Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Venerable Jampa Ignyen explores what constitutes wrong awareness and pseudo-perception in this 27-minute session, using the classic example of mistaking one moon for two moons to clarify how awareness can misrepresent its object. He demonstrates that wrong awareness occurs when the mind apprehends an object in a way opposite to how it actually exists, then applies this framework to examine everyday emotions like hatred and attachment—showing how these are also wrong awarenesses because they grasp their objects as possessing only negative qualities when in fact no such one-sided object exists. The teaching then shifts to classifying the five types of non-valid awareness: subsequent awareness, correct belief, inattentive awareness, doubt, and wrong awareness itself. Using examples of perceiving colour and inferring impermanence, Venerable Jampa Ignyen walks through how subsequent awareness operates across different cognitive domains, emphasizing that understanding these distinctions at the gross level of appearance lays groundwork for recognizing subtler truths about emptiness and selflessness.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 M and C 2001 07 31.mp3
UUID: 60961478-f36f-4c04-b3a4-4f46db2ca71b
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Mind and Cognition 2001 Month 07-09 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-07-31
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 26.6 minutes
Words: ~2,639
Is wrong, though the object actually exists. So using this particular example here, we’re trying to start with a simple example to help us work out what wrong awareness is. What pseudo-perception is? And pseudo-perception is just like this mind, this awareness that holds one moon to be two moons. Pseudo-perception also includes all of the conceptions that we have, all the wrong conceptions.
The wrong conceptions also include hatred, anger, attachment, and so forth. All these are wrong conceptions. But it’s difficult for us to break through and see them as wrong conceptions. Well, the mind of hatred itself, that may be a valid awareness that another person may actually hate us. Oh, then it’s a wrong awareness, of course.
Because it’s a wrong awareness. If we think they hate us and they don’t hate us, it’s a wrong awareness. But that’s right. If the object exists, then the awareness holding it is an authentic awareness. The in Tibetan, it’s a discernment which is authentic because its object actually exists.
If its object doesn’t exist, it’s not a valid awareness. If we think another person hates us and they don’t hate us, that object doesn’t exist. The person who hates us doesn’t exist in reference to that particular person. Right? It’s a wrong awareness.
We should ask them, do you hate me? Don’t hate me. And if they say no, then fine. We can accept that. What the non-valid awareness that we need to observe is hatred itself.
That we have hatred, don’t we? It may be unmanifest at present, but it won’t take much for it to, you know, to stoke the coals and it’s there again. All we have to do is think about someone. You know, think about that person that did that to me in grade three or that person that I don’t like from high school or, you know, and so on. A lot of the negative mental states that we have don’t have to be manifest in the present moment.
They can be unmanifest. They don’t even have to exist. They exist at a seed level that once that seed is awakened, they exist. We have to examine hatred when it arises and see whether it’s and hatred is a conception, isn’t it? Is hatred conception?
It’s conception. Conceptual awareness. Uses a generic image. Then we need to assess whether that hatred is valid or not. I think it’s almost impossible almost impossible to convince us that it’s not valid.
It’s so enduring. You know? We look at it, and we fight it, and it’s hard. We’re almost totally convinced that our hatred is valid, that that is that person. So we’re very stubborn in these things.
But the hatred that we have is not a valid awareness. It’s like, you know, eye awareness holding one moon to be two moons. It’s exactly the same as that. Its referent object doesn’t exist. The referent object of hatred doesn’t exist.
Its appearing object, its focal object does. Its appearing object. That person exists as the focal object. The referent object doesn’t exist. If referent object existed, then hatred would become valid and justified, and hatred would no longer make us unhappy for awareness which is not wrong awareness.
If the awareness is wrong awareness, then yeah. It’s much different. Wrong awareness just doesn’t have an object. The object held by wrong awareness simply in general doesn’t exist. The definition of wrong awareness is that which engages its object in a in well, in Tibetan, it’s awareness or cognition which engages its object in the opposite way to which it exists.
So here, the purpose of Purbu-chok is just to bring us in a, you know, a type of awareness. This is what wrong awareness is. You know, like, looking at the moon and seeing two moons there. It’s a pity we can’t do that with hatred. You know?
If we have the appearance of two moons when we’re looking at the moon, we would probably have some doubt. Wait a minute. There’s two moons tonight for sure. There’s only one moon a few weeks ago or months ago. We probably have a doubt.
Yeah. Probably it’s just still just one moon out there. When hatred arises, attachment arises, anger arises here, really, very little doubt comes to mind. Oh, is this a good thing to generate? Is this an appropriate response to that person?
And so on. But the referent doesn’t. What it means is that what is being held there doesn’t exist. What is being held there is that person only possessing negative qualities. That person only possessing negative qualities doesn’t exist.
Now at that point though, we have to think about it a little bit. It seems to us that they only have negative qualities. We’re almost convinced of that. That’s terrible, actually, the whole thing. It’s it’s a great pity you just didn’t come back to the country and go to the courts.
Couldn’t have done any worse than Bond. Yes. It’s an authentic awareness. And by definition an authentic awareness always has a referent object. Hatred is not a feeling.
No. Never. But here, we have to our terminology is quite loose in the way we use these terms. And in general usage, we can say it, but not in the class here. We’ve got to limit how we use the word feeling.
Here, feeling is an omnipresent mental factor. One of the five omnipresent mental factors. All feeling does feeling is the taste of the object. Positive, negative, or neutral experience of the object. Hatred comes as a result of fear.
It’s not fear. Well, in a way we do. Yeah. We absolutely. Absolutely.
We’re just a bundle of misconceptions. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, it’s become a Yeah. It’s absolutely.
And I think maybe in towards the end of your mind, I that he made a mistake in not coming back to the country because he would have he couldn’t have done any worse by coming back, you know, than facing all these people than by staying there and continually getting, you know, all this ridicule and so forth from the government, from the reporters. Yeah. It’s a great feeling. But that’s not there. Even if I hate anyone, hate in Christopher’s case is still a wrong Yeah.
Yeah. Well, I’m really saying that, I guess, in an ironic sense, that hatred itself is a wrong awareness because it’s really holding its object to only possess bad qualities and so forth. If in fact there were such a person that only possessed negative qualities, then that hatred would be in fact a valid assessment of that being. Oh, because they only had negative qualities. Well, hatred then would be a valid response or a valid assessment of that being because they only had negative qualities.
Okay. Yeah. That’s also that you’re talking about hatred itself. And, generally, that which is authentic, that which has a referent object is not gonna create problems for us. Awareness which correctly assesses its object is not creating problems for us.
It’s the ones that misconstrue their object. So in that respect, hatred, if hatred were to find an object that corresponded with its particular style of interpreting an object, if it actually found such an object, it shouldn’t create problems for us. No. That’s right. Right.
It corresponds to the state of the subject. Understanding emptiness is on a deeper level, but wouldn’t necessarily be understanding impermanence either, but well, you’d be you’d be correct in understanding whatever you’re you’re viewing. Yeah. But we wouldn’t be creating And that’s well, that’s fine. But, of course, to really get to the level where we’re beginning to overcome these very strong habits, we do need to go into a deeper level, down to the level of emptiness to do that.
Otherwise, we pretty much will be in the situation we now are in, where we’re trying to keep patching the boat up, trying to keep things together by putting a lot of energy into being as constructive and positive as we can be. But still, we have all these tendencies to act in the opposite way. We are unable to really get to the root of these tendencies. Yeah. Compassion is something that arises through understanding how things are.
So it’s really dependent on coming to an understanding. Then compassion is automatic. It’s just a natural response to the facts as they are. It’s not in a sense something that can be imposed. But in order to get ourselves to start to look at things or to develop what, develop the conditions under which compassion can arise, so we do need, you know, certain preliminary meditations and so forth, like equanimity and so on in order to, you know, forge a path or develop a framework in which that can happen.
Okay. Focal. Focal object is generally the appearing object. It’s really what we focus on that exists. Like, it’s the snake.
It’s the focal object. Oh, no. The rope is the focal object. You know what I mean? The rope and the snake?
It has to be the one moon. It’s the focal object. One moon is the focal object. We see it as two moons. Focal object ah, well, now we start with some debates on what is the focal what is the appearing object and so on.
Now regarding that, here we are about almost halfway down page twenty four. Now regarding that, without going into that previous debate, regarding that, he says, it follows one moon appears to it. One moon appears to that awareness holding one moon to be two moons. Because one moon appears as two moons to it, we say yes. Actually, to that type of awareness, one moon does appear because one moon appears as two moons.
Yeah. It follows two moons appear to it. Because one moon appears as two moons to it, we say no. But here it’s saying, actually, the two moons don’t appear. One moon appears as two moons.
That’s okay. But we don’t say two moons appear. Anyway, without going into this in too much, why often there’s so much I mean, these sorts of debates can go on for hours and weeks and months about, you know, in terms of this one moon and two moons, does one moon appear? Yes. One moon appears as two moons.
Does two moons appear? No. Wait a minute. Two moons appear because one moon appears as two moons. No pervasion, and so on.
One asked, well, then what’s the purpose of debating whether how many moons appear? You know? Again, because it’s important to know the presentation because this goes back to the subtler grounds of impermanence, selflessness, and emptiness, and about how at present we’re holding things to be truly existent. And in order to have a uniform presentation, then even on this gross level of dealing with one moon, two moons, it’s necessary to go into depth in describing how one moon can appear as two moons. Right.
So we just move on now to non-valid awareness. So here’s the second big classification in the text of non-valid awareness. So definition. Okay. Now we’ll just skip ahead to the next page.
Our system. Cognition which is not new or new and deceptive is the definition of non-valid awareness. So when you this is a particular definition from the point of view of the Sūtra school. For them it has to be new awareness to be valid. So therefore they say cognition which is not new or if it is new, it must be non-deceptive to be valid awareness.
If it is deceptive, even if it’s new, it’s not valid. Okay. That will become clearer a little bit later on. So then we have non-valid awareness is classified into five: subsequent awareness, correct belief, inattentive awareness, doubt and wrong awareness. Now we’ve already done the first two of the seven types of awareness.
What were the first two? Valid perception and valid inference. That’s right. They’re the two types of valid awareness. Otherwise, we have these remaining five.
Those are the five types of non-valid awareness. So the definition of the first, cognition comprehending what has already been comprehended is the definition of subsequent awareness. So a type of awareness which comprehends that which has already been comprehended is subsequent awareness. That’s quite straightforward. The second moment.
If we have inference, valid inference in the first moment, in the second moment we have subsequent awareness because it’s cognition comprehending that object which has already been comprehended. And if classified, there are three: subsequent perception, subsequent conception, and subsequent awareness, neither of those. And the first one again has five. There is sense perception, mental perception, self-perception, yogic perception, and subsequent perception, none of the above. We have an example, I think.
So the first one has, for example, the second moment of sense perception holding blue. So we have sense perception holding blue. We can close our eyes and as soon as we open them looking at blue, have the first moment. The second moment is subsequent sense perception. Then mental perception.
The second moment of perception experiencing eye awareness. Moment of self-perception experiencing eye awareness. And then yogic perception, the second moment of the uninterrupted path of seeing. Does uninterrupted mean liberated? Uninterrupted simply means really that it’s it’s undisturbed.
The first moment of the uninterrupted path of seeing is the first moment of the path of seeing, first moment of an ārya being. The second moment is subsequent awareness. And none of the above is, for example, the second moment of perception. So the author is having a joke at our expense a little bit here. But the second moment of perception does exist.
And which of the above four is it? It’s none of the above. Is perception is perception sense perception? Okay. Okay.
Humans are either male or female. Okay. If a human being, it’s either male or female. What is a human itself? Person?
What is a human? Male or female? None of the above. That’s all. It’s none of the above.
A human is neither male nor female. True? There’s three types of human. There’s male, female, and none of the above. Because and what’s an example of none of the above?
It’s human being. A human being. Right? A human being does exist. It’s okay.
Yeah. So I think that was a joke. He was having a bit of a joke, but there is some meaning there. And this particular meaning goes all the way down to universals, all the way down to the whole process of conception itself. But, anyway, it goes beyond the scope of the present categories.
And then again, if subsequent conception is classified, there’s two. Subsequent conception initiated by perception and subsequent conception initiated by inference. So these two are very important too. For example, authentic determining awareness, determining blue initiated by sense perception holding blue. Okay.
Authentic determining awareness determining blue. This determining awareness is just conception. First, look at blue, and then in the second moment or in a subsequent moment, we think about blue. We think about that blue object. So that thought of that blue object is authentic determining awareness, determining blue.
It’s authentic because its object exists. All authentic there means that its object exists. And the second example there is quite straightforward. The second moment of inference comprehending sound is impermanent.