Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 93-minute session, Kyabje Rinpoche examines how Buddhist philosophy classifies the seven types of mind. After reviewing foundational concepts—refuge in the Three Jewels, the four seals, and the Vaibhāṣika system—he focuses on distinguishing the three valid knowing minds (direct perception, inference, subsequent perception) from the four non-knowing minds. He covers subsequent perception, showing how it remains valid when immediately following direct perception, then examines wrong knowledge through vivid examples: white snow appearing blue, a white conch shell looking yellow due to bile imbalance, stationary trees seeming to move from a fast ferry. These illustrate how wrong knowledge distorts reality in both conceptual and non-conceptual forms. The remaining non-knowing minds (doubt, assumption, inattention) await the next session. For serious practitioners studying Buddhist philosophy at an advanced level.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-06-30 – KR.mp3
UUID: cc812d48-200d-448e-9668-fc94eb1ecf9c
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Tenets
Date: 1994-06-30
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~4,303
So it would be good to write this down. What this concerns is, it is a citation from lines about mind, where generally mind is, from one perspective, of seven kinds, amongst which the three are the mind which perceives things correctly, four don’t see correctly. So this citation concerns that topic and the actual citation starts with the words direct perception, inferential perception, and subsequent perception. So the second part of that citation reads, these three are the knowing mind. So the full quotation goes, Direct perception, inferential knowledge, and subsequent perception, these three are the knowing mind.
Then the other part of that citation continues as the others are non knowing mind’. What that last bit means is the other four types of mind are the mistaken minds, which does not know the objects properly. So they are non knowing minds. So is it alright? Generally in the studies of mind, which comes under the classical topic called logic, awareness and knowing, Under that there are discussed four types of minds, and that can be seen as a very ranging, all inclusive classification of mind being of seven types, because we can say quite surely that there cannot be any type of mind which does not include in these seven types of mind.
So we will repeat the lines again. So here, to repeat the lines means we will go back the review of the tenet’s topics so far covered briefly, and it will come handy afterwards as it becomes clearer. Firstly, in the very beginning we discussed the difference between who is a Buddhist and who is an outsider or a non-Buddhist. The actual literal word for those two actually are insiders and outsiders. First topic discussed So earlier was what is the difference between insiders and outsiders.
To interpret ‘insider’ is a literal term used as those inside the path leading to enlightenment and those outside the path. Anyway, under that topic we discussed how a Buddhist is called a Buddhist because such a person is one who goes for refuge to Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Why one goes for refuge to the Three Jewels is because presently one has so much and so many fears, sufferings, problems and so forth. Therefore, one needs sources through which one would be rescued from these sufferings. The actual means by which one can be rescued from these sufferings is Dharma.
Therefore, that is included in the refuge source or refuge object that it is through practicing an actual reliance on Dharma one becomes rescued. And Buddha is the one who shows such Dharma unmistakenly. Therefore we go for refuge to such enlightened being, a Buddha. And then Sangha are the ones who, whatever was taught, exactly practices that teaching the Dharma. In brief, these three are the sources of our refuge because all our mental shortcomings which we need to discard away becomes possible to discard away if we rely on the Three Jewels.
All the excellent qualities of mind which we need to acquire can only be acquired if we rely on the Three Jewels. And that’s why whoever, from the very heart, from the very bottom of a heart, goes for refuge to these three thinking, I will only go for refuge to you, the Three Jewels, no one else. In that way, whoever goes for refuge to Three Jewels is called Buddhist, an insider on the path of enlightenment. The trainings involved in having gone for refuge include to observe the virtuous actions, the 10 virtuous actions, and to abstain from committing the non virtuous actions, based on that to observe a pure morality. That is what is involved whoever has gone for refuge, that one must minimally keep up those trainings.
Now the next is who is called a proponent of Buddhist tenet. Well, it is a person who basically, no doubt, has gone for refuge to the Three Jewels, additionally, the person accepts the fourfold view what are called the four seals that all compounded things are impermanent because they disintegrate moment by moment. Secondly, all contaminated things are bound to be miserable because they are under choiceless control of impure thoughts and karma. Thirdly, that person is devoid of a permanent, single and independent existence, therefore selflessness a person. The fourth seal is that one believes that true understanding and practice of the Dharma as interpretable being represented by those above three points, that one would be able to achieve nirvana, going beyond sorrow, or the peacefulness of nirvana.
So these four are the four seals. Whoever, on top of having gone for refuge, accepts these four seals as a basic perspective. One practices in accordance to these four seals as well explains to others on these. Such person is called a proponent of Buddhist tenets, one who explains Buddhist tenets. Then the next topic covered in the past was the definition of Vaibhāṣika, the lowest Buddhist tenet.
You would know that because we had that definition as a proponent of lower vehicle tenet who does not accept own lower, but accepts external things as actually existing, or external things as actually truly existing. And then we covered the sub schools of specific exponent. There are three sub schools of that tenet: those of the central region second, those surrounding those nearby the central region Third, those of Kashmiri Vaibhāṣika, those who came from an area called Kashmir. That does not mean they are followers of Islam, although Kashmir was predominantly and still is an Islamic country. But that doesn’t mean it simply means the Vaibhāṣika who came from such area.
Now, the next topic covered was how in that tenet, the Vaibhāṣika, things are explained in the format of the base two truths, The path, method and wisdom, result the body, Buddha body, or state of enlightenment. And in the base two truths, under that, this tenet explains the deceptive truth as something which, when destroyed or disintegrated, the retaining it is lost. The example was a flower or a pot, which when destroyed you don’t have the idea of that object anymore. And then the example of ultimate truth given was partless particle which cannot be destroyed at all. The reason why the example flower is a deceptive truth is because either we destroy the flower or split apart its parts, such as when we split or take apart the flower, then thought, which earlier was thinking of flower, is lost, is normal there.
That very shows the deceptiveness of that phenomenon according to this tenet, and that it was the reason given as it being a deceptive truth phenomenon. Whereas in the case of a partless particle which cannot be split into any parts, cannot be destroyed into pieces, In that case, the mind or the thought thinking about it will not be lost because the very object of such mind or thought cannot be lost. In that way, the object is very stable, unchangeable basis, and that results in the mind, the thought, depending on that object as well becomes unchangeable, unlooseable. That is how, according to specific exponent, this present tenet, a partless particle is explained to be an ultimate truth phenomena. Then when it comes to what is the path which is of wisdom or which comprises of wisdom and method, this tenet explains by wisdom it means realization of selflessness, which here means realization of selflessness of a person.
And by method it means the renunciation thought, or the definite exit thought, wishing to free oneself from saṃsāra and to attain liberation. So in that way that covers this tenet’s explanation about the path being method and wisdom. By practicing such method and wisdom, one overcomes the impure thoughts, the delusions, impure thoughts. And whenever one has completely overcome all impure thoughts, that is simultaneous with attaining of liberation. So it is a state of mind having abandoned all impure thoughts, and that itself is the state of liberation.
And as one is still alive with the body of an ordinary person, it is called the nirvana with remainder, or nirvana with Residue. The results achieved are two types: nirvana with remainder and nirvana without remainder. And in both cases it should be seen as an achievement of accomplishment of having overcome all impure thoughts, all delusions. In the very beginning, attains nirvana, one would still be alive with the body of an ordinary person, a body a body in the sense aggregates, five aggregates which has been produced by impure thoughts and aggregates. So although one has attained the state of having overcome all impure thoughts and in that way attain liberation, one is still with the residue of an aggregate produced by impure thoughts and karma.
Therefore it is called nirvana with remainder. And more specifically in scriptural terms, that phrase nirvana with remainder is extended, then the phrase becomes nirvana with remainder or suffering aggregates. Now, when a person who has attained nirvana later on dies, then that aggregate, the body, has expired. So one is free as well of the earlier aggregates produced by impure thoughts and delusions. So at the time of death with such a person who has attained nirvana, there is only nirvana left.
And that nirvana becomes the second, called the nirvana without residue, which, when elaborated, the phrase becomes nirvana without residue of suffering aggregates. So in that way, are those two types of nirvanas straight beyond sorrow. So that’s what that word actually means, sorrow transcended or beyond sorrow. Now, when such a person who attains nirvana and for a while remains alive but later on, of course, the aggregates produced by impure thoughts and karma will expire. Therefore, it is a matter of time that the person dies.
Now, when the time the person dies and the aggregate is as for a second, then according to the lower vehicle tenets, the Vaibhāṣikas and Sautrantikas, they explain that the person now forever will never be reborn again. So that is what they say. The reason why it is explained that the person now will never take rebirth again is because from one point the causes of rebirth, which are impure thoughts and karma karma in the sense ignorance based actions these two are already terminated. Therefore there is no cause for the person to be reborn again. That is from one point.
The second reason is because the person will not take rebirth in the alternative way due to the force of compassion and the force of dedicated prayers for others’ benefit, because the person is what’s called one worked for one’s own liberation. There was no compassion, great compassion, and so forth. So that is ruled out that one would not be reborn in the alternative way by the force of compassion and karma. In that way the person doesn’t get reborn and that theory actually explains that the person’s continuity of consciousness has terminated. Therefore, the specific exponents in this course group explain such person has attained the ultimate goal of hearer’s vehicle.
There is no further goal to achieve. That due very reason, it is asserted that there is no need for that person to enter into a great the Mahāyāna path, because the person has attained the ultimate goal. So these two tenets here specifically, Vaibhāṣika, accepts the theory that there are ultimately three goals three ultimate goals: the hearer’s ultimate goal, the individual enlighteners or solitary realizer’s ultimate goal, and great vehicles’ ultimate goal. Each in their respective achievement is the end. There is no need to go higher and achieve the higher goals.
Although these points have been covered in the past, but there is special reason for reviewing them tonight. So please don’t forget them. These points may come in the questionnaire or they may not come in the questionnaire in the next Thursday’s examination. Tonight we continue from what was finished earlier. As an interpretive note, I will highlight all of those mentioned above.
And now, continuing the topic of the context continuation. Amongst the seven types of mind, we already finished the first two, which includes what is called valid knowledge. We finished the direct valid knowledge as well as inferential valid knowledge. The other five of the seven types of minds are non valid knowledge, and we shall go through those five. Now, in the past, regarding the definition of what is valid knowledge, it was clear that there the definition was a fresh and infallible knowledge.
That was the definition of valid knowledge. Now regarding the non valid knowledge, which are those five remaining mind, the definition is exactly opposite to that of the valid knowledge. So the opposite would become a knowledge which is not fresh and infallible. So it is the exact opposite of the previous one, fresh and infallible knowledge. The non valid mind is a mind which is not valid, not correct, not valid, and it is exact opposite of valid knowledge.
So we got that right with the definition of non valid mind, that it is a knowledge which is not fresh and infallible. And that is the exact opposite of valid knowledge.. Now, earlier in the beginning of the evening class here, we went through the citation, direct knowledge and inferential knowledge, inferential knowledge, subsequent perception. These three are mind knowing object. So we now come to the first type of the five non-valid minds, the subsequent perception.
The first is the subsequent perception amongst those five. Second is called wrong knowledge. The list of the remaining five. Third is doubt. Fourth is assumption.
Fifth is inattentive mind. So these are the five which are non valid minds, subsequent perception, wrong knowledge, doubt, assumption, and inattentive mind or inattentive knowledge. Inattentive knowledge, inattentive mind, same, whichever. So these are the five. Now regarding the first of the five subsequent perception or subsequent knowledge, whichever, by that it means a perception of something which was already perceived earlier, or knowledge of something which was already known earlier.
What that would mean by way of example, let’s say with flower, if one sees, perceives, knows the flower first time fresh, then that is a valid knowledge. But if one sees, perceives, or knows whichever, the flower’s second time after having already seen it or known it earlier, then the next time, the second time knowing of flower is a subsequent perception. It is a knowledge of something already one has known earlier, and it is not valid knowledge. The definition of subsequent perception is given as knowledge of what has been known. The knowledge of what has been known..
Now the meaning of that is, as just I had explained, that it is knowing something which one has known earlier. Now earlier when we were going through the direct valid knowledge, we have gone through, for example, in the sensory direct valid knowledge we went through the five types of sensory direct valid knowledge: the sensory direct valid knowledge of eye perceiving form, sensory direct knowledge of the ears of the nose of tongue There we have those five objects of senses being perceived fresh and infallibly becoming the direct, valid knowledge of the five senses. Now, keeping that in mind, one would then be easy to relate here the example of subsequent perception. When the eye sees the form for the first time, that is the eye perceiving the form first time. That is a valid knowledge.
The second moment of such perception becomes subsequent perception. Similarly, the ears are perceiving sound. First time is a valid knowledge of ears perceiving sound. The next moment, second moment, third moment, so forth, becomes non valid in the sense not new or fresh perception, but a perception of something already perceived earlier. The subsequent perception is of two types conceptual subsequent perception and non conceptual subsequent perception.
Non conceptual subsequent perception is the second moment of direct valid knowledge. For example, when direct valid knowledge perceives its object first time it is a valid knowledge. That very direct valid knowledge in the second moment becomes a non conceptual subsequent perception, and the third moment and so forth, all of them. The conceptual subsequent perception is the second moment, the moment onward from second of inferential valid knowledge. This to explain what it means, say, an inferential knowledge by way of reasoning infers impermanence a by way of reasoning, infers impermanence.
First moment becomes inferential valid knowledge. Now, such inferential valid knowledge realizing impermanence in its next moment, second moment, and third moment onward becomes conceptual subsequent perception because it is perceiving something already perceived earlier. And it is conceptual because it is inference, something not direct but relying on reasoning. And it is in the aspect of concept. In that way, we can then say conceptual subsequent perception, way of describing it in another way, be such as the second moment of the knowledge perceiving sound as impermanent.
The second moment of the inferential valid knowledge perceiving a person as selfless, or the selflessness of a person. And so all of such moments second moment and onward are examples of conceptual subsequent perceptions. Subsequent perception is correct mind because it perceives its object well correctly. Therefore, the first three of the seven types of mind: direct valid knowledge or direct knowledge simply, inferential knowledge or inferential valid knowledge, and this third, subsequent perception. These three are good mind, in the sense they are correct mind understanding or knowing their objects.
Then the second type of non valid mind is wrong knowledge. The definition of wrong knowledge is incorrect. So it is simply incorrect knowledge, but the phrase used is knowledge which is incorrect. Our wrong knowledge is a wrong perception.. Wrong knowledge is a mind which is completely perverted in the sense completely contrary to what the object actually is.
So it is completely opposite of the way it is. So in a way it is like a perverted or a turned back knowledge, in that sense, wrong knowledge. Wrong knowledge is of two types: conceptual wrong knowledge and non conceptual wrong knowledge. Now with regards to the conceptual wrong knowledge, let’s first look at what is correct conceptual knowledge. With regards to that, let’s look at this example.
If one realizes through reasoning that ‘I’ is impermanent, in that way if one has the first moment of realization of I as impermanent, then that becomes inferential valid knowledge, the first moment. And the second moment onward becomes subsequent perceptions. Now, the impermanence about myself or I is a factual thing. Yet, if one misconceives and perceives or knows, in the sense perceives, ‘I’ as permanent, then that is a conceptual wrong knowledge. And that is an example of a conceptual wrong knowledge.
It is wrong knowledge because I is not permanent, it is impermanent, but it is wrongly conceived or perceived as permanent. We can look at examples say flower is impermanent, table is impermanent, book is impermanent, the light is impermanent. But the wrong knowledge, in the case of wrong knowledge, the light would be perceived as permanent, although it is impermanent. The book would be perceived as permanent, the flower would be perceived as permanent. One’s self if we have further example, one’s self one’s self would be perceived as permanent.
In that way, it is mind which knows, in the sense perceived the word actually is knows which knows or perceives things wrongly. And all these are in the conceptual aspect and they are called conceptual wrong knowledge. The ego grasping of person which is ignorance that too is a conceptual wrong knowledge. Conceptual wrong knowledge therefore is called as such because it is a concept as well as it is a wrong knowledge. Then what is meant by non conceptual wrong knowledge?
Well, it can be seen by way of examples such as perceiving white snow mountain as blue or yellow. Or another example, say if someone is suffering from bile imbalance, then if in front of such person’s eyes if there is a white colored conch shell, it would appear to the person’s eye consciousness as yellow, although it is not yellow. So such eye consciousness perceiving white conch shell as yellow is a non conceptual wrong knowledge. Similarly, the example of when we drive cars fast or when in the ferry as passenger, when the ferry is going quite fast, then outside the trees seem to be going so fast. Such knowledge of seeing or perceiving trees as going or moving fast is non conceptual non conceptual wrong knowledge.
And there, it is caused by the transport vehicle going so fast that it distorts and causes to have such sight and perceiving wrongly. These are called non conceptual wrong knowledge because of the obvious reason. It is wrong knowledge, wrongly, incorrectly, wrongly engaging in the object. And it is non conceptual because it is not a concept yet a mind seeing object directly. Those are the two reasons.
So we’ll perhaps stop here for tonight. Tonight, amongst the five types of non valid knowledge, subsequent perception, and wrong knowledge the first two have been gone over. And we shall go through the three next time. And instead, for remaining time, it would be good if you have any questions. And the four are non-knowing minds..
That’s right, yeah. That The is right, yep. It is one of the three correct minds. So it’s a knowing mind.. That’s right.
So it’s just a matter of definition, because valid knowledge is fresh and infallible. So it doesn’t qualify the fresh part, the subsequent perception. That’s right, subsequent perception is yet not a valid mind. By that way they explained if something is correct it doesn’t have to be valid. So the two valid knowledges are correct, yet if something is a correct knowledge, it doesn’t have to go back as a valid knowledge.
So only it’s the fresh part which is missing in the subsequent perception. The fresh, fresh, fresh and infallible. The fresh part is the missing part in subsequent perception. Because of that, it doesn’t qualify as a valid knowledge. So based on one particular object, it cannot be possible to have a mixture of those parts of mind, new categories of mind.
So the clarification of your point translated was when one sees a person for the first time, when one knows at that moment the name of a person, that is a valid knowledge. But couldn’t at that moment as well be a subsequent perception of knowing such shape of being as a human already known in the past. So it cannot, in that case, cannot be simultaneous. Firstly, there would have to be valid knowledge and then subsequent knowledge would follow after. So if it is the same object of the mind at that moment, then these categories of mind occur serially.
But if it is a different object, there can be a mixture, meaning simultaneous. For example, when in here, when looking down can see all the people, In that sense, there is subsequent perception of seeing everyone. But they, without previous here, is something new today to be perceived. So that’s the new perception. So there would be a subsequent perception focused on Dale, and valid knowledge focused on Dale’s hat.
Yes, it is possible, but that would mean one become a Buddha at that stage. To a Buddha’s mind, everything is direct valid knowledge. And other six types of mind are terminated. That’s right. Yep.
And they were saying it could be depressing thing, but it’s a fact. That’s right. Yeah. Good point. Direct knowledge, inferential knowledge,, subsequent perception, they are not, what’s called, wrong knowledge.
So the moment they arise when do they arise? The moment they arise would be the time they arise when the causes and conditions are get it. For example, with flower, first initial perception of flower is direct valid knowledge. And any other thing perceived directly fresh is a direct valid perception. Similarly, when one meditates and thinks about impermanence, consequently if one realizes impermanence directly, that is direct valid knowledge perceiving impermanence.
So in a way, yes, conventionally, but that’s still on a conventional level. In that way, yes, when they arise, they arise due to causes and conditions. The point raised on that is because we look at that from the Sautrāntika’s point of view that it is still direct valid knowledge. But now let’s say in accordance with the perspective of Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, then it would be said that the five senses when perceives their objects, then the eye perceiving form would perceive form as truly existing. And forms do appear to eye as truly existing.
Sounds similarly do appear as truly existing. And the explanation given is because the sense consciousnesses are stained by truth grasping, the grasping that phenomena exist truly. And long as there is truth grasping, due to that, as long as there is a wrapping or staining of the sense consciousnesses with truth grasping, objects of the five senses would appear to the five consciousnesses as truly existing. But the moment one removes truth grasping, then they would not appear anymore as truly existing. And that would be right in the context of Prāsaṇgika.
Also in there still it would be said it is mistaken engaging, but it is not wrong engaging. So wrong would actually use this in Tibetan the opposite, perverted complete opposite. And therefore, if something is mistaken, it does not have to be wrong. Yeah. And this yeah.
Okay thank you Okay thank you So next test, there will be the exam