Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 98-minute teaching, Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen presents a detailed Buddhist philosophical analysis of the nature of mind and consciousness, establishing the logical foundation for belief in past and future lives. He begins with the core argument: at conception, consciousness must be present, yet it cannot arise from matter (the union of sperm and egg) or from the parents’ consciousnesses, because we do not share their memories. Therefore, the first moment of consciousness must have as its substantial cause the final moment of consciousness from a previous life. He then systematically classifies all phenomena into permanent and impermanent categories, subdividing impermanent phenomena into matter, consciousness, and non-associated compositional factors. Consciousness itself is defined as that which is clear and cognitive. Throughout, he uses concrete examples drawn from the temple and ordinary experience, and closes with an extended question-and-answer session covering topics from in vitro fertilisation to dreams, paranormal capacities, Buddha-mind, and the applicability of Abhidharma descriptions to all sentient beings. The talk is pitched at serious practitioners studying Buddhist philosophy and logic.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2014-03-04 – KR.mp3
UUID: 084cc4cd-aacb-4aa1-8e6d-a043e10ffbb6
Teacher: Geshe Jampa Gyaltsen
Collection: Nature of Mind
Date: 2014-03-04
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,526
Hi. Let us therefore generate the motivation for one or two minutes. The topic we shall be studying is the presentation of awareness, specifically of awareness in mind. This is an extremely important topic and it is important because of the greatness of its purposes. The purpose of presenting such a topic is broadly speaking twofold.
The first is through studying such a topic and applying it to one’s own mind and one’s own mental experiences, one can get a sense of the existence of past and future lives. Secondly, through studying such a topic, when oneself experiences hardship through disease and so forth, one will have the means to counter it. This topic of past and future lives is an extremely important one. Your lotsawa, your translator presented the topic of the twelve links of Dependent Origination last weekend at Tārā Institute. This is an important way of trying to understand connection between past and future lives.
Alternatively, there are numerous books on the topic which I would encourage you to read. Then this topic is best understood through analyzing one’s own situation. We ourselves are persons, when we refer to the I or to the self we refer to a person. A person is an imputation on a basis of imputation, in this case the five aggregates, form, sensation, discrimination, volitional factors or compositional factors and consciousness. In other words, matter and consciousness.
Now this imputed phenomenon, the person, comes from beginningless time based on a basis of imputation composed of both matter and consciousness, which also comes from infinity back in time. This topic of past and future lives is critically important and I shall attempt to explain it in detail. This is the case because even though we are unable to perceive past and future lives through the senses, nonetheless whatever Dharma practice we engage in will bear fruit in future lives. It will be difficult for it to bear fruit in this life. The best way to reflect on this topic is to take oneself as an example and to examine whether or not oneself has had previous lives, previous existences.
Oneself is a person, in other words, an imputed phenomenon on a basis of imputation. The basis of imputation is matter and consciousness. Then, if we examine this basis of imputation, we can see that it arises from a substantial continuum of matter and consciousness, which can be traced back to the union of the spermatozoa of one’s father and the egg of one’s mother. Whereas it seems difficult for the material base of imputation to be more than a contingent base of imputation. This is not the case for the mind as basis of imputation.
Then if we examine what occurs at the instant of conception when the spermatozoa of the father fecundates the ovum of one’s mother. At this moment it is clear that not only is matter present, but consciousness must necessarily be present. If consciousness is present at this moment, consciousness or awareness has both causes and conditions. In this case, the cause of consciousness would probably be the substantial cause of that consciousness, Whereas, the conditions of that consciousness refer here to the cooperative conditions of that consciousness and one could posit as cooperative conditions, the union of the spermatozoa and the ovum. Now, should one assert that the substantial cause of consciousness is not the previous moment of consciousness before conception, in other words, the last moment of consciousness at the end of the previous existence, then one would be in the very awkward position of having to assert that the substantial cause of the first instant of consciousness in this life would be the union of the spermatozoa and the ovum of one’s parents.
If this were the case, then consciousness itself would become a material phenomenon, which is not acceptable. Another alternative view would be to assert that the substantial cause of the first instant of our consciousness in this life, at the time of conception, is both the consciousnesses of our father and of our mother. Should this be the case, it would lead to extremely awkward conclusions, because if this were the case, our mental consciousness would be part of the substantial continuum of the mental consciousnesses of both our parents, and therefore, since there is but one mental continuum, we should be able to recollect whatever they had done or experienced within their own mental continuum, which is obviously not the case. Now in our case, we can recollect whatever we did as children, whether it happened, let’s say in my case, at the ages of four, five or six. At the present day, because our mind at the age of four, five or six is of one substance, one substantial continuum with our mind at present.
Therefore, it is possible at present to recall what we did when we were aged four, five or six years old. Since our mind is not of the same substantial continuum as that of our parents, it is impossible to recollect what they did. Then clearly, while a union of the spermatozoa and of the ovum at the moment of conception can act as cooperative condition for consciousness. It can in no way be the substantial cause of consciousness. If this is the case, we have to ask the question, what precisely is the substantial cause of the first instance of consciousness?
The first instance of consciousness is a composite phenomena. As composite phenomena, it necessarily has a cause. Not only this, it necessarily has a substantial cause, and actually a cause which is of concordant type with itself. Should it not have a cause, it would cease to be a composite phenomena and would become a causeless or an uncaused phenomena. This is obviously not the case.
In case of fecundation in vitro, the child which is a result is fully constituted, right? Yes. Then in this context, what would be the substantial cause of the first instant of mind at the time of conception? It would be the last instant of consciousness of the being in the intermediate state or the Bardo being. Now regarding conception last time, there were some questions addressed to Geshe-la concerning fecundation in vitro.
Generally speaking, there are two systems of presentation of fecundation. One according to Abhidharma and one according to Asaṇga’s Śrāvakabhūmi, the Stages of Hearers. One according to Abhidharma, fecundation necessarily entails copulation. According to Asaṇga’s Śrāvakabhūmi, this is not the case. For fecundation to occur, all that is necessary is the spermatozoa of the male and the egg of the female.
This viewpoint seems far more compatible with instances of fecundation in vitro. Now passing to the presentation of objects of knowledge, Sheja in Tibetan, objects of knowledge are subdivided into two, permanent and impermanent phenomena. Permanent phenomena are phenomena which exist and which do not change momentarily, in other words, which abide in an unchanging mode. An example of this would be for instance, the fact that this temple is empty. The fact that this temple is empty obviously exists, because if it did not exist, then this temple would not be empty but full.
Then if it was full, none of us would be inside. We’d all be kicked kicked outside in the heat, which is not the case. This is the space inside the temple. Now the second subdivision of objects of knowledge is impermanent phenomena. Impermanent phenomena change instant by instant.
Whichever subdivide whichever synonym of existence we consider, whether it is objects of knowledge, existence or phenomena, in every case they can be subdivided into permanent and impermanent phenomenon. Moreover, whatever is an object of knowledge is necessarily either an impermanent phenomenon or a permanent phenomenon. Moreover, impermanent phenomena are subdivided into three. The first subdivision is matter, the second is consciousness, and the third is non associated compositional phenomena. If we take the case of matter, matter is traditionally defined as that which is composed of particles.
To give an instance of matter, we could give the case of this building for instance, which is composed of numerous substances such as wood and so forth, composed of particles. It is therefore matter. The third subdivision of impermanent phenomena are non associated compositional phenomena. Non associated compositional phenomena are impermanent phenomena which are neither matter nor mind. For instance, we ourselves, every single one of us, is a non associated compositional phenomenon because we are not matter, that is probably self evident for most of you, but we are not consciousness either.
This is a somewhat more difficult point. Regarding the second subdivision of impermanent phenomena, which is consciousness, consciousness is defined as that which is clear and cognitive. The term clear here refers to the fact that consciousness is transparent or clear to its object. The term cognitive refers to the fact that consciousness apprehends or grasps its object. This clear and cognitive phenomenon has numerous instances, for instance, anger.
Now if we reflect on anger, we can clearly see that anger is consciousness and non material. Now, how would we counter the view that persons are consciousness? One way to do it would be to point out that in certain states of sleep, there seems to be no consciousness. Then, it would be very strange if we said that during those states of sleep, there was no person either. So, this seems to counter the view that persons are consciousnesses.
Let us take for instance this temple. It is filled with objects of knowledge, phenomena, things and impermanent phenomena. We know this, who knows this? He who knows this is the I, the self, in other words, the person. Now, is it possible for the person to know this without consciousness?
Obviously, no. So, without consciousness, a person cannot know phenomena. Therefore, it is the person which is posited in dependence on consciousness, which in dependence on consciousness cognizes. Now, if we enter further in our analysis of consciousness, consciousness is subdivided into two, consciousnesses which are valid cognizers, Pramanas, and consciousnesses which are not valid cognizers. It is not the case that there is no connection between consciousnesses and persons.
There is an extremely close and intimate connection. But this can best be understood through an example. When you see me, you see my person, and you say, we see Geshe-la. But probably, you do not see my consciousness. Then we shall stop here for today, and I will at present take your questions.
Two questions, first is there any type of phenomena no matter how subtle matter that is causeless? Matter or phenomena? Phenomena. Is there any any phenomena? An instance of a phenomenon which is uncaused, which has no cause, would be the emptiness of this temple, this room.
Space. Yes. Exactly. Another one. In, you know, the mind of a Buddha, the consciousness of a Buddha, Buddha mind, which which I assume is the Dharmakāya mind, I have a question.
Is that is that a diff does that is not a phenomenon. Mean that consciousness is not associated with matter. In our consciousness that is that is is becomes fused with the egg and the you know conception enters matter becomes associated with matter, is the Buddha mind not associated with matter, is it the same type of consciousness? So it depends whether you look at it from the standpoint of tantra or sūtra. The standpoint of tantra there is a type of subtle matter which is the cooperative condition of the mind of the Buddha.
This is not the case from the standpoint of sūtra. The standpoint of sūtra however there is a subtle form associated with the mind of the Buddha. The aspect of when one is asleep and you achieve a state of consciousness then you’re not connected to your physical form is what I understood being said before. So if one enters a state of consciousness while asleep this is a state I understand is sometimes referred to as leaving one’s body and doing such things as they call astral travelling which is the state of consciousness if you enter that state and you experience physical phenomena could this be considered to be having a connection with a past life if it is so intense it is not just a dream it is like a vision you can feel things smell them, feel moisture of the ferns, etc. There is no certainty.
Clearly, know that when we have undergone great hardship just before going to sleep, those experiences carry over in the dream. Therefore there’s no certainty regarding dreams being memories of past lives or not. It’s not definite. Okay, so you’re speaking about something that’s possibly affected you just before you’ve gone to sleep. Okay so you’ve had nothing that’s affected you before you’ve gone to sleep but you’re experiencing something is historically known through events to have been fifteen hundred years ago and you can feel the textures of clothing, you can hear the sounds, you can see the trees, the sunlight, you feel the fern like it’s on your hand right now.
It’s hard to say it’s difficult for things like that to be experiences of past lives. It’s difficult? Difficult. But not impossible? Basically, ordinary beings such as ourselves to have clear recollections and dreams of past lives seems difficult.
It can happen for people who have over time developed paranormal capacities, but otherwise it seems quite difficult. Thank you, Geshe-la. Are there non associated composite phenomena that are not selves? Very easy. You know.
So sorry. So yes indeed, there are many non associated compositional phenomena which are not persons. For instance, the twelve months. The twelve months of the year. So we are at present, as you know, studying the Sautrāntika system, then clearly also in the Cittamātra and Madhyamaka system, there are numerous non associated compositional phenomena which are not persons.
Matter or sentient beings require consciousness to exist. Does consciousness require matter or sentient beings to exist? There’s no definiteness because upon the attainment of full enlightenment for oneself, matter would be exhausted. I think Natalie had a question perhaps before you. I have got a few but I’ll just start with one.
In the case of human beings or beings with consciousness and matter combined. Must ask you to speak up I can’t understand, it’s complicated. The case of human beings or beings that have got matter consciousness combined would it be and why would it not be a fourth category that would be associated called positional factors describing those beings or that beings phenomena? You’re asking why the term non is included in non associated Alright. The term non associated compositional phenomena refers to phenomena which are not closely associated with mind or with mental factors.
It is because they are not closely associated with mind or mental factors that they are called non associated. Okay. You’ve offered presentations on quantum mechanics explaining the wave particle duality, I so just wanted to clarify when you mentioned the matter is that anything that is of particle nature is it implied that it is both particle and wave nature or is it that consciousness is immeasurable, is neither particle or wave? I think you have to reformulate your question please. So when you’ve offered presentation on quantum physics is the wave particle duality and so when you talk about matter and it’s been described as that which is made of particles, is it implied that it is anything that is also a wave?
I must apologize. I must ask you all a favor. When I talk to you about science, don’t ask the Geshe’s after because it’s it’s a very different situation. Then your question has no setting here. Right?
We’re speaking of waves of energy and matter. They are affirmed as phenomena in quantum physics are said to manifest at times as matter and at times as waves, and it depends basically on certain choices the observer makes, it causes what’s known as a collapse of the wave function. It’s not incompatible with the definitions, but I cannot explain it to Geshe-la. It’s very difficult for us to speak of these waves. It has no relation to what we know as wind.
It is more an extremely subtle form of energy of which we have no direct experience. Maybe behind you Jasmine had a question. She has not asked anything. If I was to rephrase Mark’s question in light of a dharma kind of thing, I’d say that the first rule of thermodynamics is that energy is conserved so it’s either goes to energy or goes to matter, mass as in having weight. So perhaps I could ask is it possible for mind to become matter?
Would that answer your question? Yes, in the Cittamātra system, not in this system. However, in all of the other systems of Buddhist philosophy, if something is the cause of a consciousness, it is necessarily nonmaterial. And if something is material, it cannot be the cause of a consciousness. Hello.
Thank you for teaching. You said at the start awareness of mind will help realise past and future lives. Is that something that we should practice like does Geshe-la remember his past life? That’s one question. Is it important for us to remember these past lives or are we just trying to understand that they were but without remembering because I certainly find it hard to remember mine and remember like I said tonight up back to age four.
So is it important for us to remember our past lives? Is that a part of our training? Generally speaking, what is really important for us is to understand the existence of past lives through reasoning and through numerous lines of reasoning. Then to actually remember one’s past lives means to remember who one’s parents were, what their names were, where one lived, this is very difficult for us to achieve. I myself have no memory at all of this type.
Yeah, really. No. Animals are definitely sentient beings. They have consciousnesses. They have minds.
They are persons, but their minds are not like ours, obviously. In the case of animals, in my opinion, they experience the present and they can anticipate a little bit the future. However, they do not seem to recollect in detail the past. In our case, we experience the past, the present, and the future. Interior reality.
It’s an odd way to put it, but basically, those three, one’s body, one’s mind, and one’s person, are connected to one’s consciousness. Yes. In that sense, yes. So when one speaks of exterior reality, one is mainly referring to the world of matter very well studied by science. Whereas, when one is referring to interior reality or interior experience, one is mainly referring to mental experience.
Then this mental experience can increase over time through, for instance, meditation. This leads to an increase in inner experiences. Yes, definitely. Paranormal powers are an instance of consciousness. An instance of consciousness.
A category of consciousness. This relates to Adrian’s former question putting aside any debate over Mount Meru and all of the cosmology and so on. Are these Abhidharma texts written to describe the consciousness and so on and the mental events of people on the Southern Continent or does it include all sentient beings For instance, devas, animals and so on. Other humans. The description of mind and mental factors in the Abhidharma text apply to all sentient beings.
Not just the sentient beings of the Southern Continent, but the sentient beings of all continents, as well as as a matter of fact, living beings. Are they? Is that your question? I’m sorry, don’t hear quite well. Is Bearing in mind that inner a mental experience as Geshe-la articulated, is one’s own body and one’s own person included in interior reality because it is a cooperative condition for the mental experience?
We must distinguish between the two terms, reality or and experience. Now you cannot experience or you cannot say that your body for instance, or your consciousness is an interior experience, because an experience involves the engagement of the mind with an object. And in this case, you would speak you’ll be speaking of something a bit at odds with this. Just with emptiness being put forward as a permanent phenomena. Not emptiness, just the fact that the temple is empty.
Okay, let’s say the fact that the temple is empty is a permanent phenomena. Is that emptiness composed of associated compositional factors. Well, the emptiness of the temple is not even a composite phenomenon, right? The emptiness of the temple, the fact that the temple is empty, is hollow, is not even a composite phenomenon. Is it?
The fact that the temple is hollow is not an impermanent phenomenon. It is a permanent phenomenon. Then impermanent phenomena are synonyms with composite phenomena. Permanent phenomena are synonyms with non composite phenomena. Therefore, the fact that the temple is hollow is a noncomposite phenomenon.
Alright. Lot’s question. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Good. Thank you.
Key terms in this teaching
- basis of imputation dag zhi, tag zhi (Tib)
- Also called “basis of designation” or “basis for labeling”, the object or valid base on which a label is placed as part of the third and most subtle level of dependent arising. LYWA
- Cittamatra sem tsam pa (Tib)
- The Mind Only school, one of the two Mahayana (Great Vehicle) philosophical schools. The Mind Only school does not accept external objects but does assert truly established self-knowers. LYWA
- dependent origination pratityasamutpada (Skt); ten drel (Tib)
- Also called dependent arising. The way that the self and phenomena exist conventionally as relative and interdependent. LYWA
- intermediate state antarabhava (Skt); bardo (Tib)
- The state between death and rebirth. LYWA
- mental factors chaita (Skt); sem jung (Tib)
- Literally arising from the mind, a mental factor is a cognition that apprehends an attribute of its object and accompanies any principal consciousness that is concordant with it. LYWA
- Mount Meru
- The mythical center of the universe in Buddhist cosmology. LYWA
- Sautrantika do de pa (Tib)
- The Sutra school, one of the two main Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle) philosophical schools. The Sutra school accepts both self-knowers and external objects. LYWA
- twelve links of dependent origination pratitya samutpada (Skt); ten drel yen lag chu nyi (Tib)
- Also called the twelve dependent-related limbs or branches; the twelve steps in the evolution of cyclic existence: 1) ignorance; 2) karmic formation; 3) consciousness; 4) name and form; 5) sensory fields; 6) contact; 7) feelings; 8) craving; 9) grasping... LYWA
Definitions adapted from the Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive glossary, as taught in the Gelug tradition.