Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute Lorig session, Ven Jampa Ignyen investigates pseudo perception—awareness mistaken to its appearing object. He establishes the text’s framework of objects and possessors, then surveys six types of conceptual pseudo perception (mistaken conception, concealer conception, inferential conceptions, memory, speculation) before examining non-conceptual pseudo perception through dream awareness and four types of distorted sense awareness: distortion in the sense base (cataracts making one moon appear as two), environment (a boat’s motion making trees seem to move), object (spinning firebrand appearing as circle), or preceding mental state (anger making the world appear red). Technical material for practitioners already immersed in Buddhist epistemology and this Lorig series.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 18 M and C 2001 06 19.mp3
UUID: 97865a12-5ba8-4f82-be35-004c3fa043e2
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Mind and Cognition 2001 Month 04-06 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-06-19
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.8 minutes
Words: ~4,259
So we’re continuing with Lorig, this essential text. Anyway, there’s no more essential text than Lorig. So, so far, this text on Lorig, Lorig — here we’re using the word discernment for lo and cognition for rig. So, discernment, cognition, something like that. So, this text is on the nature of awareness, but initially it’s dealing with objects and object possessors.
And so, for the first few pages, first ten or so pages, we discussed objects themselves and the different types of object. And again, there’s two basic types of object. Does anyone know the two types of object that we’re really dealing with here? That’s Yes. In a way, we could yeah.
Impermanent and permanent objects. Yes. But really here, the two types of object are the appearing object and the reference object. These two we need to develop an understanding of. The appearing object is nang yul in Tibetan.
Nang is to appear. Yul is object. Nang yul. And the referring object for the Tibetan term, actually, yeah, refers to a referent object or the object of the held mode or the referent object. The object that’s actually held, in other words.
One is an appearing object, which is the object that appears. And the other is the object that’s actually held by that awareness. They’re not necessarily the same thing. So there’s these two, the appearing object and the referent object. So anyway, there’s those two.
In the first section, it’s those two objects that, you know, in a sense are one of the central points to be understood. Understood. Now in the next section, we’re doing object possessors. And of object possessors, there are three types. What are the three types of object possessors?
That’s right. Expressive sound or a sound that has a meaning. humans, persons. Yeah. Broader than humans, including divine beings, etcetera.
What’s the definition of a human being? Well, an ant could be a human being then because there’s someone in Samsāra. Well, I mean, divine beings, animals, hell beings, hungry ghosts? Sorry? Born into the human realm.
Born as a human. Someone born human. Yes, we can’t deny that. Sorry? Yes.
Yeah. That’s right. If they have the mind body of a human, then they tend to be a a human. That’s okay. That’s really the basic measure of being human, isn’t it?
Having a human body basis or a physical basis of a human. There is a definition given in the text which is in Tibetan. Speaks, speaks language and understands meaning. Speaks language and understands meaning. Would that really be the definition of a human being?
Yep. Yeah. It’s probably too broad. Yeah. Also, divine beings.
They express or they speak a particular language and they understand meaning, etcetera. So that definition is too broad. Often it’s said, in Tibetan they put riksune or rapthuchewa at the back of that, differentiated by type as one who speaks language and understands meaning. So putting the word differentiated there eliminates divine beings and animals who may understand meaning and be able to speak. Yeah.
Differentiated. Anyway, so there’s really three types. There’s humans or beings, not humans, persons or beings which includes all sentient beings as well as Buddha’s object possessors and expressive sound. What’s the third one? Awareness.
Awareness is the third. So now we’re dealing with awareness. So initially we had a division into two types of awareness, wasn’t it? Well, we know actually from the beginning of the text, awareness is divided into seven types. What are the seven types of awareness?
Valid conception. Valid inference. Oh, valid inference is valid conception. Valid perception. Valid perception.
Subsequent awareness. Subsequent awareness. Right. Those seven. Good if we can memorize those seven.
Just be aware that there are those seven. If it’s awareness, it has to be one of those seven types. That occurs in the index itself. Right. So, from that point, we’ve been looking at valid perception.
And before we actually started with the definitions of valid perception, we had a look at perception itself, the definition of perception and the four types of perception. What are the four types of perception? Four types, sense perception. It’s first. Yogic perception is another type.
Self perception a third type. Mental perception a fourth time. So there’s those four types of perception. Non conceptual awareness. Right.
And then we had a look at valid perception. And then the four types of valid perception, which are again, those four, but the valid forms of those. Right. Now the author has moved on to pseudo perception. So on page number fifteen, we’ve just started that section on pseudo perception.
So pseudo perception is awareness that appears as if it is perception, but it’s not really perception. So for pseudo perception, it has a definition and the definition here is cognition mistaken to its appearing object. Mistaken to its appearing object. So here we need an understanding of what the appearing object is. So now because this is the Sūtra school, we know that fundamentally this we can say there’s two types of appearing object.
There’s the permanent ones and the impermanent ones. Right. So what permanent appearing objects appear to what type of awareness? Conception. To conception.
And the impermanent? Perception. To perception. Yep. Right.
What is the appearing object? It’s really in a sense, it’s an object. Very loosely, it’s just an object which appears, but that in and of itself doesn’t make something an appearing object. Even though it’s an object and it may appear, it’s not necessarily an appearing object. This particular school, from the Sūtra school point of view, an example of that, for instance, is a, say a vase.
Image. Generic image is permanent. That’s an appearing object of conception. Now, the conception of a vase, though, exists, doesn’t it? We can conceive of a vase.
Is that vase the appearing object of conception? If it’s the appearing object of conception, what must it be? It must be permanent. Right? If it’s permanent, it is the appearing object of conception.
But a vase, is a vase permanent? So therefore it can’t be the appearing object of conception. We may think it’s permanent. Sorry? All conception is pseudo perception.
Even the valid ones, the correct ones. Okay. The conception of a vase, it’s said that that vase appears to the conception, but it’s not the appearing object of conception. Whatever object we conceive of, it’s said that when we conceive of it, it appears to that conception. But it doesn’t mean that it’s the appearing object of that conception, because to be the appearing object of conception, it must be permanent.
This again is the view of the Sūtra School. Right. So then we have the definition of pseudo perception, which is in a sense, it’s also the definition of mistaken awareness, which is cognition mistaken to its appearing object. And there is, If classified, now this is at the bottom of page fifteen, if classified, are seven. The six conceptual pseudo perceptions and the one non conceptual pseudo perception.
So the six conceptual pseudo perceptions, bit of a mouthful, Munsum Tanang in Tibetan. So there’s six that are given here, Mistaken conception, concealer conception, inferential conception, conception derived from inference, recalling conception and speculative conception. So these are different types of conception that we can have. So the example of the first one there, is mistaken conception is for example, holding conception holding sound is permanent. So that’s really mistaken conception because, of course, sound is impermanent.
Right, then the example of the next one is concealer conception, which is inference comprehending sound is impermanent. We can also call that relative conception. We’ll just leave that at that for the time being. Then the next one, the number three is conception which is a sustaining mind. This is inferential conception.
And we’ll go into that a little bit somewhat later. Inferential conception. So, conception which is a sustaining mind. The number four, inferential conception is, for example, conception occurring after inference. So, So if we develop a valid inference, say that sound is impermanent, then in the next moment we have inferential conception, for instance, that continues to comprehend conceptually that sound is impermanent.
Now, five, for example. Number five is recalling conception. So, this is memory. So, conception, recalling past events. And then number six is speculative conception.
So this is conception speculating about future events. In general, our conception fit into one of these categories. Conception will fit into one of these categories. So, that’s okay. They’re pretty broad categories anyway.
So, these are all termed pseudo perception. They’re conception. They’re conceptual. And Right. So there’s those six types.
Now the second part is there’s one non conceptual pseudo perception. So, initially they said that there were seven types. And so, we had six that were conceptual and one that was perceptual. Now, we find out that actually that one perceptual has in itself many. There are many non conceptual pseudo perceptions.
And there the author gives then a division into mental awareness, which is non conceptual pseudo perception, and sense awareness, which is non conceptual pseudo perception. Right. So, the first one is mental awareness. 2.2.1. The instance of the first has been explained previously.
I think it was just briefly touched on. So mental awareness, which is a pseudo perception, what’s an example of that? What’s the type of mental awareness that’s mistaken to its appearing object, which is non conceptual? Well, that’s sense perception and then conception that’s generated in dependence on that. No.
That’s sense perception. You were talking about mental perception. This one’s an easy one. No. That’s conception.
You were looking for something non conceptual because we’ve done the six types of conceptual pseudo perception. Now we’re doing the non conceptual pseudo perception. And of that is too, there’s mental awareness and sensory awareness. That’s the one. Probably anger or something.
No, that’s conception. Conception, anger is conceptual state. Sorry? This one’s easy actually. No, that’s sense perception.
What’s an example of mental awareness, which is non conceptual pseudo perception? No, it’s nothing that complicated. No, mirage is not even awareness. Okay. Anyone else?
No. That’s conception again, isn’t it? Are we talking about something non conceptual? Mental awareness. No.
That’s conception. Into something Wrong conception. Oh, we can have well, mental awareness. Like, mental perception is mental awareness. No.
Doesn’t have to be sorry? Okay. Dream awareness is the obvious example there. Dream awareness. Dream awareness is mental awareness, isn’t it?
It’s not sensory awareness. It’s mental awareness, which is non conceptual, pseudo perception. It’s mistaken awareness, isn’t it? Dream awareness is mistaken to its appearing object objects. True?
Or does it actually comprehend its appearing object? Oh, we can experience something, but do the appearing objects actually exist as they appear even in a gross level? Oh, that’s a well, that’s an easy one to start with. One there. What are the other ones?
These are not so easy because actually most of our mental awareness that we’re aware of is actually conceptual. We do have mental awareness which is inattentive like mental perception, but that’s not pseudo perception because it’s not mistaken to its appearing object. What about Mhmm. Oh, the images of memory, they’re objects, aren’t they? You it’s either they’re existent or nonexistent.
Yeah. So they could be holding them. You hear you’re talking about the objects or the conception holding those objects? Well, the image that appeared in the mind Yeah. Of course, it doesn’t.
That’s because memory itself is a mistake in awareness. But memory can be correct. Memory can comprehend its object, even though it’s Memory is the, what, number five in the isn’t it? Recalling conception is memory. No, recalling.
That’s conceptual, isn’t it? Our memory is conceptual. Well, that means that it can’t be pseudo perception. It’s pseudo perception. Conceptual.
It’s pseudo perception. And therefore, it’s not perception, our memory. Pseudo perception. Pseudo perception. It’s actual conception.
Yeah. Okay. Well, anyway, we’ll just take dream awareness as being that example of the first one, that mental awareness, which is non conceptual pseudo perception. Now, sense awareness, which is non conceptual pseudo perception has four types. So the cause of distortion or the cause of mistake existing in the support or existing in the abode or existing in the object or existing in the immediate condition.
So this here, we’re talking now about sense awareness, which is mistaken awareness, isn’t it? Because pseudo perception must be Pseudo perception and what are equivalent. Mistaken awareness. Yep. And mistaken awareness are equivalent.
So all of these awarenesses that we’ve been dealing with are all mistaken awareness by definition. Right? Our memory is mistaken awareness. Our thoughts about the future are mistaken awareness. Our dream awareness is mistaken awareness.
So these four types of sense awareness also are mistaken. An example of the first where the cause of distortion exists in the support, now this is about halfway down page sixteen. That is, for instance, the eye affected by cataracts because in dependence on that sense awareness to which one moon appears as two moons is generated. So that there is the cause of the distortion is in the support. Here the support here means the sense base, the sense power itself is affected by cataracts.
So therefore, if one looks at something like the moon, they can be a condition for seeing two moons when only one moon is there. Support there means the support of awareness. And what is supporting sense awareness? No, it’s the sense base itself, which is the eye, for instance, or the subtle form within the eye itself that is regarded as the support of eye awareness. It is a language thing.
Yep. It’d be easier to do it directly in Tibetan because there it’s ten in Tibetan. And that’s a The cause of the mistake or the cause of distortion, trü gyu, ten le yöpa. Ten there is the support. It exists in the support.
The support is the eye or the inner ear or the the physical sense base itself, which is the subtle form that supports sense awareness. We can’t Yep. Oh, that’s because it’s affecting the support. The cataract actually grows on the surface of the eye, but it’s affecting the capacity of the eye sense power to function. Function.
Yep, physical eyes, where the cataract is. It is the actual physical eye, but it’s the It’s said to be a subtle form within the eye itself that’s not normally visible to us. If it were visible, then it would probably stop us from seeing. It’s what actually permits the awareness of color and shape to occur. It itself is formed and through that form one is able to see.
Through that form one is able to hear, therefore it’s said to be subtle, it’s not obstructing. It’s actually acting as a sorry? It’s physical. Yes. Yeah.
We can, I think to a degree, equate it with the yeah? Yeah. Chemical and and electrical. That’s right. That’s right.
Well, here, physical. It’s regarded as physical. Yes. The sense power, all the sense powers, all the physical sense powers are physical, but they’re regarded as being subtle. They’re not gross physical form.
But, yeah, on the level of, yeah, subtle chemical and electrical activity that exists within that, both the eye itself and also I think we can extend that perhaps even into the brain itself and the nervous system that’s connecting the sense power of the brain. Yeah, I think that’d be that’s probably okay, although we have to be a little bit careful with this. Right, so the cause of distortion existing in the support, the cause of distortion existing in the abode. So, the second one there is, that is for instance, sitting in a boat because in dependence on that sense awareness to which trees appear to move is generated. So, there the cause of distortion is in the abode or where one is seated.
Okay, that sounds. Yep. The third one, the cause of distortion existing in the object, that is for instance, rapidly rotating a firebrand because in dependence on that sense awareness to which a firebrand appears as a circle is generated. So that’s existing in the object, the cause of distortion existing in the object itself. If the object is spun very quickly at night, like a firebrand, then it appears to be a circle.
And so we have sense awareness holding a ring, a circle there, which doesn’t exist. There’s no circle there, is there? All of these are mistaken awareness because the act the referent object here doesn’t exist. Two moons doesn’t exist. Two moons is the referent object.
Trees moving is the reference object of the second. A circle of fire is the reference object of the third. Sorry? Rainbow. Rainbow?
That’s a physical object, isn’t it? It isn’t. Isn’t there isn’t there something that’s, you know, got colors in it and doesn’t exist out out there somewhere? It doesn’t? Doesn’t a light exist out there?
Sorry? It exists in the firebrand, but is there actually a circle there? Is there? Is there a circle out there, you know, when the person is spinning it around? Is there a circle out there or just a point?
I think it’s like a round and then there’s still images and like Similar to that. With that firebrand, I mean, if it was to be an actual circle, it’d have to be a lot of firebrands to make up a full circle, wouldn’t it? Otherwise, it’s just a point. It’s just one point that someone’s moving quickly, which appears to be a circle, but it isn’t actually a circle. But also with the light, does the light exist externally?
Sorry? What is a rainbow? Raindrops. Raindrops. Okay.
Where does the rainbow exist? Doesn’t it do rainbows they can you see them? Let’s put it this way. Like you can see a circle in the background. Or can we?
Is there a circle there to be seen? Yeah. You can. Yeah. That’s right.
But now, okay, now with the mirage, yeah. But wait a minute, when you see a mirage, what does it look like? Well, generally, mirages are the ones that look like water, aren’t they? Yes. It’s like water.
Water. Oh, water, right. And if we’re fooled by the mirage, we actually think there’s water there, don’t we? We look at it and our eye awareness appears to be comprehending water. We think, oh, there’s water there.
That’s really what the mirage is, isn’t it? If we see it to be a mirage, then we’re not you know, like mistaken as to the object. But with a rainbow, we’re not mistaken, we? We just look and we see colors and we realize, oh, yeah, there’s light rays that are being refracted through drops that are like a prism creating a, you know, they’re breaking apart the wavelength of light and so we’re seeing the separate wavelengths as colors, you know, in their own right. They’re separating those out, the raindrops.
Is therefore the eye awareness comprehending the rainbow mistaken? But it does exist, doesn’t it? It does exist. Where in the distance? If we can find out where it exists, we can find the pot of gold too, can’t we?
But it’s the matter that touches it. It it in order to exist, it doesn’t need to be an object of tactile awareness though, does it? No. It still exists though, doesn’t it? Whereas the the circle of the firebrand doesn’t exist, does it?
The breadth that exists as well, what do you see? I don’t know. Well, the water doesn’t exist, but the appearance of, you know, shimmering and so forth, that exists. The appearance there exists. The water doesn’t exist.
But isn’t the rainbow actually an object? It’s not quite the same as the mirage though, is it? Because the mirage appears to be water. And if we hold it to be water, it’s really a wrong awareness. But if we hold a rainbow to be a rainbow, is that wrong awareness?
Is that mistaken awareness? Oh, well then. Alright. Well, that’s what we do, isn’t it? Or do we we hold the mirage to be like colors that are caused by the rain, the sun shining through the rain.
So firebrand circle and know that, you know, in that way correct. Well, then that’s right. You know what it is. Your sense awareness is not, you know, like, it’s not a mistaken awareness then because you’re just holding the image of a circle existing there, understanding it just to be an image. It’s not a circle.
Yes. Because it means the implication here is that the sense awareness itself is holding that circle to exist. But actually there’s no circle there. Therefore, there’s no referent object. Here again, the referent object is the circle.
There is something that exists there which is like a firebrand being spun around. Holding that to be a circle is mistaken. Oh, of course. That that would be a yeah. If it was a paint we thought it was a paint job or yeah.
This is important to be able to define what wrong awareness is, mistaken awareness is. Right. So the next one here is the cause of distortion existing in the immediate condition. So the example of that, that is for instance, the agitation of anger in the mind. Because in dependence on that sense awareness to which the environment appears to be red is generated.
So, when one gets angry, it’s said that one can get so angry, one can see red. Actually, sorry. Yeah. They’re so agitated that things appear red. Yep.
Yep. See red with the eye eye consciousness. Yep. No. Well, this is a quite a specific example and it’s talking about the immediate condition here.
And the immediate condition is the previous state of awareness to that sense awareness arising. So what the immediate condition is, is the previous awareness. The awareness of the previous moment acts as the immediate condition for the awareness of this moment. So, what it’s saying here is that having strong anger in the previous moment, that can act as the immediate condition for even eye awareness having a red appearance appearing to it. Actually, there’s nothing outside that’s red appearing to eye awareness.
It’s just the immediate condition in a sense generating that sort of result. I can’t offhand think of any other examples of this. What about when you’re done with LSD? That’s the cause of distortion in, what, in your food. Yes.
That’d be there. That also, that could be here in the immediate condition then. Yeah. Sorry? Thirst hunger.
That also, thirst or hunger may distort one’s sense perception of things. Right. So then non conceptual wrong awareness, non conceptual pseudo perception and awareness to which the non existent clearly appears are equivalent. So they’re like interchangeable terms we can use here. Non conceptual wrong awareness and so on.
Oh, here because I think it’s more that it has the name of perception occurs in the description of these states. So therefore it’s explained in this section, but it’s not valid perception at all. None of these are valid perception. None of these in fact are perception. If it’s pseudo perception, it’s not perception.
No, these types of sense awareness are not perception. Because in order to be perception, it’s gotta be non mistaken in the definition. And these are actually mistaken forms of awareness. Well, it is non valid. In fact, these are wrong awareness.
But here the author is, I think because the name perception occurs in pseudo perception, he’s just explaining it after he’s finished explaining valid perception just to keep those terms together. He could have actually put it in another section. So we need to keep aware. It’s a good question because if we’re aware of you know, some of the potential problems within the text, then it helps us to remember these points. So this whole thing about pseudo perception occurs after valid perception, but none of them are valid perception.
In other words, in the section explaining valid perception, first the author started off with perception in general, then he went to valid perception. Now he’s gone to pseudo perception. Pseudo perception is not perception, is it? That’s, yeah, it appears to be. Yeah.
But all these sense awarenesses, they’re not even regarded as perception. Like, seeing red is not even regarded as sense perception because it’s a wrong awareness, because it’s mistaken awareness here. He’s really Well, here it’s an investigation into the nature of awareness itself. And he’s really going through the seven types of awareness, which constitutes all types of awareness which are possible. So in those seven, he’s starting off with the first, the best type of awareness, which is valid perception.
So now he’s really explaining all types of perception or even those things which have the name perception. Oh, it’s a huge task, but he’s not going into a huge amount of detail. But he’s trying to cover, you know, fundamentally all the major different types of awareness. And having an understanding of this text is really gives one a foothold, gives oneself a basis on which to understand awareness as it’s explained in general within Buddhism.