Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 48-minute talk, Kyabje Rinpoche bridges Buddhist philosophy and practice, showing how understanding valid knowledge supports enlightenment. He begins with superior beings (aryas) who have directly realized selflessness, stopping new karma and shortening the path to arhanthood to at most three lifetimes. He then outlines two types of valid knowledge: direct knowledge, which needs no reasoning, and inferential knowledge, which arises from correct reasoning and requires active thinking. He specifies three kinds of inferential knowledge—by power of fact, by renown, and by belief—all leading to yogic direct valid knowledge, the proximate cause of enlightenment. He concludes with how repeated familiarization and mindfulness lead to realization. For serious practitioners of Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-06-16 – 11B – KR.mp3
UUID: ad7b37b5-0500-43f6-b51b-dec397f9302d
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Tenets
Date: 1994-06-16
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,218
Superior, there is the direct knowing or direct realization of the subtle selflessness of a person. The first three direct valid knowledges are something that is commonly found is common to both ordinary beings and superior beings, the āryas. There is the distinction between ordinary being and a superior being. Superior being is, I’ll explain, as someone who has directly realized impermanence, who has as far as directly realized gross and subtle selflessness of person. By that very nature, superior being’s mind is exalted is superior compared to those who have not realized those things.
Because of such reason, practitioners who have gained these realizations are called ārya in Sanskrit language, superior or exalted beings. Once one becomes a superior, then one would not anymore one would not anymore create new karma to be born in saṃsāra, to be born in cycle of suffering. The reason for that is because a superior is someone who has directly realized selflessness of persons, alternatively simply called the selflessness, so there is no cause to create a new karma. Who ever becomes such becomes also a Sangha, and that is the actual reference of Sangha. Oh, one if one has made up to that level where one has realized selflessness one has made up to such level where one has realized selflessness, then one may take one lifetime to become an arhant, a foe destroyer, someone who has completely destroyed all impure thoughts.
Or if one doesn’t attain arhanthood in one lifetime, it may take two lifetimes. At most it should not take more than three lifetimes. One may be born once or twice in saṃsāra, but rebirth would not be because of impure thoughts and karma or ignorance-based actions, because there would be no karma newly created. And because of such, if there is to be rebirth once or twice or three at the most, it would be because of karma, ones already created earlier during the time of ordinary being. Well, reason why a superior attains arahanthood in that quick period of time is because of having attained yogic direct valid knowledge.
Yogic direct valid knowledge is attained through the through the prior assistance of training where through the prior assistance of training of the earlier three direct valid perceptions, that it is through the assistance of the sensory direct valid knowledge, through the mental direct valid knowledge, and through own-knower direct valid knowledge, the yogic direct valid knowledge is produced. Those three are the causes sorry. Those three are the means through which the yogic direct knowledge is generated, is produced, but the main means is the inferential valid knowledge that it is through this one attains the yogic direct valid knowledge. Regarding what is inferential valid knowledge, we went through that as just a mere list in the earlier earlier classification that when valid knowledge is divided, it is of two kind, direct valid knowledge and inferential valid knowledge. Now in this way we know that it is through inferential valid knowledge mainly as means one attains yogic direct valid knowledge then it would come to the point what then is an inferential valid knowledge.
Regarding that, well, to start with firstly valid knowledge is classified into two direct valid knowledge and inferential valid knowledge and it is the second type of valid knowledge what is being referred here, the inferential valid knowledge. What then is inferential valid knowledge? The definition or the description of it is a perceiving a fresh and infallible perceiving valid knowledge which arises from its base the correct reasoning. So that’s the description. Is that alright?
Definition? A fresh and infallible knowledge which arises from its base, the correct reasoning. Correct and infallible perceiving valid knowledge which arises from its base, the correct reasoning. In the definition the part which says its base that indicates that the inferential valid knowledge depends on certain cause as its base. What that base is, that is explained in the next part of the definition, correct reasoning.
That it is through correct reasoning, by relying on correct reasoning one produces inferential valid knowledge. In the defining of inferential valid knowledge we have a part called perceiving valid knowledge. What why it is called perceiving valid knowledge? In this context the perceiving part is supposed to indicate it is a conceptual knowledge not a direct knowledge. In front and the reason for that is if it is an inferential valid knowledge or inferential knowledge it is a conceptual knowledge not something directly but in concept through relying on a medium of reasoning.
So that’s perceiving. Not sure what the word perceiving in this case would be translated normally. The word actually is clinging, but clinging has not the right connotation here. So to ornamentally translate we might say a retaining perception, a fresh and infallible retaining perception which arises from its base, the correct reasoning. So that might be the way to go.
Anyway in brief, in that case, either perceiving or retaining, it is supposed to indicate it is not a direct perception, but a conceptual perception. With the four types of direct dwelling knowledge there’s no need from the part of the person to think about and to put reasoning in order to perceive their respective objects. How those four types of direct valid knowledge are produced is through way of when the causes and condition for producing such producing the direct valid knowledge are gathered then the direct valid knowledge arises by way of that. There is in that way no need from the part of the person to think or to put reasoning. Here in the case of inferential valid knowledge, it is different because by the very word inferential in the original languages means followed, followed perception, followed understanding, followed knowing, by which it means after following a correct reasoning the perception, the knowledge is produced.
And in that way we can say with inferential valid knowledge one needs to think about the reasoning, the person from its part has to think about the reasonings and may even have to do meditation to understand the specific point or the specific thing to be perceived to be understood. So there is an obvious need to think about reasoning. The reason why we need to think about reasonings in order to perceive the object of direct perceive the object of inferential valid knowledge is because the object to be perceived to be known itself is difficult to be perceived. How that is so is in earlier one of the Thursdays we went through three types of objects to be perceived. The manifest object to be perceived, slightly hidden object to be perceived, and extremely hidden object to be perceived, where the latter two are the object to be perceived by inferential knowledge by applying reasoning.
As far as the manifest object of perception goes, they are easily to be perceived. One doesn’t need to think or put reasoning because they are so manifest, so obvious to be perceived. With the inferential valid knowledge, it is of three types inferential valid knowledge by the power of fact. Fact. Second, inferential valid knowledge because of renown. The third, inferential valid knowledge of belief.
There are these three. Then we shall stop on those points for tonight. And if you have any questions, we shall have a few minutes for that. The inferential valid knowledge because of the power of fact, inferential valid knowledge of renown and renown. Yeah, renown.
Yeah. Inferential valid knowledge of belief. The proximate causes, the second-closest proximate cause would be clairvoyance, or the word actually for yogic direct valid knowledge, and to have clairvoyance here in the present context would require a special insight. To have that, one would need to calm abiding.
With regards to yogic direct valid perception there are two types of causes: distant causes and proximate causes. With regards to the proximate causes it needs special insight and calm abiding. With regards to its distant causes it is the inferential valid knowledge. That’s right. The second moment onward do not become direct valid knowledge, but regarding that in last week we went through the difference between what is mere direct perception and what is direct valid perception, or in another word what is mere direct knowledge and what is direct valid knowledge.
And those two differences can now be brought here to relate what the second moment onward becomes. Well the second moment onward becomes mere direct knowledge, but they don’t become direct valid knowledge. And the reason for that is to go back to the definition of the valid knowledge where if it is valid knowledge, it has to be a fresh, the first time knowledge. Therefore, that’s right here. We then clearly can see the difference between the two, direct perception, direct knowledge, and direct valid knowledge.
Yeah. It was explained yesterday to interpret during the retreat where memory is not a separate word in Tibetan, as mindfulness and during the retreat the mindfulness was described as mind retaining without forgetting the object of familiarity. So by that definition, that is Mindfulness has to have three features where first feature is the object has to be an object of familiarity what that means is already one needs to have repeated familiarization with the object that is going to be recollected or to be in one’s mindful ness so one has to again and again get used to the object. Second is that it is retained and third non forget not forgotten. The second and third although have to be found as just one of the same like a two types of the same thing, same entity retaining without forgetting.
So if one has this, then it is possible that the object would recur in one’s mind, and in that way it would be in one’s memory. So as the emphasis of the three, the main emphasis is the object has to be familiarized again and again. Let’s say if we meditate on impermanence, then if we meditate in consistent way where we meditate on impermanence today, we meditate on impermanence tomorrow, then through that way it becomes familiarization with the awareness of impermanence. And through that way by being familiarizing what one is familiarizing would not be forgotten out of one’s mind, it would recur again and again. In long run as a practitioner not only that happens there will come a time one would directly realize impermanence.
When there is lack of familiarity, then there is lack of familiarity, then there will not be recollection. For example, it often happens with conversations inclusive of that explanations and so forth. Let’s give one example. Here the class has been happening but due to not having familiarity, later on when one gets back into one’s room, one if tries to remember what was taught on this topic, what was taught on that topic, one would not be able to recall. So that’s what happens.
And the latter part I think was more to say, maybe that perhaps happens. On the spot during the teaching, if on certain points by thinking or it is of some meaning with that if one one thinks once or twice on the point then it is possible later getting back at one’s place one would recall the point. Because one has thought about it a few times, say a few times, and with some intensity, some strength of thinking, say one would have thought about the point once or twice strongly, and that indicates one was familiarizing with the topic. Buddha would say with the teachings listen well and strongly retain in mind. That’s lines what’s called of citation and these would be regular advice given mostly at the beginning of the teachings by the Buddha as a skillful means so that disciples would be able to recollect the topic explained later on.
Now going back let’s look at listen well, by that it would mean if we look at say a container, if it is turned upside down then that would mean one is not listening well, like one is not listening well with one’s ears attentive where nothing would go inside, as with a case of container turned upside down, nothing would remain in or go into it if anything is poured to be inside. Concentrating one’s mind on one direction without thinking of many other things need to listen in that way. In the part listen well, the well part emphasized is where one although attending to what is being explained through lending one’s ears but one may not still, what’s called, receive it well So we can, what’s called, swap to the second point where the second would be to retain well which means although one may lend attentive ears but one may not be retaining what is being explained and the example is the container although turned upward in the right way may have cracks and holes and whatever is poured onto it would not be retained, so retained well would correspond to this example whatever is explained and what one is listening to not only attentively but also through one’s mind retain it in one’s mindfulness awareness.