Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The everyday example of a pot — bumpa in Tibetan — anchors Khensur Rinpoche’s key demonstration in this 51-minute session. Hearing the word “pot” produces a sound generality in the mind; hearing its definition (“bulbous, flat-bottomed, able to hold fluid”) produces a meaning generality — and conceptual consciousness is precisely the knower that mixes the two. He explains that conceptual, or “eliminative engager,” minds grasp their objects through a selected part only, while non-conceptual “collective engager” sense consciousnesses take in the object whole. Two further two-way divisions then follow: mistaken versus non-mistaken consciousness (apprehending impermanent things as permanent is mistaken; direct perceivers are not), then mental versus sense consciousness, ending with a four-possibility analysis of “mind” and “mental consciousness” aimed at students with experience in Tibetan debate. Pitched at practitioners with grounding in Buddhist epistemology.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 17 AK 1988-11-17.mp3
UUID: c7391b3d-59ec-4cbb-b09a-1cd7ae88c5d7
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Awareness and Knowledge 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1988-11-17
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 51.6 minutes
Words: ~2,803
So just as this is ourselves, do not want suffering, but want happiness. Likewise, all sentient beings want happiness and do not want suffering. But in the context of the great vehicle, the Mahāyāna, we we should think that we are but one sentient being, but others are many. That is, they’re equal to the vastness of space. So even within the world, the self is still only one, and others are are very numerous.
They’re much more than ourselves. And so if we are to hold one of these two dear, that is self or others, then we are to hold others as dear, as precious. So we should develop the intention, the motivation such that thinking in this way of all sentient beings. That in order to place them in happiness and peace, that I’m going to engage in the practice and listen to this teaching of the Dharma. In order to actually practice the Dharma, we understand it.
We have to know about it. And what do we understand? Basically, is that which is to be adopted and that which is to be rejected. So in order to bring about that understanding of what is to be adopted and rejected, we are engaging in the study of the text, the discourses that are set forth by the Buddha, that we’re listening and we’re going to reflect upon these. So what is it that actually is the knower?
What is it actually that is engaged in these practices? It’s the person themselves. It’s the person which practices, it’s the person which engages in adopting and rejecting various types of actions. And in order to develop that person, it is the mind which is the forerunner. It is our own awareness.
First we have to develop our awareness, our understanding. Which is the forerunner of coming to an understanding of what is to be adopted and rejected, it is necessary that we understand well our own mind. That is, that we understand the nature of our own awareness. So it’s difficult to come into an understanding of the nature of this awareness, this, the mind which we’re trying to understand. You know, we can’t see it with our eyes.
We can’t grab hold of it with our hands. Nor can, we can understand the the understand the nature of awareness by looking to others. But it’s by coming to, beginning to classify, to distinguish the different types of mind, their various functions, and their various names that they have, we can begin as the initial step to identifying the nature of the mind. So therefore, it’s in this way that we begin the initial understanding of the nature of the mind through, for example, as we have been doing dividing the mind in various categories, whether it’s in the three type, three by way of three divisions, two divisions, or seven divisions. Okay.
We’ve completed the study of awareness and knowledge from the point of view of seven divisions and three divisions, and we’ve gone through some of the divisions into two divisions, and we’re going to continue with with the division into two. So last time we we finished the explanation of the ascertainment by other and the ascertainment by self. Now we’re going to continue with the division into two, which is conceptual and non conceptual awarenesses or consciousnesses. So the the the definition of conceptual consciousness is determinative knower, a determinative knower that apprehends a sound generality and a meaning generality as suitable to be mixed. It is a determinative knower that apprehends a sound generality and a meaning generality as suitable to be mixed.
Definition of conceptual consciousness. That’s Tibetan word. Bumpa means pot. The word bumpa is a Tibetan word for pot. Pot.
So we talk about a pot. The definition of pot is that which is bulbous, that which is bulbous, this is bulbous. It’s got a big belly on it, man. It’s like this. Bulbous, flat bottom, and able to hold fluid.
That which is bulbous, flat bottomed, and able to hold fluid is the definition of pot. So if someone, we were talking to someone, and they don’t know what a pot is, and you say the word pot to them, you say pot to them. And the word pot is a sound. It registers in their ear consciousness, and they hear something, but they don’t know what the pot is. So they will form a conception dependent upon hearing this word sound.
And what appears to them will be the, meaning generality of pot. The meaning I’m sorry, the sound generality. The sound generality of pot. The sound generality of pot. This is what will appear to their conceptual consciousness upon.
They don’t know what pot is. Someone says pot, and they wonder, they think about it, a thought consciousness. And what appears to that thought consciousness is the sound generality of pot. Then on the other hand, someone doesn’t know what a pot is, and you say to this person, that which is bulbous, flat bottomed, and able to perform the function of holding fluid. You say those words to him.
So he hear in dependence upon hearing these words. He starts to think about them. A thought consciousness is generated. The appearing object to that thought consciousness is the meaning generality of pot, the meaning generality of pot. And these two are able to be associated or mixed.
The apprehension of these is suitable to be associated. That is the meaning generality of pot and the sound generality of are suitable to be associated or mixed. Know, the sound. Yeah. Okay.
We can associate those two, the meaning generality of pot and the sound generality of pot. Now there’s another term, eliminative engager. Eliminative engager is synonymous with conceptual consciousness. Eliminative engager is synonymous with conceptual consciousness. So what we mean when we say eliminative engager, Jupala.
Jupala. Is is is an awareness which engages its object by means of its by the way of an awareness which engages its object by way of its own parts. A awareness which engages its object by way of its own parts. Now what does this mean? For example, with the thought consciousness apprehending flower.
That is the conception conceiving flower. The only thing which appears to it is flower. Now there are other characteristics of the flower which do not appear, such as the impermanence of the flower, the fact that the flower is a product, the fact that the flower is a thing. These are not able, the conceptual consciousness does not engage its object by way of those parts. It engages, it only is able to, the only thing which appears to that thought conscious is the flower itself.
Though the impermanence of the flower and the flower are simultaneously established, they are the same object, the same nature, and at the same time. Simultaneously with the establishment of the flower, the impermanence is established at the same time, in the same nature, in the same object. But this conceptual consciousness apprehending, conceiving flower is not able to, I see. And also the cessation, you know, the cessation of the flower and the flowers impermanence are simultaneous. So the establishment, its production are simultaneous.
Its cessation is simultaneous. But the impermanence of the flower does not appear to the thought consciousness conceiving the flower. So this is why we said that it engages by way of its parts. It only takes a part and comes to understand the object through only a part. It does not understand the entire object, only a part.
It comes to understand eliminative engager engages its object by way of its own parts. It comes to understand the object by way of a part of it. In this case, the flower. It doesn’t understand, for example, the impermanence of the flower. That’s another part.
Though conceptual consciousness can understand all phenomena, a specific conceptual consciousness only takes one object as its appearing object, only takes, is only able to understand one object. Any particular conceptual consciousness only takes one object as its appearing object, and is only able to realize one object. Though, in general, we can say that conceptual consciousness can understand any object. So then the definition of non conceptual consciousness is a knower which is free from being a determinative knower that apprehends a sound generality and a meaning generality as suitable to be mixed. So we said that the definition of conceptual consciousness was a determinative knower that apprehends a sound generality and a meaning generality as suitable to be mixed.
This is a knower which is free of that or a knower which is not that. So it’s simply a knower which is free from being a determinative knower that apprehends a sound generality and a meaning generality as suitable to be mixed. A non-conceptual consciousness and a collective engager are synonymous. A non-conceptual consciousness and a collective engager are synonymous, collective engager. So the examples of collective engagers are eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose, tongue, body consciousnesses, all the four types of direct perceivers.
The sense direct perceivers, mental direct perceivers, self knowing direct perceivers, and yogic direct perceivers. These are all examples of collective engagers. So an eliminative engager engages or comes to understand this object by distinguishing its own parts, the parts of the object. Whereas a collective engager comes to engage or understand its object by way of not distinguishing the parts of the object. Does not distinguish the parts of the object.
In the case of collective engagers, for example, an eye consciousness apprehending a rose, a flower. The various parts such as the impermanence of the flower, the part of the flower that a flower is a thing, that is a product, these various parts. They appear to an eye consciousness, but the eye consciousness does not come to understand the object through these parts, though they appear. So the difference between an eliminative engager and a collective engager: with respect to eliminative engagers, the parts do not appear. And with respect to collective engagers, the parts of the of the object appear.
And I think rather than by way of, I should say in a of, in a manner of, comes to realize this object in a manner of understands the thought by in a manner of its by way of in a manner of its parts. In a manner of distinguishing its parts. And also, you know, we can have conceptual conscious apprehending sound. And the impermanence of the sound, factor of the sound being a product of it being a thing, these various parts do not appear to the concept, to the thought consciousness apprehending sound. Whereas these various parts would appear an ear consciousness apprehended sound.
So there is a different manner in which they engage their object. One engages the parts and one does not. So this would apply to all the other types of consciousnesses. For example, the conceptual consciousness apprehending smell, the impermanence of the smell, the factor of the odor, I guess you would say. The odor being a product, the odor being a thing, do not appear to the conception, the conception, conceiving smell, or conceiving odor.
Whereas to the nose consciousness, these various factors would appear, the various parts would appear. And this would apply to the nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses. So difference between conceptual and non conceptual consciousness is from the point of view of the basis which is engaged in. The basis which is engaged in. In in the conceptual, it’s in the part.
The parts are engaged in, and within non conceptual, it’s it’s not engaged in by way of its parts. In con non con in conceptual, it’s engaged in by way of its of a of a part or parts, and non conceptual is not engaged in the manner of its parts or by way of its parts. So when we talk about conceptual consciousness, thought conscious, we’re talking about thought consciousness, talking about memory consciousness, thinking, oh, this is this, oh, I know this, I know this, this is this, this is thinking in this way. These types, all these various types of conceptions, thought consciousness, memories. Whereas non conceptual consciousness, we just merely see the thing or we hear the thing And it doesn’t involve any sort of thinking about the object or remembering the object in any way.
It’s purely only that moment that we actually experience the object. We see it, we hear it, we taste it. That would be non conceptual consciousness. So then the next division in the two is by way of mistaken and non mistaken consciousnesses. Mistaken and non mistaken consciousnesses.
And the definition consciousness definition of a mistaken consciousness is a knower that is mistaken with regard to its appearing object. A knower that is mistaken with regard to its appearing object. So some examples of mistaken consciousnesses. We’ve talked previously about wrong consciousnesses. For example, even though a flower is impermanent, the conception, conceiving flower as permanent is a wrong consciousness.
So therefore, it is a mistaken consciousness. Also, the eye consciousness apprehending two moons when in fact there’s only one moon is a wrong consciousness. Therefore, it is a mistaken consciousness. So the definition of a non mistaken consciousness is a non mistaken consciousness is a knower, A knower that is not mistaken with regard to its appearing object. A knower which is not mistaken with regard to its appearing object.
It’s the definition of non mistaken consciousness. Yes. So, as we’ve mentioned before, direct perceivers, the four direct perceivers sense direct perceivers, self knowing direct perceivers, mental direct perceivers, yogi direct perceivers are all non mistaken consciousness. So all these various types of consciousnesses such as apprehending that which is impermanent, as permanent apprehending that which is in the nature of suffering, as in the nature of pleasure apprehending that which does not have a self as having a self apprehending the existence, the apprehension of true existence, when in fact things are not truly existent. These are all wrong consciousnesses.
They’re mistaken consciousness, and therefore they are to be eliminated. And then the further division into is mental and sense consciousness. Mental and sense consciousnesses. Mental consciousnesses and sense consciousnesses. The definition of mental consciousness is a knower, a knower, that is produced in dependence upon its own, a knower that has produced in dependence upon its own uncommon, empowering condition, its own uncommon empowering condition, a mental sense power, a mental sense power.
So the definition is a knower that is produced in dependence upon its own uncommon empowering condition, a mental sense power. It’s the definition of mental consciousness. So there’s three terms in Tibetan, which in English are usually translated exactly the same. Rinpoche is saying that these three are synonymous. So they all mean mind, or that is to say main mind, main mind, as opposed to consciousness or just mind in general.
Translating it doesn’t mean so much. So this will come out, the meaning of this will come later. So there’s a there’s a in debating, some of the people who are have been debating, they will understand this. Right. And Most of you won’t.
In debating, we talk about the relationships between two phenomena. And with respect to mind mental consciousness, mind and mental consciousness, there is said to be the relationship is four possibilities. It’s called four possibilities between mind and mental consciousness. So if we, you know, we’re going to list the four possible relationships between mind and mental consciousness. And so something, an object which is mind but is not mental consciousness is a main eye main mind.
An eye main mind. An eye main mind. Or an eye consciousness, which is a main mind. You know, there are main minds, and there is an eye main mind. An eye main mind.
Eye main mind is a main mind, but it’s not a mental consciousness. It is a it is a mind, but it’s not a mental consciousness. An eye main mind or an eye mind. Then an example of a consciousness which is a mental consciousness but is not a mind is the mental factor of feeling, which accompanies mental consciousness. The mental factor of feeling, accompanies mental consciousness, is a mental consciousness, but it is not a main mind or a mind.
When I say mind or main mind, they mean the same thing, synonymous, in this context. Then something which is both the main mind and in mental consciousness is mental consciousness. Mental consciousness is a mental consciousness, and it So mental consciousness is a main mind, and it is a mental consciousness.