Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Using the vivid example of hearing the word “pot” versus hearing its definition — bulbous, flat-bottomed, able to hold fluid — Ven Jampa Gendun introduces the core distinction of this 47-minute session: conceptual versus non-conceptual consciousness. An installment in an ongoing Collected Topics series on Buddhist epistemology and logic, the class defines conceptual consciousness as an eliminative engager, a mind that grasps only one aspect of its object (the flower, but not the flower’s impermanence), and contrasts it with the collective engager, such as eye or ear consciousness, which takes all parts at once. The session then moves through mistaken versus non-mistaken awarenesses, illustrated by wrong views such as grasping impermanent things as permanent, and closes with mental versus sense consciousness, including a technical four-possibilities analysis between main mind and mental consciousness relevant to debate training. Suited to students already following the Collected Topics curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 64 CT 1988 11 17.mp3
UUID: ed6a8304-8d38-4346-a478-641bf071f426
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: Collected Topics (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1988-11-17
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.8 minutes
Words: ~2,636
I know. That’s all. So, as ourselves do not want suffering, they want happiness, likewise all sentient beings want happiness and do not want suffering. But in the context of the great vehicle, the Mahāyāna, 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 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 must 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 texts, discourses that set forth by the Buddha that we are listening and we are 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. So first we have to develop our awareness, our understanding. Since it’s our own mind which is the forerunner of our practices, 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, we understand the nature of our own awareness. It’s difficult to come into an understanding of the nature of this awareness, the mind which we’re trying to understand.
We can’t see it with our eyes. We can’t grab hold of it with our hands nor can we understand the nature of awareness by looking to others. But it’s by beginning to classify, to distinguish the different types of mind, their various functions and the 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 types, 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 the division into two. So last time we finished the explanation of the ascertainment by other and the ascertainment by self. And now we’re going to continue with the division into two, which is conceptual and non conceptual awarenesses or consciousnesses. So, definition of conceptual consciousness is 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, talk about a pot. The definition of pot is that which is bulbous. This is bulbous. It’s got a big belly on it, man. Just like this.
Bulbous, flat bottom, and able to hold fluid. Bulbous, flat bottom, 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. He 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. 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 pot are suitable to be associated or mixed.
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. What do we mean when we say eliminative engager? An awareness which engages its object by elimination 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. The conceptual consciousness does not engage its object by way of those parts.
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.
Also the cessation. The cessation of the flower and the flower’s 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 understands 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, is only able to understand one object. Any particular conceptual consciousness only takes one object as its appearing object, is only able to realize one object. Though in general, 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 to be suitable for it 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 is 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 a collective engagers are eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose, tongue, body consciousnesses, all the four types of direct perceivers, sense direct perceivers, mental direct perceivers, self knowing direct perceivers, yogic direct perceivers. These are all examples of collective engagers. 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.
It 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, They appear to an eye consciousness, but the eye consciousness does not come to understand the object through these parts, Do they appear? The difference between eliminative engager and collective engager, these parts appear. Respect to eliminative engagers, the parts do not appear.
With respect to collective engagers, the parts of the object appear. I think rather than by way of, I should say, in a manner of comes to realize this object in a manner of understands the thought in a manner of its parts, in a manner of distinguishing its parts. Also, we know we can have a conceptual consciousness apprehending sound. And the impermanence of the sound, the factor of the sound being a product of it being a thing, these various parts do not appear to the thought conscious apprehending sound. Whereas these various parts would appear to an ear consciousness apprehending sound.
So, 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 conceiving or conceiving odor.
Whereas to the nose consciousness, these various factors would appear, the various parts would appear. This would apply to the nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses. The difference between conceptual and non conceptual consciousness is from the point of view of the basis which is engaged in. Basis which is engaged in. In the conceptual, it’s only part.
The parts are engaged in and within non conceptual, it’s not engaged in by way of its parts. In conceptual, it’s engaged in by way 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. 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 of the two is by way of mistaken and non mistaken consciousnesses. The definition 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, 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 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. So, as we’ve mentioned before, the various 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 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. Then the further division into is mental and sense consciousness. Mental and sense consciousnesses. The definition of mental consciousness is a knower that is produced in dependence upon its own uncommon empowering condition, 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. 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.
The meaning of this will come later. So, in debating, some of the people who have been debating, they will understand this. Most of you won’t. In debating, we talk about the relationships between two phenomena. And with respect to mind mental consciousness, and mental consciousness, there’s said to be the relationship is four possibilities.
It’s called four possibilities between mind and mental consciousness. So if we 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 An eye main mind. An I main mind. An I main mind.
Or an I consciousness, which is a main mind. An eye main mind, you know, there are main minds, and there is an eye main mind. An I main mind. I main mind is a main mind, but it’s not a mental consciousness. 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, which 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 mental consciousness is a mental consciousness.
Mental consciousness is a mental consciousness, and it is So, mental consciousness is a main mind, and it is a mental consciousness.