Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 44-minute teaching, Ven Jampa Ignyen works through classical Buddhist debates on what makes awareness truly valid—how we know something rather than merely believe it. He opens with a core principle: we cannot understand an object until we grasp its definition. He explores the distinction between non-deceptive cognition (awareness that actually detects its object) and correct belief (true but conceptual). A recurring example anchors the discussion: a distant bright red object mistaken for firelight. That eye awareness is valid in relation to color, but other-determined—uncertain—in relation to whether it is fire. Ven Jampa then develops self-determined valid awareness (knowing itself valid by its own strength) versus other-determined awareness (relying on something else). The teaching unfolds through adversarial logical exchanges characteristic of Tibetan Buddhist philosophical training. Pitched at serious practitioners already familiar with Buddhist debate.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 21 M and C.mp3
UUID: ff4aae53-294a-4392-9f45-cf0afa2394f0
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: Mind and Cognition 2001 Month 04-06 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 43.8 minutes
Words: ~4,431
The understanding of the object defined occurs. It’s true, isn’t it? We can’t understand something until we understand its definition. Is that true? Otherwise, we don’t know where to put it, how to impute the term to that meaning, or to that object.
Once we understand the meaning of something, then we can impute the term to it. So really, something’s definition or understanding its characteristics is central. Otherwise, we don’t know where these things are. If we don’t know the definition of emptiness, we can’t say, oh, there’s emptiness. If we don’t know what the meaning of selflessness is, then we can’t pin selflessness to anything.
So firstly, in order to really comprehend these terms, we need to comprehend what they refer to. In other words, firstly, we understand the definition and then comes the understanding of the object defined. This issue is debated at great length anyway. And we can probably accept that. So here in fact, one of the main issues that we’re dealing with here is what is valid awareness?
We have the definition of awareness already, which is clarity and cognition is the definition of awareness. Whatever is clarity and cognition, that is awareness. What is valid awareness? That’s new, non-deceptive cognition. New meaning the first moment, new, non-deceptive.
What does that mean? Now, the reason why we’re going back to a couple of these debates is in order to examine a little bit in some detail what the meaning of awareness is and valid awareness. So there’s a debate starting on the bottom of page number eleven, where someone says, regarding the first one says, non-deceptive cognition is the definition of valid awareness. This person could be a Mādhyamika, this person could be a person of a higher school, could be a Prāsaṇgika.
Everyone knows what a Prāsaṇgika is? Prāsaṇgika is an advocate of consequence. In other words, there is someone that’s following a higher view. And in fact, this definition we can accept, non-deceptive cognition is, for the higher schools, the definition of valid awareness. Anyway, but here we are talking from the point of view of the Sūtra School.
So, from the point of view of the Sūtra School, then what do they assert to be the definition of valid awareness? It has to be new. That’s what’s lacking from the definition there. New hasn’t been included.
So therefore, what would they say? What example of awareness which is non-deceptive, but for them not valid awareness, would they bring up as an example, as an exception to this? Subsequent. Yeah. The subsequent moment of awareness following valid awareness.
And those subsequent moments of awareness are called subsequent awareness. Therefore, the author here says: We’ll take subsequent awareness. It follows that it is valid awareness because it is non-deceptive cognition. So what is subsequent awareness? It’s the second moment, the third moment, the fourth moment of awareness comprehending its object.
So then the other person says I don’t accept that reason. The reason is not established. So the author says, we’ll take that subject. It follows that it is non-deceptive awareness because it is cognition detecting its object of examination. So here, for the author, the meaning of non-deceptive awareness is awareness that’s actually detecting its object of examination or its object of analysis. And here the other person says no pervasion.
Then the author says, it follows there is a pervasion, that if it is cognition detecting its object of examination, it must be non-deceptive awareness. Because cognition detecting its object of examination is the definition of non-deceptive awareness. So what does this mean? It just means that when we comprehend something, we actually detect the object that’s being investigated or examined by that awareness. That awareness is actually detecting the object.
It comes in a sense to be a possessor of that object, detects the object. So then, at this point, the opponent in the debate says, Okay, I accept that root assertion accepted, he is saying, therefore, meaning, I accept that definition, therefore subsequent awareness is non-deceptive cognition. So then he says, take subsequent awareness. It follows that it is newly comprehending cognition because it is valid awareness. And you accept that reason that it is valid awareness because it is non-deceptive.
If so, take that subject. It follows it is not newly comprehending cognition because it is cognition comprehending the comprehended. In other words, it’s cognition that’s comprehending that which has already been comprehended by valid awareness. So therefore it can’t be new.
In general, every moment is new. Absolutely. Because it’s stated in the text. Moreover, if it is impermanent, if it’s impermanent, it’s newly generated and has never existed before. Here it’s talking about a continuum. Here it’s talking about this continuum of awareness, that that continuum has a first moment and a second moment and a third moment. In general, each of those moments is new, but here the meaning of new is tied with continuum. Is that okay?
In general, everything is new each moment, isn’t it? Do we accept that? Is there nothing old in the world? If everything is new each moment, then nothing can be old. True?
Why, if it’s impermanent, does it have to be new each moment? Here, for the Sūtra School, they insist on valid awareness being new awareness, because for them the first moment of understanding, of comprehension, has to break through and break through to detecting its object. That process of detecting its object carries with it a special force in the first moment for the Sūtra School. So therefore that special force that occurs in the first moment, that special impetus for them is the real valid awareness. Everything that follows from that follows from the strength of that first moment. So in a sense, they’re not as highly regarded as the first moment. But this is a view of the Sūtra School.
Higher schools will posit that definition to be the definition of valid awareness. That is, non-deceptive cognition, that is valid awareness. And in fact, that makes more sense to us, doesn’t it? Because generally we say the first moment of understanding something, the second moment, the third moment, they all equally understand their object. In a sense, they’re all equally valid. Aren’t they? Well, they’re all correctly comprehending their object. Anyway, the Sūtra School here are insisting on this point. Are we followers of the Sūtra School?
Only on Tuesday nights. Yeah. We have to be flexible on it. I made up my mind. Well, the Sūtra School, it has a lot going for it. It was taught by the Buddha for a start. And so it actually is quite a profound view of the universe. But there are a few things in that particular worldview that may rub against the grain later on. But still, much of what is said in the Sūtra School we can accept.
Yeah. That’s non-deceptive awareness. Correct belief is always deceptive. Yeah, so saying non-deceptive therefore excludes correct belief. That’s all that’s meant there. But that’s true. In the definition, deceptive is stated and one of the purposes for stating it is to eliminate correct belief because correct belief is a deceptive type of awareness. Yeah, well that definition that comes up on page eleven, that’s the definition of non-deceptive awareness, which is awareness or cognition detecting its object of examination. So that’s okay.
We can use that definition throughout this text. Something like correct belief is deceptive awareness. Even though it’s called correct belief or in Tibetan it’s yid dpyod which really means something like mental analysis. And what it is, it’s the correct, or it’s a conception about something which is authentic or it actually conforms with how things actually exist. For instance, the thought that a vase is impermanent or this table is impermanent is a type of correct belief.
But that correct belief doesn’t actually comprehend that the table is impermanent. It believes the table is impermanent. But, in a sense, it hasn’t actually detected its object. That correct belief has yet not detected its object. Detecting its object is a bit like a penny dropping.
When that happens, then it’s incontrovertible. Then you know it’s the case. That’s conceptual. Often when the penny dropping is, for us, more on a conceptual level than anything else. Not perceptual.
But when we understand something, yeah, that’s how it is. Then, of course, one experiences the object, yeah, but one comprehends it. What happens when we comprehend something newly? We sort of break through to something, don’t we? We actually are detecting the object, we can say.
We have a non-deceptive awareness comprehending that object. So that’s roughly the meaning of non-deceptive. In the higher schools it is. Does it affect the moment? Because they say that the second moment and the third moment don’t have the same force as the first moment.
Therefore they are not labeling those moments as valid awareness. They are correct. But they don’t bother to separate the first and the second in that way. Yeah. There’d be no problem if they did even.
But for them, it’s less of an issue. Mainly because the first moment is comprehending, the second moment is comprehending. Okay. Well, we’ll do another debate on page twelve. We’ll do a couple of these. We don’t have to do them all.
So again, one says, cognition non-deceptive to its assessed object is the definition of valid awareness. So we say, take that subject, the previous subject, subsequent awareness. It follows that if valid awareness exists, that definition must exist because that is the definition of valid awareness. If so, take a vase. It follows cognition non-deceptive to its assessed object exists because valid awareness exists. Because valid awareness comprehending a vase exists.
This is a bit of a tricky debate here. I must say. In a way, again, the author, actually, in Tibetan it’s much, the trick in the debate is clearer in Tibetan than it is in English. I will skip that debate anyway. We’ll go to the next one.
You can read through it anyway. It’s not necessarily going to help us with the definition, so we’ll just try the next one. New, non-deceptive, non-mistaken cognition, free of conception is the definition of valid perception. Then regarding that, that’s a long one, new, non-deceptive, non-mistaken cognition, free of conception is the definition of valid perception. That looks reasonably close, doesn’t it?
If so, take the first moment of omniscience. Does the first moment of omniscience exist? Yes. It does, doesn’t it? It follows it conforms to the object defined because it conforms to the definition.
So, the definition was given. If so, it follows perception is valid because you accept that. That is unacceptable because the second moment of perception is perception. Pervasion. This is another bit of a trick debate actually.
Here the author again is using the Tibetan language in order to exploit some ambiguity in Tibetan. Okay, we’ll leave that one as well. Now, we’ll go to the third one here. Don’t worry too much about these debates. Often when in this… very much. Often these debates, they just, you probably wonder, well then why are we worried about these debates if they’re dealing with ambiguity in the language itself? One of the main benefits, the purposes of doing these debates is just to think through the issues. And the more one thinks through them, the clearer they become. So often, you can give a debate that is ambiguous.
It’s nice because then there’s different ways you can interpret it. And so then you have different perspectives. They give a few tricks up the sleeves of the debaters when they’re debating each other on these points. Anyway, here we are debating, or here we are considering the meaning of what valid awareness is. Okay, so we’ll just have a look at the last debate here.
I think this one is not a trick one. Cognition free of conception is the definition of perceptual valid awareness. Now this one is probably easier for us. Is that the definition of perceptual valid awareness? It isn’t, is it?
Now, an example of something which is cognition free of conception, but is not valid perception, is something like awareness to which a snow mountain appears as blue. Have we ever seen a snow mountain which appears blue? We haven’t. Is that a valid or is that a correct awareness of its object? Why isn’t it?
Yeah, exactly that. It’s not blue. Snow is white. Although, I’ve heard that the Eskimos have up to fifty different colors for snow. But the Tibetans who are experts in this field say that if you see snow as blue, it’s not a valid awareness, not a correct awareness.
So, sense awareness to which a snow mountain appears blue, we take that as a subject. It follows it is perceptual valid awareness because it is cognition free of conception. Is it awareness free of conception? Reason not established? Take that subject, that is, that sense awareness to which a blue snow mountain appears.
It follows that it is cognition free of conception because it is non-conceptual awareness. And that is because it is sense awareness, root assertion accepted. So in other words, if it is sense awareness, it definitely is non-conceptual. Is that okay? Sense awareness never uses a generic image, does it?
When we look at anything, that’s eye awareness or we hear something, that ear awareness is not using a generic image. True? There’s some debate about… No, there should not be any debate about that. Okay. So it is cognition free of conception, isn’t it?
Is it cognition free of conception? It is. Can it exist at the same time as conception? It can. How would we separate… Closing our eyes wouldn’t help much.
Actually with eye awareness it might stop the eye awareness, although we still can have a glow of red there. But we can have sense awareness and conception arising at the same time, can’t we? But what the author is saying here is that if it is eye awareness or any type of sense awareness, that awareness is not conceptual. Yeah. It’s very interesting that this issue comes up so strongly.
And that, in fact, is very good because what we need to do is separate out sense awareness from conception and just see how they do interact. But that sense awareness itself is never conceptual. We can conceive of it. We can conceive of our sense awareness. That’s not sense awareness.
That’s taking sense awareness as an object. Well, it’s an interesting question. Do we need to be aware of the awareness, the sense awareness that is holding an object? Well, this is one of the justifications for self-cognition, isn’t it? That in order to remember later that we saw something, meaning we had eye awareness directed at a particular object, there had to be an initial cognition of that eye awareness for there to be a later memory of it.
That’s one of the justifications made by the Sūtra School and the Mind Only School of self-cognition. But it’s important that we understand that point or think about that point. The higher schools don’t accept that, that we need self-cognition in order to establish memory. We can remember a past experience just by remembering the past object. So anyway, take that subject, that is sense awareness to which a snow mountain appears as blue.
It follows it is not perceptual valid awareness because it is not non-mistaken awareness, because it is mistaken awareness, because it is wrong awareness. So there’s a few steps there. Even though it is non-conceptual, it is not non-mistaken. Why is it mistaken? It’s mistaken to its object.
What’s its appearing object there? Snow. Snow mountain. White snow, in fact, isn’t it? So if we have a white snow mountain, which appears blue to eye awareness, and if that eye awareness holds the white snow mountain to be blue, then it’s a mistaken awareness.
And in this case, it’s a wrong awareness. It’ll be a snow job. Yeah. I think. I’m not sure what the… Okay, we’ll skip back anyway.
Now to page eighteen, to valid awareness classified as two. So here what we’re discussing is valid awareness is either defined as valid perception and valid inference, with the first division. If it is valid awareness, it is either valid perception or valid inference. True?
What about valid awareness itself? Which one is it? Okay, well we can think about that one as well. Now, that’s not the only way of dividing up valid awareness. Valid awareness again can be divided in two: self-determined valid awareness and other-determined valid awareness.
Now, we might just skip ahead to page twenty. Self-determined valid awareness and other-determined valid awareness is important. So our system, about halfway down it says, it is reasonable to posit the definitions of these according to the Chödrung Rigchen, a particular Tibetan text, which states, Valid awareness which is capable of initiating determination by its own strength, that it would not occur if its object to be assessed did not occur, is the definition of self-determined valid awareness. Is that okay? We’ll just go through that again.
Valid awareness. So self-determined valid awareness or self-determining valid awareness is valid awareness for a start and it is capable of initiating determination by its own strength that it would not occur if its object to be assessed did not occur. In other words, it’s saying that self-determined valid awareness determines itself to be valid in relation to its object. In other words, that if that object was removed, it would not occur. That awareness itself comprehends.
And the opposite of that is other-determined. That is, valid awareness which necessarily initiates determination by another’s strength that it would not occur if its object to be assessed did not occur. Okay. Now, we go back to page nineteen. How are we doing?
Is this subject… How powerful is it? By its own strength means that it’s able to comprehend it by itself, without relying on something else, by its own strength. Like by our own strength we can get up. We don’t need other people to help us to get up in general.
Then it would be like if we have to rely on others to stand up. Okay. We’ll do a short debate on this. Now halfway down page nineteen, there is a debate. Take a distant bright red color while in doubt as to whether it is the color of fire when the object is the color of fire. Okay?
So if we see in the distance something that looks like a bright red color, we’re in doubt about whether it is the color of fire when in fact it is the color of fire. A distant bright red color when the person who is looking at it is in doubt as to whether it is the color of fire, when it is actually the color of fire. Okay. This is a famous example.
So it follows sense perception holding it is self-determined valid awareness. Okay, so what’s holding that color? It’s eye awareness, isn’t it? We’re looking at it. It’s off in the distance.
Because it is matter is the reason given here. Now, that accords with the previous example. But anyway, we want this particular example here. It follows it is an erroneous subject and unacceptable. Why? Because it is other-determined valid awareness. Now, the point the author is making here is that that is other-determined valid awareness. And then as he says, because an instance of other-determined valid awareness exists. And this is the classic example given of other-determined valid awareness.
In a sense, what is being said here, we won’t go on further with the debate there, that distant red color. If we have eye awareness holding that distant red color, but we are in doubt as to whether it’s the color of fire or not, when it is the color of fire, it is valid awareness. That eye awareness is valid awareness in relation to red, but it’s not valid awareness in relation to the color of fire, even though it is the color of fire.
And the only way that we can determine whether it’s the color of fire or not is whether we get up and move closer to it to see whether it is actually a flame that is making, that we are looking at, or whether it is in fact a red rag or something blowing in the wind, a bright red rag or something like that. It’s valid awareness because it’s valid to the color red, but it’s not valid in relation to the color of fire because the person themselves still has a doubt about whether it is the color of fire. Could you substitute the color red for the color of fire or do they have to be the color of fire? No, the color red, that eye awareness is already valid in relation to the color red.
And that’s a valid awareness. Self-determined valid awareness and other-determined valid awareness are valid awareness. Whether it’s the color of fire or not. Meaning, they don’t know what the color of fire is or what? They don’t know if that is the color of fire.
They generally know that fire has a color. But they don’t know that that particular color is the color of fire. No, no. It’s not just a play on words. Here it’s indicating that we can have valid awareness in relation to something, but in relation to other aspects of it we can be in doubt.
Self-determined valid awareness knows itself to be valid in relation to that object. The situation. The situation. No. No. It’s like if your eye awareness of this table knows it is valid in relation to this table, doesn’t it? You look at the table and it’s a table. You’re seeing a table.
The eye awareness is looking at a table. That is self-determined valid awareness in relation to the table. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Can’t hear the crackling of a fire? Yeah. Well, no. Until you overcome the doubt… Yeah. Yeah.
Until you actually overcome your doubt, it’s going to be other-determined in relation to the color of fire, but self-determined in relation to the color red. Because you’re relying on another awareness in order to determine whether it is that or not. Well, not necessarily. I mean, from a distance, you might look at that object and think, oh, you know, you know that you’re seeing red there. So it’s self-determined in relation to red.
But you’re not sure if it’s the color of fire or not. And you might have to go up much closer to it to see whether, I mean, if you get right up near it, you’ll see, oh, it’s a bit of rag. Yeah. Of course. Yeah.
That’s okay. So even when there’s not another sense being involved, it can be… Absolutely. Absolutely. It doesn’t mean another person, it just means another awareness. Or it can mean another person as well.
Another person may be able to settle the issue. If you start thinking about whether it’s red or not, you haven’t comprehended it. If you have doubt about it, you haven’t comprehended it. Whatever we have doubt about, we have not comprehended. If when you look at something and you don’t know what it is, you haven’t comprehended it.
Red, you don’t know it’s fire. Oh, you’ve comprehended red? Yes. Self-determined to red. But other-determined. Other-determined in relation to the color of fire. That’s all it means here. And in fact, we have this occurring quite a lot. You know, we can see a shape in the distance and think, oh, it looks like a person sitting on a post. So it’s self-determined in relation to the physical form there.
The shape is self-determined. We look at it and we see the shape and we don’t need to ask anyone else what that shape looks like. But then we may have a doubt, is it the shape of a human or not? So it’s self-determined in relation to the shape, but other-determined in relation to whether it’s the shape of a human or not. You don’t always need more than one.
But you can comprehend things without, perceptually, without conception as well. Your eye awareness itself can comprehend an object. And that, you know, you can just look at something and you can comprehend it, the shape and the color of it. Call it anything. Well, the eye awareness is not calling it anything.
It’s the eye awareness. But you can comprehend things without actually labeling them as this or that, can’t you? Otherwise, it would be very difficult for us. Generally, that’s the same. Understanding, comprehending, apprehending.
Yep. Knowing. Yep. All of these things, comprehending means non-deceptive to the object, detecting the object. Those two types of awareness are different, but the act of comprehending means simply being non-deceptive in relation to its object.
Detecting the object. And that we do with eye awareness. Eye awareness detects its object, comprehends it. We look at an object and we know what it is. The eye awareness actually comprehends the object. The eye awareness is not necessarily engaged in imputing names to objects.
Although eye awareness does have within its retinue discrimination which comprehends the individual mark of an object. Yeah. So anyway, here we have this self-determined and other-determined valid awareness.