Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Starting the three-fold division of awareness and knowledge — a new angle on the same mind already examined seven ways — Khensur Rinpoche explains in this 54-minute session why multiple frameworks are needed: mind is too subtle to grasp directly, so approaching it from different directions builds genuine understanding. The three categories are conceptual consciousnesses, which apprehend a mental image rather than an actual object (remembering relatives while sitting elsewhere); non-conceptual non-mistaken consciousnesses, which apprehend a real, specific phenomenon directly (the eye seeing an actual flower, not a mental image of one); and non-conceptual mistaken consciousnesses, which apprehend a clearly appearing non-existent — two moons, a yellow snow mountain, or trees that appear to move past a car window. Rinpoche then surveys six two-fold divisions, dwelling on why Buddhists, unlike nihilist schools that accept only direct perception, must posit inference as a second valid cognizer. For students following the Awareness and Knowledge course.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 14 AK 1988-11-10.mp3
UUID: 4d588fb6-618f-423c-b80d-8602880ab385
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Awareness and Knowledge 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1988-11-10
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 53.7 minutes
Words: ~2,992
So it would be very good if you, in accordance with Rinpoche’s request, that if we could adjust our motivation such that you’re going to listen to this teaching. And whatever, and having listened to as much as you’re able to be able to practice whatever has been said in order to bring happiness and peace to all sentient beings. So the, there are three overriding divisions of awareness and knowledge. A division into seven, and division into three, and then into two. Last week we finished the division into seven, and now we’re going to begin the division into three.
So in these various divisions by which we’re looking at mind with, it’s not that we have different minds in each case, but we’re looking at from them from different perspectives according to their various objects. We’re going to take up the same mind, which we divided into seven, and then we’re going to look at it from different points of view. And this time, we’ll look at it from the point of view of three different categories, of three different divisions. So the reason we have to go through this process of approaching the mind from various directions is because the understanding of mind is extremely difficult. It’s an extremely subtle object.
We can’t see it directly. And therefore, we’re trying to identify it. We’re trying to recognize it. And in doing that, we’re trying to approach it from as many perspectives, from as many different avenues as possible for us to begin to get a general understanding of its various aspects in to help us identify its actual nature. So therefore, it’s not that we’re dealing with different minds, the same mind coming at it from different angles, different attitudes, different avenues.
So, you know, we can’t see the mind with our eye. We can’t grab hold of it with our hand. You know, just sitting here thinking, we can the mind can circle around the world. It can be you know, we can think about good things. We can think about bad things.
The mind is extremely subtle phenomena. It’s very difficult to identify. So if we can begin to In looking at it from all these various angles, from all these various avenues, we can begin to develop some understanding, some appreciation, begin to recognize its different its nature. So there are many different views as to the nature of the mind. The various logicians, various scholars, various experts on the subject.
Some people think that the brain is the mind, is consciousness. Some people say that the psyche, or that the energy within the psyche channels, is the mind. So there’s very different there’s many different presentations, but none of them have ever directly seen the mind. So if nervous system, the brain, were were consciousness, then those beings who had no those beings who are formless beings would have no consciousness. But there are many formless beings.
So amongst scientists, are those who are beginning to come to the view that, in fact, perhaps the nervous system is not the is not consciousness. The brain is not conscious, and they’re beginning to look into the very Buddhist presentations of the nature of mind. So, you know, we can know for ourselves the existence of our own mind. And that we think, you know, I did this yesterday. And I’m going to to do that.
Tomorrow I should do this. Or tomorrow I shouldn’t do that. These various thought consciousness which arises. So, you know, we can understand that really by that, that the existence of the mind. So we can, you know, establish from our own experience that, dependence upon the nature of our of our thoughts, our thinking, for example, thinking thinking skillful, productive types of thoughts.
There are the various work that we engage in, the various activities that we engage in, dependence upon that turns out well. And then on the other hand, dependence upon unskillful, unproductive type of thinking, the various acts, the work activities, do not turn out well. So, you know, if we develop the motivation of compassion, altruism, in dependence upon that type of mind, then we will work to benefit others. On the other hand, if by developing the thoughts of harming others, then in dependence upon those that as our motivation, we actually engage in activities which harm others. So the main point in studying mind, the awareness and knowledge, is that we understand that we have a mind, that we have consciousness, and our mind engages in various thinking processes.
And if these thinking processes are productive or skillful, then these lead to productive and skillful types of actions. On the other hand, if our thinking process is negative, if it’s unskillful, unproductive, then it leads to various types of negative actions. And therefore, the main practice which we should be making effort at is to begin to decrease the force of our negative, unskillful types of thinking processes and to begin to cultivate and to increase our positive or skillful types of thinking processes. This is our main practice that we should be engaged in. And this is the main point of studying awareness and knowledge.
So thus far, we’ve been studying the various types of mind, different categories of mind. For example, prime cognizers, etcetera. But later on, in these various divisions, we’ll be studying what are called minds and mental factors, minds and mental factors. And it is in the study of minds and mental factors where we actually present what states of mind are positive, what states of mind are negative. So now the division of awareness and knowledge into three.
And this consists of the first is conceptual consciousnesses conceptual consciousnesses that take a meaning generality as their apprehended object. Conceptual consciousnesses that take a meaning generality as their apprehended object. That’s the first. The second is non conceptual, non mistaken consciousnesses that take a specifically characterized phenomenon. That take a specifically characterized phenomenon as their apprehended object.
So that’s a non conceptual, non mistaken consciousnesses that take a specifically characterized phenomenon as their apprehended object. That’s the second. And the third is non conceptual, non conceptual mistaken consciousnesses, non conceptual mistaken consciousnesses that take a clearly appearing, that take a clearly appearing non existent as their apprehended object. Non conceptual mistaken consciousnesses that take a clearly appearing non existent, a clearly appearing non existent as their apprehended object. So those are the three.
So this first is merely conceptual consciousnesses. Conceptual consciousness, or that is to say, consciousnesses. Thinking, thought consciousnesses. So, you know, as an example, we can take memory. Sitting here, now we can remember all the things in our room, what it looked like, etcetera.
We can remember all our various relatives. And this this is a memory, and this is a what this is a type of mental type of conceptual consciousness. So sitting here in this, in a, in this room, we can, we can remember our relatives. Now what appears to us is the appearance of our relatives. What appears is the appearance of our relatives.
That appearance of our relatives is what we mean when we say a meaning generality. Another some other words for that are generic image or mental image, our idea, our, right, our mental image. Maybe I’ll use well, literally, meaning generality. So using this, we’re able to distinguish our relatives. Conception takes us as its object and able to understand our relatives using this appearance.
So this conceptual consciousness, thought consciousness, takes as its object the appearance of our relatives. It’s not able to take our relatives as their object, the actual relatives, but it takes what appears to it is the appearance of our relatives. But on the other hand, if we take our eye consciousness, you know, the next category is non conceptual, which take a specifically characterized phenomenon. Our eye consciousness, you know, looks at the flower. It does not take us as object.
What appears to it is not the appearance of the flower, but the actual flower itself. That is to say, a fully qualified flower, which is a specifically characterized phenomena. It’s so it’s not taking what appears as not the appearance of the flower, but the actual fully qualified flower itself, the actual flower. So the difference between the conceptual and non conceptual, in the case of will take a conceptual consciousness apprehending flower. Conceptual consciousness apprehending flower.
It’s been induced by an eye consciousness which apprehended flower. But taking the eye consciousness taking the thought consciousness or the conceptual consciousness apprehended flower, what appears to it is the appearance of a flower. What appears to it is the appearance of a flower. But on the other so it takes as its object the appearance of a flower. On the other it does not take an actual flower as its object.
Whereas on the other hand, the eye consciousness does not take the appearance of a flower as its object. What appears to it is the actual flower. So it takes an actual flower as its object. So So, this third division where we talk about a clearly appearing nonexistent, a non conceptual mistaken consciousness that takes a clearly appearing nonexistent. And we’ve talked about all three of these.
And we’ve talked about this third one. This would be, for example, the eye consciousness which sees two moons when in fact there’s only one moon. Or the case where due to jaundice, the eye consciousness sees a yellow snow mountain when in fact there’s no yellow snow mountain there. Or when we’re riding in a car and it appears that the trees are moving, when in fact the trees are not moving. So in all these cases, a nonexistent is clearly appearing, whether it’s two moons, a yellow snow mountain, or moving trees.
So those are the the vision of awareness into three. And then the division into two. So then, the division of awareness and knowledge into two, we come up with five pairs of two. There’s five pairs of two. The first is prime cognizers and non prime cognizers.
That’s the first. Prime cognizers and non prime cognizers. The second is conceptual and non conceptual consciousnesses. Conceptual and non conceptual consciousnesses. The third is mistaken and non mistaken consciousnesses.
The fourth is mental and sense consciousnesses. Mental consciousnesses and sense consciousnesses. The fifth is eliminative engagers and collective engagers. And there’s one more.
There’s mind and mental factors. There are six. Mind and mental factors. So these are the six divisions into two.
So then the first pair, prime cognizers and non prime cognizers. And we’ve already discussed this. The definition of prime cognizer is, as was said before, a new, incontrovertible knower. A new, incontrovertible knower is the definition of prime cognizer. So a non prime cognizer, non prime consciousnesses in general, would be a not-new, incontrovertible knower. So it’s just the One is just the opposite of the other. Prime cognizers and non prime cognizers. So the prime cognizers can be divided into two. Direct prime cognizers and inferential prime cognizers.
Both of which we’ve explained previously. So there are, when we divide prime cognizers, there are definitely only two. There no more than two divisions. That is to say, direct prime cognizers, inferential prime cognizers. This is specifically stated in order to refute the assertions of certain non-Buddhist schools, such as the nihilists, enumerators, and various schools.
For example, the nihilist state that there is only one prime cognizer. So for example, the nihilists who, they say there’s only one type of prime cognizer. And they say this because if we can’t see it directly, then it doesn’t exist. The the only things which exist are those things which can be seen directly. Therefore, there’s only one type of prime cognizer.
So they go on to assert that if something exists, it must be able to be seen directly. If it can’t be seen directly, then doesn’t exist. And therefore, they say that such things as past and future rebirths. The Three Jewels, the actions of the law of cause and effect do not exist because they cannot be seen directly. So whereas the nihilists say that if something cannot be seen directly or understood directly, it doesn’t exist.
The Buddhists do not accept this position. They say that in the case of ordinary people, though they, in fact, just because they can’t see something directly does not mean that that object doesn’t exist. Because they cannot understand the existence of something directly that it doesn’t exist, that they assert another valid way of knowing objects, another valid way of understanding, another prime cognizer, and that is inference, inferential prime cognizer. So, even for ordinary people, even though they cannot see various phenomena directly, through the use of correct reasoning, through the use of a correct sign, they can come to fully understand the existence of objects which they cannot directly understand, directly see. So, you know, there are various phenomena which we cannot directly see, or that is the ordinary people cannot directly see.
For example, the existence of rebirth, or the existence of liberation, omniscience, the four noble truths. These all can still be understood, validly, cognized through inference, that is, through dependence upon reason. So, you know, though ordinary people can’t understand something as subtle as, for example, the Three Jewels, that is to say, the Buddha, Dharma, and the Sangha, we can establish them in dependence upon reasoning. The various types of reasoning are set forth in a text by Dharmakīrti, which is entitled A Commentary on Dignāgā’s Compendium of Prime Cognition, in which he sets forth the various reasoning for establishing the existence of the Buddha.
You know, the Buddha came to Buddha Śākyamūni came to Bodh Gaya, and there he taught the Dharma. Now, in dependence upon establishing the existence, through reasoning the existence of Buddha, we then establish the fact that he actually, what he taught, and then the and dependence upon what he taught, there are various practitioners. That is the and what he taught, that is the Dharma. And we established the people who take what he taught and put it into practice, and this is the spiritual community. So this way, through reasoning, we can establish the existence of the Three Jewels, or the Buddhadharma and the Sangha, the spiritual community.
So there are various non-Buddhist schools presenting different numbers of prime cognizers. Another is mentioned. I don’t know how to translate it. It’s called Sarikappa. Sarikappa.
That’s one non-Buddhist school. And they posited eleven prime cognizers. For example, they said that the eye, ear, nose, etcetera, were prime cognizers, which the Buddhists do not do not accept these as prime cognizers. Within the Buddhist system, are definitely only two types of prime cognizers. This is established through the fact that there are two different types of phenomena.
Now we discussed this previously, the various types of phenomena, and divided One way of dividing phenomena was into three. The first was obvious phenomena, And then there was slightly hidden phenomena and extremely hidden phenomena. So if they weren’t the first, that is in the first type of prime cognizer, that is direct prime cognizers, then we would not be able to understand, to see all the various obvious phenomena. We wouldn’t be able to see the books, the tables, etcetera. These are all obvious phenomena.
So therefore, it’s necessary that we posit a prime cognizer which is able to understand obvious phenomena. Now these two latter types, slightly hidden and extremely hidden, these are both hidden phenomenas. And the way we come to understand hidden phenomena is through inference. So we have to have, in order to understand those, we must posit an inferential prime cognizer which understands hidden phenomena. And other than these types of phenomena, that is obvious phenomena and hidden phenomena, are no other types of phenomena.
It’s definite that we need two and more than two are not necessary. So then we can further divide, we divide prime cognizers into a division of two. This is prime cognizers which induce ascertainment by themselves. Prime cognizers, which induce ascertainment by themselves. And prime cognizers, when ascertainment is induced by other.
Prime cognizer prime cognizers when ascertainment is induced by other, by another, another. So, Dharmakīrti said Ran by from itself, we understand its own nature. From itself, we understand its own nature. From conventions, So from itself, we understand its nature from conventions. And from itself, we understand its nature.
And from other. There are two there are two prime cognizers. I have to work on that. So we’ll come back to that quotation after we explain a little bit, and maybe I’ll understand it. Right.
Rang gi rang. So the definition. So the the definition of a a prime cognizer that induces ascertainment by itself is a new, incontrovertible knower, which is able to induce through its own power ascertainment that it itself would not arise if the final nature of its object of comprehension Okay, how we can again? A new incontrovertible knower, which is able to induce, which is able to induce through its own power, through its own power, ascertainment, that it itself, that it itself would not arise, that it itself would not arise if the final nature if the final nature of its object if the final nature of its object of comprehension if the final nature of its object of comprehension did not abide did not abide in the object did not abide in the object. Okay. A new incontrovertible knower which is able to induce through its own power ascertainment that it itself would not arise if the final nature of its object of comprehension did not abide in the object.
So the opposite