Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 38-minute seminar, Ven Jampa Ignyen works through foundational Buddhist epistemology with his students, using the philosophical distinction between self-determined and other-determined valid awareness as an entry point. The teaching explains how perception operates — using concrete examples like eye awareness recognizing a flower by color and shape without knowing its name — and unpacks the relationship between this Lorig (Mind and Cognition) study and the broader Lamrim path. A central puzzle emerges: whether perception can grasp permanent objects, particularly non-affirming negations (absences, like the lack of obstruction between the perceiver and a distant mountain). The session moves between direct instruction and detailed Q&A as Jampa Ignyen clarifies how understanding the mind’s basic functioning is essential groundwork for any Buddhist vehicle. Aimed at serious practitioners already familiar with Buddhist study.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 04 M and C 2001 08 07.mp3
UUID: c105587a-f507-4faf-99fd-007b0d2eb98c
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Mind and Cognition 2001 Month 07-09 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-08-07
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 38.3 minutes
Words: ~3,384
Right, so we have these two types of valid awareness, either self determined or other determined. Right, So in brief, right at the bottom of this page he says, though if it is other determined valid awareness, it must be valid awareness. If it is other determined valid awareness with respect to that dharma or to that object, it is necessarily not valid awareness with respect to that dharma, because if it is valid awareness with respect to that dharma, it would have to be self determined valid awareness with respect to that dharma or that object. What this is saying is that even though valid awareness is divided into two self determined and other determined, and even though other determined awareness is valid awareness, if it is, in order to be valid awareness with respect to a particular dharma, it has to be self determined with respect to that object. If it’s valid awareness with respect to any object, it must be self determined valid awareness with respect to that object.
Is that Why is valid other determined awareness included in valid awareness? Oh, because other determined valid awareness is valid awareness. As it says here, it’s a bit of a play on words in a way, but like we can have any example there. Like, if we’re looking at a flower and we don’t know its name, that’s other determined valid awareness with respect to that Utpala flower, for instance, isn’t it? It is valid awareness, isn’t it?
It’s valid to something. It’s valid to the color and shape. Like when we see a new flower, we’ve never seen it before, the eye awareness that’s holding that new flower, is it valid awareness with respect to the new flower? It is, isn’t it? It’s valid.
Meaning we know that it’s a flower we’re looking at, don’t we? We look at a flower, it’s, you know, we can turn it around, we can smell it. The nose awareness in relation to the flower is valid. The eye awareness in relation to that flower is valid. But if we were to ask, is it valid awareness with respect to the Utpala flower?
It’s not, but it is valid awareness. Does that make sense? Yeah, this whole What we’re doing here is in a way we’re investigating what valid awareness is. And our purpose here is not to make things more complicated, hopefully, they already are, but simply to investigate some of these issues with a view really to simplifying things. Because already our experience of the external world and so forth is quite complicated, Probably far too complicated.
We need to simplify it down as much as possible. So part of the process of simplifying, Traditionally, a Buddhist perspective, to investigate texts like this that are directed towards simplifying our understanding of how we experience ourselves in the external world. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. In a way, are assembling a map, an internal map that we can use in order to develop the internal path and work out actually where we are in terms of the path leading to enlightenment.
At present, we probably have some doubt about exactly where we are. Am I on a path? Am I approaching a path? Where is the path? And so on.
These things we need to develop some clarity about because it’s important, important for us to develop or to gain some focus on these issues. Is it really important that there is an internal path and so on? And then determining that developing such a path is important, that we need to work out where we stand at present. What direction are we facing? Like, we’re in the middle of a of a jungle and, you know, it’s full of tigers and lions and cobras and poisonous snakes and leeches and so forth, all manner of things.
And we’re in a lot of danger. We need to find a way out of the forest. It’s helpful if we got a map. And then also helpful if we start, you know, we know a few of the landmarks. Then we can And if we have a map and we know there is a path actually that leads out of the forest, but we just need to know where we are in the forest to begin with, and then we need to begin to work out where a few of the landmarks are, then gradually we can work out how we need to progress.
Because at present, we’re not too sure if we move in this direction, am I actually moving closer to the path or am I moving away from the path? Where is the path? So part of this text in a way is like beginning to establish a map of how to develop internally. But this is a long term process as well. This is a Oh, maybe if there’s enough time, one year on this text, maybe six months.
Six days a week. Debating at morning and in the evening. Okay, well we should go to the other. We’ll do it six days a week. That’s true.
Of course, if everyone’s able to take ordination, then it’s possible one can study these texts. One has the leisure then, you know, to focus on these types of text. And of course, that’s very beneficial. The more time we can spend, all other things being equal, the better. However, in some respects though, I mean, if we can’t really compare like the monastic studies to life in the west either because those that are starting these texts in the monastery in general haven’t had any other education.
This is their initial education. So, if one already has training, then one can progress much more quickly, because one has much more experience by which to comprehend these issues. Oh, it’s just the terminology is difficult for a start. You know, dealing with these terms and what do they actually refer to takes up time and energy. And this Yeah.
So we need to balance and peace ourselves, you know, correctly. Know, how much Depends on how much time and energy we have. If we have more time, more energy, then we can study in more depth. But we, as much as possible, we need to bring our experience to bear on these issues as well. That’s what the Lamrim is doing.
Yep. Well, this is included in the Lamrim. The Lamrim actually includes everything. This is just a section that one can delve into, or it’s actually covered in various parts. Yep.
But in fact, it’s also like a primer for the Lamrim. One almost needs to understand this in order to understand the Lamrim. Or it’s assumed that one has an understanding of these issues. Oh, for understanding. Oh, absolutely.
In fact, in the Lamrim itself, all of these terms come up. And if one is able to gain an understanding of these terms, say in Lorig, then they’re simply just reapplied in Lamrim. Lamrim is more difficult than this text. The Lamrim text contains everything. This text is really just concentrating on the nature of awareness itself, and is really coming from Abhidharma.
Whereas Lamrim is, you know, talking about the three vehicles and how one progresses from the very beginning to the very end. Anyway, but this is essential for understanding the Lamrim. Without this, the Lamrim couldn’t exist. That’s right. Study what’s the benefit of studying this text?
Is that it begins to set out the way the mind itself functions, which is what one is investigating with any of the other texts like Lamrim and so on. In a way it’s just dealing with the basic, what elements of the mind itself. And then what Lamrim is doing is saying, well, okay, now we’ve got to emphasize these ones over here and this one over here, and we’ve to put those ones there to that side, you know, get rid of those. Yeah, but understanding this is necessary for understanding any of the vehicles, whether it’s the lesser vehicle, great vehicle, or whether it’s even the tantric vehicle. The tantric vehicle actually adds some more to this.
Because within the tantric vehicle one is then also dealing not just with, in a sense, the broad description of mind, but also the subtlety. It’s almost like a tantra is then dealing with more of vertical delineation of awareness from the very gross to the subtlest. This presentation here is in a sense dealing with the broad presentation of awareness. You know, just, you know, in general, all the types of mind that exist. So this is important.
And what occurs in Lamrim doesn’t contradict what is here. It’s simply, you know, different areas that expand on what is stated here. Right. So then just moving on to the next section. Then at the top of page twenty two, again, if classified by convention or by the mode of expression, there are three, valid being, valid speech and valid awareness.
So here, talking about what is valid, the two types of validity I first talked about, that’s valid perception, valid inference, and then self determined, other determined valid awareness. Now there is further division into three types of validity, a valid being, valid speech, and valid awareness. And that, for example, a valid being is like the teacher, a fully awakened Buddha, and valid speech is like the turning of the wheel of the four truths, like the teaching on the four noble truths is valid speech. And valid awareness is, for example, perception and inference. This section here where it’s starting to talk about validity in these terms, the source of all of that is really from the treatises on valid awareness that were treatises composed by Dignāgā and Dharmakīrti in India.
Treatises such as the Pramānavārttika, which deal with just the method of how valid awareness is established. Then under that it has set in number. Valid awareness is classified in two: valid perception and valid inference. More than that is not required, nor is valid awareness contained in less. So there’s only two types of valid awareness, valid perception, valid inference.
There’s not less than that, nor more than that. And that is the meaning of being set in numbers too for valid awareness, because they are set in numbers too for valid awareness. If not established, that follows because assessed objects are set in number too, real and abstract. So, valid awareness is said to be just of two types, valid perception and valid inference, because objects are said to be of two types. In the universe, there’s only two types of object, the real and the abstract.
This from a Sūtra school point of view. Abstract is permanent here. Permanent things are abstract. Real things are impermanent. Yeah.
Well, there is a non affirming negation which is an object. That non affirming negation is an object itself. Yes, it’s an object of conception. Is an object, yeah, it does exist. And perception.
But initially it’s comprehended with conception. Oh, it can be an object of yogic perception, not sense perception, at least for an ordinary being. Emptiness can be an object of sense perception of a Buddha. Which sense do you Oh, all of their senses are omniscient. So the eye awareness of a Buddha is omniscient.
It understands emptiness. The ear awareness, the nose awareness, the tongue awareness. Even the body of a Buddha is said to be omniscient, the physical body. But then the physical body of a Buddha in Tibetan it’s a yid kyi rang bzhin gyi lus. It’s a body of the nature of the mind itself.
So, its very nature is awareness anyway. Well, not quite in that sense. What it’s meant is that the physical body of a Buddha, although it’s physical, in essence or in substance, it’s the nature of awareness. Yeah. Well, it’s not in a sense of projection.
It’s simply It’s a physical object that’s not made up of atoms and molecules because its substance is composed of awareness. Yes. Yeah. No. It’s physical, but generally said it’s physical, but it’s not matter.
And it’s not contaminated. The body of Buddha is not contaminated. Although from the lower school’s point of view, they regard it as contaminated. That’s only from the really the Vaibhāṣika point of view, where they regard the physical body of a Buddha as being a product of the karma and affliction of an ordinary being. Because for them, in that life, Śākyamūni had entered that life on a level of the path of preparation as an ordinary being.
And then they progressed from the path of preparation to the state of a Buddha in one meditative sitting. So their physical body, the causes of that are still contaminated because that’s from the great vehicle point of view. Yep. From the Great Exposition school’s point of view, he was a being who had entered the path and was on the path of preparation when he was in this particular life. But then in meditation they progressed to the level of a Buddha.
But their physical body was generated through causes and conditions which were contaminated. So therefore the body itself is regarded as being contaminated. Yeah. Well, a Sorry. It’s yeah.
But here, you’re looking at the causes. If the causes of something are contaminated, then the object itself would tend to be contaminated. Even though it’s impermanent, it’s changing moment to moment, still it’s conditioned by its causes. Yeah, well this particular view is not accepted in a great vehicle. But it’s understandable why they would think that if they thought Śākyamūni Buddha was only on that level.
Because a being who is on the path of preparation, for instance, is an ordinary being and their body is contaminated. But from the great vehicle point of view, once you enter the path of seeing, you establish this body of the nature of the mind itself. And then you spend another two eons on the path in order to attain Buddhahood. So there, the great vehicle explanation of the path is much different. A person that’s into the path of seeing their, what is it?
There’s a saying that once one sees the truth, there is no further projecting karma. What that means is that for someone that’s attained the path of seeing, no longer accumulate new projecting karma. But still they have not purified completely their store of negative potential. They’re not generating new projecting karma, but they can experience old projecting, they do continue to experience the results of past seeds that exist. But they can still be reborn for another living.
Oh, yeah, definitely. As an Arhat, it’s possible, but only through your volition. If you want to go there, you go. No. No.
That’s not possible. Right. Well, we should have Sorry. This idea about whether perception can understand, say a non affirming negation. Is everyone aware of what this question is?
A non affirming negation is something like the non existence of something in the space in front. Like the non existence of a lamb there is a non affirming negation. The non existence of a lamb does exist there, doesn’t it? Now, here the point is can perception comprehend that? Now, some would say that actually perception, even sense perception can indirectly comprehend that.
And when we look there, is our eye awareness aware of the non existence of a lamb there? Well, is there. The non existence of a lamb is there. There’s no lamb there, but the non existence of the lamb exists there, doesn’t it? You could say that.
But we don’t go through all that. They exist there. But they exist there, don’t they? Yeah. But can we see it with our eye awareness?
Well then, our eye awareness, can our eye awareness see something which is permanent? Because the non existence of a lamb there is permanent. It’s not changing moment to moment. Now, the reason why this comes up is the is this issue of non affirming negations. We need to understand non affirming negations because emptiness itself is a non affirming negation.
Like space and so on. But the question is whether perception can comprehend a non affirming negation. Like another example of that is if we’re climbing a mountain and if we look over the edge, does our eye awareness see that there’s nothing there? Especially if you’re hanging on to the side of the mountain very tightly. But this lack of obstruction that exists, that also is a non affirming negation.
So there is lack of obstruction, isn’t there, in the room? Yeah. Well, question here is whether eye awareness does comprehend it, that lack obstruction. Right? And whether if it does comprehend it, can it comprehend it by that object appearing to it or not?
For instance, and this is a central issue. Does the lack of something there, like the lack of a lamb, the non existence of a lamb, does that appear to eye consciousness? In other words, can anything permanent appear to eye consciousness? Can something nonexistent appear to eye consciousness?
This is very interesting. Well, can things which are permanent appear to eye consciousness? Can’t see that one. But it Well, we could say that, well, why can’t permanent things appear to eye consciousness? Because non existent things appear to eye consciousness, don’t they?
Like what? Example. Mirage. Sorry? Mirage.
Mirage. Yeah. Like Mirage. Say movement, you know, on the screen of a movie theater. You know, we see someone running.
No. We but actually, there’s no one running there at all. Okay. But what about also true existence? Does that appear to eye awareness?
True existence doesn’t exist. Does it appear to eye awareness? Well, yeah, it’s approaching that. But now this fundamental question about the non affirming negations, do they appear to perception, is important. They can.
Emptiness can appear to yogic perception. Well, whether we have the perception of it not being or the conception of it not being there is really what we’re discussing here. Whether our eye awareness does comprehend the lack or the non existence of a lamb in the space in front of us or not. But when we talk about emptiness, we’re talking about something more subtle than that. Yes.
And it’s can’t be perceived by eye awareness. No. But I guess the issue there is can some types of non-affirming negation negation appear to eye awareness? Okay, so if we say sometimes can, Well, if the awareness itself is perception, which is a non conceptual type of awareness, then, you know, its comprehension of anything is going to be perceptual comprehension, non conceptual. Okay.
What about if you’re on the mountain side, right? And you move to the edge and you look down, right? Maybe there’s a drop, you know, of a thousand meters or so. And that’ll, you know, why does fear arise when you’re looking down? Because we are going to perceive space with the eye. How?
Can we see space with our eye awareness? Can the eye awareness see something which is permanent, like the lack of obstruction that exists? But can it see that there is a lack of obstruction between itself and that distant object? That’s really the issue there. It can.
So it can see something which is permanent. Oh, they see blackness, yeah. Well, this needs to be investigated, whether eye awareness actually sees, whether it comprehends lack of obstruction, which is permanent. Oh, well, then this could be a, you know, a special case. Special case where, you know, like, yeah, where other elements are introduced that, you know.
Oh, that lack of obstruction is still there. It still exists. Otherwise, rock wouldn’t have moved there, been able to move there and occupy it. It’s not permanent. It’s permanent.
It’s permanent, big. Yeah. But it’s not the rock. It’s not the space that’s obstructing. It’s the rock that’s obstructing.
That lack of obstruction is still there. It’s just that the rock is now occupying that. I think we should debate it out a little bit more. Anyway, we should have a break.