing the sevenfold map of awareness and knowledge, Khensur Rinpoche covers the four remaining cognition types in this 51-minute session: subsequent cognizers (the second moment of any perception, relying on an earlier prime cognizer rather than freshly establishing its object), assumption (accepting “sound is impermanent” without being able to give a reason), inattentive awareness (words heard while absorbed in a beautiful sight — the sound registers but meaning escapes), doubt in three gradations, and wrong consciousness, illustrated by jaundice causing white paper to appear yellow. He then draws the practical hierarchy: the first three awareness types realize their objects and are to be cultivated; assumption and inattentive awareness are neutral; doubt tending away from fact and wrong consciousness are inverted and to be abandoned. The session ends with Q&A unpacking the three modes of a syllogism. Best followed by those already working through this logic series.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 13 AK 1988-11-03.mp3
UUID: 791fae89-a61f-4000-8015-6d6693c0ad42
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Awareness and Knowledge 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1988-11-03
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 51.2 minutes
Words: ~2,876
So Anyway, in these in the various logic texts, for example, the commentary to the Compendium of Prime Cognitions. They set forth many reasonings using signs, you know, signs as we did before, that we can establish the existence of fire to the sign smoke or the reason smoke. And they establish impermanence. They establish, they use, you know, many, many types of reasonings to establish various types of inferences. But these are all only took as examples to exemplify in which we are to take those, that understanding of inference, and apply it to our actual practice.
In order we infer from these various signs that we can readily understand the quality of how an inference is operating and apply it to our practice whereby we can understand that through, as has been exemplified, that through generosity we are going to experience wealth. Through patience we’re going to experience beauty. And through ethics we’ll experience a higher rebirth. So out of this sevenfold division of awareness and knowledge, we’ve finished the first two. The first two, that is direct perceivers and inferential cognizers.
So we’ve talked about the third. We’ve talked somewhat about the third type of awareness, that is subsequent cognizers. And this is simply a cognizer, which is a knower of an object which has already been realized by a previous prime cognizer. So this is more or less the meaning. A knower which realizes an object previously which has already been realized by a prime cognizer, by a previous prime cognizer.
So we’ve talked about, how we can distinguish these from prime cognizers and subsequent cognizers. The first type was of, there are two types of subsequent cognizers. There are direct and inferential subsequent cognizers. With respect to direct cognizers, there are the various types of direct perceivers, the four types. So if we just take an example, for example, the first moment of an eye consciousness apprehending visible form, that’s a prime cognizer.
It’s a direct prime cognizer. The second moment of that eye consciousness is a direct subsequent cognizer. Likewise, you know, for the ear apprehending sound. The first moment is a direct prime cognizer. The second moment is a direct subsequent cognizer.
So, in the second type of So, there are direct subsequent cognizers and conceptual prime cognizers or inferential cognizers. An example would be if we take the first moment of an inferential, first moment, from the first moment of an inference realizing impermanence of sound is an inferential prime cognizer. The second moment of that, the inference realizing the impermanence of sound, would be an inferential or conceptual subsequent cognizer. So then the fourth type of awareness is quickly assuming consciousness, or we can just say assumption. Quickly assuming consciousness or assumption.
And the definition of assumption is a knower that does not get at an object, that does not get at an object with respect to which superimpositions have been eliminated. Superimpositions have been eliminated, although it adheres one pointedly, although it adheres one pointedly to the phenomenon, which is its principal object of engagement. A knower that does not get at an object with respect to which superimpositions have been eliminated, although it adheres one pointedly to the phenomena which is its principal object of engagement. So for example, if we if if you were to listen to the teaching where it, you know, it was said that that the Buddha came to India, to Bodh Gaya, and that he had all these various signs and marks. That he had, for example, he had a crown knot, crown protrusion, top knot crown protrusion, and that he had various wheels on his hands and on his feet.
And you heard that, you heard that and you formed a conception and in your memory about what was said, then this would be simply an assumption. This is what this would be a correctly assuming consciousness. So, you know, just in dependence upon hearing those words of teacher and the students decide, oh, that Buddha came to India, you know, and to Bodh Gaya, and he had these various marks. Do they decide that this is the fact? That this is what happened?
They haven’t realized the Buddha. They haven’t realized that he came to Bodh Gaya. They’re just assuming this. They haven’t actually realized it. Therefore, this is said to be controvertible.
It’s controvertible where it hasn’t been realized. So essentially what we mean is that upon hearing some words, that you follow, that there follows the decision that what is said is fact, but in fact it is true, it’s not incorrect, but what has been said is not realized for oneself — it is simply taken through the power of belief. One simply assumes that what is said is true. And in fact, it is true, but one has not realized it oneself. Another example would be you know, upon hearing that sound is impermanent.
You say, Ah, yeah, sound is impermanent. Sound, in fact, is impermanent. That’s true. But you have not realized it. If you were to give a reason why sound is impermanent, perhaps you couldn’t even give a reason.
You’re just accepting. That is to say, you’re believing it’s true, just dependent upon hearing it. And so this is what we mean by assumption. So then the fifth awareness is awareness to which an object appears but is not ascertained. Awareness to which an object appears but is not ascertained.
Sometimes this is called inattentive, perhaps inattentive awareness. Awareness to which an object appears but is not ascertained. And its definition is, is a knower to which the specifically characterized phenomena. A knower to which the specifically characterized phenomena phenomenon, which is its object of engagement, which is its object of engagement, clearly appears, but which is unable, which is unable to induce ascertainment to induce ascertainment with respect to it. To induce ascertainment with respect to it.
So it’s it’s a knower to which the specifically characterized phenomena, which is its object of engagement, clearly appears, but which is unable to induce ascertainment with respect to it. So we’ve we’ve explained this before. For example, at the time when the eye consciousness is perceiving some kind of beautiful, visible form, something very beautiful, and the mind is completely directed in that completely involved in that direction, in this beautiful, visible form, and somebody says something to you at that time, though the sound appears to your ear consciousness, we’re not able to ascertain the meaning of what was said. We’re not able to conceive, to ascertain what was said. Though, you know, we’re completely involved in this beautiful form, this visible form, and someone says something to us, and though the words, the sound is appearing to our ear consciousness, we’re not able to ascertain what the meaning of what was said.
So, you know, at such a time that your consciousness is actually hearing sound, but we don’t know what what was, we aren’t able to come to an understanding of what the meaning of that sound was. This is because the mind is so completely wrapped up in another direction, completely directed toward, in this case, the visible, the form, the beautiful form. So the sound is appearing to the ear consciousness, but we’re not able to understand what is being said. Likewise, the case of when our ear consciousness is hearing beautiful sounds, it’s so involved that the mind is drawing along with it, completely involved in the direction of this beautiful sound at such a time that people might pass in front of us in various forms, and they appear to our eye consciousness, we couldn’t say who that person was who just walked in front of us because our attention is completely involved in this beautiful sound. Then the sixth awareness is doubt or doubting consciousness.
Doubt. And this is a knower, is a knower which, by its own power, has qualms in two directions. A knower which, by its own power, has qualms in two directions. So there are three types of doubt. There is doubt tending toward the fact, doubt not tending toward the fact, and doubt, which is both.
So the first illustration of the first doubt tending toward the fact would be thinking, I wonder if this flower is permanent or impermanent. It’s probably permanent. I don’t know what. It’s probably impermanent. And I think, wondering, the, the, the awareness which is wondering, I wonder if this flower is impermanent or permanent.
Ah, it’s probably impermanent. Now the fact is that the flower is impermanent. So this is a doubting consciousness which is tending toward the fact. So then on the other hand, get a doubting consciousness, which is wondering, oh, I wonder if that flower is permanent or impermanent. Ah, maybe I think it’s permanent.
This would, since the flower is actually impermanent, this would be a doubt tending toward not a doubt not tending toward the fact. A doubt not tending toward the fact. So then the third type would, the mind thinking, I wonder if it’s permanent. I wonder if it’s impermanent. Maybe it’s permanent.
Maybe it’s impermanent. Each side of these possibilities has equal force. There’s no side which is stronger, so it’s equally divided between these two possibilities is a doubt which is equally tending toward the fact and not tending toward the fact. So, you know, we we have these types of consciousness quite often. You know, we should I go to work today?
Or shouldn’t I go to work today? And we end up not doing anything. Then the seventh awareness is wrong consciousness. Wrong consciousness. And the definition of wrong consciousness is a knower which is mistaken with regard to its object of engagement.
A knower which is mistaken with regard to its object of engagement. So with respect to wrong consciousness, there are two. There are conceptual wrong consciousnesses and non conceptual wrong consciousnesses. We’ve explained this a little bit before, exemplifying non conceptual wrong consciousness. For example, the eye consciousness perceiving a, apprehending a blue snow mountain.
And the eye consciousness apprehending two moons. So in the case of the eye consciousness perceiving two moons, apprehending two moons, there’s actually only one moon. But the eye consciousness apprehends two moons so that there’s a mistake. It’s it’s inverted. There’s a mistake with respect to its object of engagement.
Another example would be someone who has suffering from bile or jaundice. Their eye consciousness will apprehend a white piece of paper as yellow. So the object of engagement is not actually yellow, it’s actually white. So they’re wrong. They have inverted understanding, or they have inverted apprehension of the object of engagement.
They see what is actually white as yellow. So this is an example of a non conceptual wrong So these are all examples we’ve been giving are sense consciousnesses. And sense consciousnesses are non conceptual. So non conceptual awarenesses which are wrong consciousnesses are non conceptual wrong consciousnesses. It means the same thing.
Sounds different, but it’s the same. Non conceptual wrong consciousness are non conceptual wrong consciousness. So when we talk about conceptual wrong consciousness, we’re talking about consciousness are wrong consciousnesses and are conceptual, invert with respect to their mistaken with respect to their object of engagement and are conceptual. So conceptual wrong consciousnesses. For example, though flower is impermanent, the consciousness which conceives of the flower as being permanent is a conceptual wrong consciousness.
And another one example would be, though things are in fact not truly existent, the consciousness which conceives, the conceptual consciousness, the thought consciousness conceiving things to exist truly or truly exist. This is another example of a conceptual wrong consciousness. So, out of these seven awarenesses that we’ve explained, the first three, that is direct perception, direct perceivers, inferential cognizers, and subsequent cognizers. These are all skillful awarenesses, skillful consciousnesses from the point of view that they, all three of these, actually realize their object. They understand or realize their object.
They’re incontrovertible. They’re true and realize incontrovertibly. They’re objects. Then on the other hand, following, after those three, the following two awarenesses, assumption, and consciousness to which an object appears but is not ascertained. These, though they don’t realize their object, but they’re not wrong with respect to their object.
They’re not inverted or wrong with respect to their object, but they don’t realize their object. So these are, as far as the seven types of consciousness, these are middling, are middling or neutral types of consciousnesses. They are not skillful, but they’re not unskillful. And then the final two, doubt and wrong consciousness. And we’ve explained the various divisions of doubt.
The first one was doubt which tends towards the fact. Though it is not wrong with respect to its object. It still it does not realize its object. It does not understand its object. And the the final two, there would be the third type of doubt.
Doubt which tends, which is not tending toward the fact. Wrong consciousnesses. They perceive their, they apprehend their object wrongly in an inverted fashion. They apprehend what is nonexistent as existent or what is as is not or what is not as is or what does not exist as existent or what exists as nonexistent. They are operating with respect to their object in an inverted fashion.
Therefore, these are the types of consciousness that we should reject, abandon. So these first three awarenesses, they realize their objects. They realize the actual way the thing exists, whatever the object. The remaining four do not realize their objects. So, though we’ve run out of time, if you like, we could have maybe spend ten minutes answering questions.
Yeah. The three modes I I don’t know what to deal with talking about. Did you maybe with relation to the fire on the mountain, did you say that they were all So, we have the subject a smoky mountain pass as a subject. Then the predicate, there exists smoke. The reason or the sign because there exists fire as a predicate.
And the reason is because there exists smoke. So smoke is the three modes. The smoke is the three modes. The three modes, if we posit them, what are they? If we say, what is the three modes of this syllogism?
We say smoke. But the three modes, if we say, what are their functions? How do they actually operate in this syllogism? Then that’s another matter altogether. For example, sound is the subject.
It is impermanent because of of the sign or reason. It is a product. Product is the three modes of this syllogism. So we go through the function of these three modes. Function of these three modes.
Maybe Okay. So the subject is on a smoking mountain pass. And then the predicate is there exists fire and the sign or the reason is because there exists smoke. When we talk about the property of position or the agreement, all we’re saying is that this sign or this reason is applicable to the subject, that on a smoking mountain pass, there is smoke. So that’s the property of the position.
This position, the position is the subject. It has this property of having smoke. That is, there is an agreement between the reason, the existence of smoke, and on a smoking mountain pass, there exists smoke. You can apply the reason to the subject. So we have these three parts to the syllogism.
We have the subject, predicate, and the reason. In this case, the subject is on a smoking mountain pass. The predicate is there exists fire. And the reason is because there exists smoke. So when we talk about the first mode, that is the agreement or the property of the position, simply saying that we can ascertain, we can understand that the reason exists with the subject.
That smoke exists on a smoking mountain pass. When we talk about the forward pervasion, we’re saying that we can understand that the reason exists with the predicate. That smoke exists in relationship to fire. And then the reverse of the pervasion. And that the reverse pervasion is that the reverse of the predicate, that is the reverse the existence of fire, that is the nonexistence of fire, the reverse of the reason, existence of smoke does not exist with the reverse of the predicate, that is the nonexistence of fire.
That is simply to say, smoke does not exist in relationship to the nonexistence of fire. This is the reverse of the first one. It exists in relationship with the existence of fire, but it does not exist in relationship with the nonexistence of fire. Perhaps in the future, you know, now we’re studying knowledge and awareness, then the subject which usually follows after this study is classes of reasoning. Or signs and, classes of signs, or classes of reasoning.
And this is where you would take up the study of this subject. Maybe we can study that in the future. The word predicate? Maybe you’ve never heard of that before. What’s that?
Predicate. It means an attribute. That this