Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute talk, Ven Jampa Ignyen explores the distinction between valid awareness and correct awareness, focusing on subsequent awareness—awareness comprehending what has already been comprehended. He examines three types of subsequent awareness and subsequent conception initiated either by perception (memory) or inference (reasoning about what lies beyond the senses). Through multiple debates, he clarifies how correct belief, though weaker than valid awareness, serves as the necessary precursor to valid inference. He walks through five types of correct belief with examples: sound’s impermanence, the far side of the moon, and others. He explains the three modes that establish a correct reason and how inference depends on first developing correct belief. Pitched at serious practitioners studying Buddhist logic and epistemology.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 M and C 2001 08 14.mp3
UUID: 38562cbb-339e-4a12-a262-b9c8b6fcc35e
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Mind and Cognition 2001 Month 07-09 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-08-14
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.5 minutes
Words: ~4,528
On valid awareness. But here, there is a distinction made between valid awareness and correct awareness. Valid awareness is the first moment of correct awareness. The second moment of correct awareness is what? Subsequent awareness.
Awareness. So the second moment of even correct awareness is called non valid only for the reason that the first moment has this special potency. Right now, last week, we did non valid awareness, and we started with subsequent awareness. And we did the three types of subsequent awareness, which is subsequent perception, subsequent conception, and subsequent awareness, neither perception nor conception. And subsequent perception was in five, Subsequent conception has two categories.
And this is important. Those two types of subsequent conception are either subsequent conception initiated by perception or subsequent conception initiated by inference. So in fact, we can have conception initiated by perception. So the example given here is authentic determining awareness, determining blue initiated by sense perception holding blue. That’s right at the bottom of page number twenty five.
About four fifths of the way down page twenty five. So what that means is when we remember anything, any sense data, it’s really subsequent conception initiated by perception. True? Yeah. I can remember the describing conceptions initiated by perception.
Exactly. And there is also subsequent conception initiated by inference. What would be an example, say, of that? Sorry? Mhmm.
It has to be a type of awareness. That’s right. We need to infer it through correct reasoning. The other side of the moon exists because When is the subsequent concept? Second moment.
Subsequent just means second moment onwards. What’s the definition of subsequent awareness? It’s comprehension comprehending the comprehended. So if it’s awareness that’s comprehending the comprehended, then it’s subsequent awareness. It has to be correct awareness.
It’s comprehending its object. It would be subsequent awareness. But it’s only that one time, like you’ve only ever had one valid inference in your life. In regard to one thing. Yeah.
So can you It’s maybe possible to have more than one, but generally, once we’ve comprehended something, we don’t need to, you know, reestablish comprehension. It’s more simply when we think about that, we’ve we comprehend. And that comprehension comprehension is continuing in a continuum from that initial conception. That awareness, that correct awareness may be manifest, it may become unmanifest. But generally, we don’t need to formulate a correct reason.
But for anything beyond the senses in general, we need to formulate reasons to establish them. So in terms of comprehending the far side of the moon, you would need a correct reason, such as take the moon. It follows it has a side facing away from the earth because it is spherical and it has a side facing the earth. Something like that. You need a correct reason.
Now if that reason was correct, then it would have to possess the three modes to establish it as a correct reason. Meaning the first mode, the second mode, the third mode. Now this all of this particular information is contained in the treatise on valid awareness, which was composed by Dharmakīrti. And especially the that text is made up of four chapters. The first chapter is dealing with the development of correct conception or inference.
And because it’s dealing with the generation of correct conception, it’s dealing with how we formulate a correct reason. So it goes into great length to establish the three modes. It’s called the Pramāna Vartika, treatise on valid perception. Tsema Namgyal in Tibetan. And a lot of it is made up.
It’s really a commentary to a previous work by Dignāgā. Anyway, with that and there are many further commentaries made of it, such as Gyaltsab Rinpoche’s great commentary called Tharlamsel Gye, clarifying the path to liberation, and the great work by Jetsunba. Especially his general meaning of the first chapter goes into this particular text at great length, and he unpacks the verses of the root text in great detail, which is necessary because the subject matter is not easy. But anyway, all of that material is analysed in order to establish the existence of valid reasoning, and that there are valid proofs by which we can understand that which is beyond the sense or beyond the senses. So we should do that text after this one.
And in fact, in the monastery, that’s generally what happens. This is a preliminary text, this one. And generally, after this text, then a text called Tarig is studied. Tarig meaning reasons and logic, And it’s a very abbreviated commentary to logic itself. So anyway, without going into too much detail on that, here in fact, there’s two types of subsequent conception.
So all subsequent conception of all subsequent conception is is simply correct conception that exists in a second moment onwards of its continuum. Also, have subsequent perception, like the second moment of eye awareness, second moment of ear awareness, second moment of mental perception, second moment of omniscience, second moment of self perception, and so on. Second moment of any non conceptual awareness that’s comprehending its object. Here, one of the main things here is to think through the definition of subsequent awareness. Cognition comprehending the comprehended.
It’s a very simple definition. But once that’s understood, then what subsequent awareness is is not so difficult. Right. Are there any further questions on this section? Oh, that’s yogic perception.
Omniscience is yogic perception. Yep. And in fact, actually in Lorig, it’s also saying that the second moment of omniscience is not subsequent awareness. Because omniscience has this special potency that every moment of omniscience is like the first moment. There is a second moment of omniscience and a third moment, but omniscience has this special quality of functioning as if it is the first moment.
Anyway, now there is a debate at the bottom of the page. It may be useful just to read through this a little. And in fact, these debates, we shouldn’t be intimidated by them at all. In fact, they’re not difficult. And it is very useful to read through them because they do summarize material in a sort of a brief sound bite.
So regarding that, here we’re dealing with subsequent conception. Take the second moment of correct belief. Now we haven’t done correct belief yet, but correct belief is conception that we have at present. Our conceptions of things is often on the on the level of correct belief. For instance, we our belief that constructed things are impermanent is a correct belief.
Now the author says, we’ll take now one one says when it says one says here, it means someone other than the author. So one person says, take the second moment of correct belief. It follows it as subsequent awareness because it is cognition comprehending the comprehended. Reason not established. So that person says, take that subject, take the second moment of correct belief.
It follows it is cognition comprehending the comprehended because it is cognition comprehending its comprehended assessed object. Just means the same thing, it’s comprehending its object. Reason not established. Over the page. It follows the second moment of correct belief.
Is cognition comprehending the comprehended assessed object of the second moment of correct belief? Why? Because it comprehends object of the second moment of correct belief, and even the first moment of correct belief comprehends the assessed object of the second moment of correct belief. We say no pervasion. There is one thing about correct belief.
Okay. And this is quite important, but it comes up in the next section of the debate. So we’ll just leave that for one moment and we’ll go on. If it is said that the second reason is not established, we say now the second reason Second reason is the reason given previously in the debate above. Right.
And it’s restated more or less again. Take the assessed object of the second moment of correct belief. Right. So we have the second moment of correct belief and it has an object. It follows both the first moment and second moments of correct belief comprehended because it is comprehended by correct belief.
Because it is an established base. Right. Now, actually, correct belief is said to comprehend its object. And in fact, any object in the universe is an object that can be comprehended by correct belief. And that’s why it says an established base.
Here, established base means any existent entity in the universe. So the so whatever we posit, this assessed object of the second moment of correct belief, the assessed object of the first moment of correct belief, all of these things comprehended by correct belief because everything in the universe is comprehended by correct belief. So then the author says take the second moment of correct belief. It follows it is not subsequent awareness. Now what he’s proven up to that point is that correct belief comprehends everything in the universe.
It even comprehends the second moment of correct belief, because the second moment of correct belief exists. Is this difficult? This Good. Good? Sometimes working out what the author is actually saying is not easy.
It’s not easy. But this You shouldn’t just believe what I’m saying. Okay. The point here is correct belief can comprehend anything. Okay?
The first moment of correct belief, the second moment of correct correct belief, and its objects. So here the author says, take the second moment of correct belief. It followed it is not subsequent awareness because it is not cognition comprehending the comprehended, Because it is newly comprehending cognition, because it is correct belief. Right. So what That’s a very good question.
In the very beginning of the text, it came up. We had a debate about whether correct belief comprehended its object. And the author said, in fact, correct belief does comprehend its object, but not in a way that valid awareness comprehends. It’s a weakest sense of comprehension. So that we should keep in mind.
And the reference to that, we just wanna go back and mark it. It was in the second debate. Right? If we just look at the bottom of page three, that’s stemming from a debate about a person, whether a person who does not comprehend an object actually has awareness in their continuum which comprehends objects. Anyway, as Purbu Chok says right at the end of the text, end of that particular debate, Though the last pervasion is stated in that way, we must accept that correct belief comprehending selflessness of the person exists in the continuum of a person who does not comprehend selflessness.
Okay. That’s what he’s saying there is that correct belief comprehends in a weak sense its object, but correct belief is not fully qualified comprehension. What correct belief is just the, you know, the conception that we have at present about things, which conforms pretty much to how they exist. That type of awareness can be called a correct belief which comprehends its object. But that type of awareness is a precursor.
It’s a preliminary stage to actual comprehension. For instance, when the penny drops. When correct belief when correct belief comprehends, the penny hasn’t yet dropped, but you’re almost there. You’re approaching that state. Now here, author is making a debate on this point and he’s saying that, what about the second moment of correct belief?
Isn’t that subsequent awareness? Because actually it’s said earlier on that that correct belief does comprehend its object. As it said, we have to say that even in the continuum of a person who doesn’t comprehend selflessness, correct belief comprehending selflessness does exist. This is what Purbu Chok is saying. Right.
So then he’s saying, okay, what about the second moment of correct belief? It fits the definition of subsequent awareness because it is comprehension. It is awareness comprehending the comprehended, that which is already comprehended. Okay? It’s the second moment of that stream of comprehension.
But Purbu Chok does not accept that, and he says, no, that’s not the case because every moment of correct belief is as if it’s the first moment. It’s newly comprehending its object. So in other words, what he’s saying is that correct belief has this capacity whereby it’s actually newly comprehending in a weak sense its object in every moment. Anyway, this we should examine whether this is the case or not. Valid awareness.
Yep. It’s new. Correct belief is always new. And this is what the author is saying, halfway down this page, in these two sections there, this is Here the pervasion is given. We can read from the bottom up there, the last one.
If it is correct belief, it must be newly comprehending cognition. That pervasion is accepted by the author. But that comprehension there is not fully qualified comprehension, so that’s why it’s not valid awareness. Right. Even though it’s said here that if it is correct belief, it must be newly comprehending cognition.
That comprehending there is not fully qualified comprehending. It’s the weak sense of comprehend. But there is a purpose to putting it in that way. It’s not just to encourage us so that we think, oh, really? I’m already comprehending these things.
If I have a correct belief about impermanence, I’m actually comprehending impermanence. In a way, it does encourage us in that because our correct belief that compounded entities are impermanent is approaching actual comprehension. It’s really drawing to that understanding. So on the strength of that, it’s called comprehension, but it’s not actual comprehension. And our belief in emptiness — not everything is emptiness, is it?
Developing a correct conception of emptiness also has the strength, or developing the correct belief of emptiness has the strength or has is labeled as comprehending emptiness, but it’s still only the weak sense of comprehension. Comprehension. Right. Okay. We’ll do the next debate as well.
So the next debate is about halfway down page twenty six. And now regarding that, now the author has said every moment of correct belief is new awareness, newly comprehending cognition. Now regarding that he says, it follows a person not comprehending objects, comprehends objects. And the author Purbu Chok says why? Because discernment in the continuum comprehends objects, and that follows why, says the author.
Because discernment comprehending objects exist in a continuum. We say no pervasion. Now here the author accepts that last reason there. Discernment comprehending objects exist in their continuum, but not that discernment in their continuum comprehends objects. Okay.
Now the author then goes on to say, That objects. That follows why? Because correct belief comprehending objects exists in their continuum. Because correct belief comprehending sound is impermanent exists in the continuum of a person who is about to comprehend sound is impermanent. So this is the real crux of the matter here that Purbu Chok is trying to put forward.
And that follows why? Because inference comprehending sound is impermanent is generated from correct belief comprehending sound is impermanent, and that is its direct substantial cause. Why? Because it is valid inference comprehending sound is impermanent. What that means is that in developing the valid inference that sound is impermanent, where it has its substantial cause.
The substantial cause of valid inference comprehending sound is impermanent is correct belief that sound is impermanent. So that’s all there is here. Is that okay? Absolutely. First, we have correct belief about something, and then based on that we develop correct inference through formulating a correct reason.
What’s the valid reason? Valid reason. Absolutely. Here we have the stream of awareness of correct belief, and it will always remain as correct belief until we’re able to posit a valid reason. Sorry?
A substantiated valid reason with examples and it it’s just that we may have all the conditions there, but it still just hasn’t clicked. When it clicks, we have the valid inference. It’s said here that clicking depends on having a valid reason. The valid reason itself doesn’t have to be something written down. It can be just a, you know, a symbol or a or a statement.
But in dependence on that, then we gain insight into something. But firstly, it depends on having a continuum of correct belief, and that continuum of correct belief is a substantial continuum of a type of awareness. And that awareness continues, pretty much as it is. And it’s only converted, that continuum of awareness is only in a sense, it’s converted into valid inference by a correct reason. Right.
So, can say valid inference is caused by correct belief. Establishing something to be a valid reason is done by means of the three modes. For instance, you know, take the Smoky Mountain Pass, it follows there’s fire there because there’s smoke there, is a valid reason. Right? If we take a smoky mountain pass, it follows there’s fire there because there’s smoke there.
Now for someone who’s looking at a smoky mountain pass off in the distance and they’re wondering, I wonder if there’s any fire up there or not. We could say to them, well, there’s fire there because there’s smoke there. And if they were to think about that, they would generate a correct conception that there is fire there. Because that correct reason or that reason has conforms to the three modes. And basically the three modes are that firstly the subject conforms to the reason.
The smoky mountain pass has smoke is the first mode. Meaning the subject conforms with the reason. Second mode is that if smoke exists, fire exists. Okay? So in other words, means if that reason exists, that predicate must also exist.
And the third mode is if the opposite of the predicate is established, then the opposite of the reason is established. In other words, if there is no fire, there is no smoke. So anyway, this is often said, if there’s no fire, there’s no smoke. And so on. But they’re briefly the three modes.
If they’re established in relation to any if those three are established in a syllogism, that syllogism is a correct syllogism. And then that syllogism has the capacity to generate a correct understanding. It may take a while of of contemplating it, but it has the capacity to strike up the correct understanding in our continuum. Third mode there is just actually, this is, very roughly stated. If the predicate if the opposite of the predicate is established, then the opposite of the reason is established.
Meaning, if there is no fire, there is no smoke. It’s implied by the second mode. If there’s smoke, there must be fire. But anything that lies beyond the senses and that is can only be initially comprehended through conception is comprehended through a correct reason. And even prior to generating a correct conception, we generate correct belief.
Is that okay? Okay. So at the bottom of page twenty six, we have correct belief. So there is a definition of correct belief. So the definition of correct belief is authentic conceiving cognition deceptively conceiving its object, is the definition of correct belief.
It’s authentic. Here again, authentic means that its object actually exists. There’s a referent object. The object that it’s holding actually does exist. Therefore, we can say that awareness is authentic.
It’s conceiving cognition, it’s conception, therefore it’s conceiving cognition. Deceptive, here the meaning of deceptive is awareness which does not detect its object of examination. Now we have a reference to that, I hope it’s somewhere in here. Anyway, if we read back into the text, Okay. It’s on page number eleven.
For that a reference for deceptive, we go back to page eleven, towards the bottom of the page. Cognition detecting its object of examination is the definition of non deceptive awareness. So a deceptive type of awareness does not detect its object of examination or its object. So in that sense, because it still hasn’t detected its object, it’s said to be deceptive. Right.
So then there are five types. Correct belief without reason, correct belief by excluding reason, correct belief by indeterminate reason, correct belief by non establishing reason, correct belief not proven by reason, though the reason exists. There’s a bit of handful of correct beliefs there. It’s sufficient to know anyway that there’s different types of correct belief. And, basically, correct belief is conceiving a subject and a predicate, such as sound is impermanent.
Or other words, it’s conceiving a basis and the attributes of that basis. There’s some debate about whether correct belief is can just be conceiving the subject without any qualification to the subject, like just the conception of sound itself, whether that’s correct belief. The thought sound, the thought of a tree, and so on, whether that’s correct belief. In general, if we remember a tree, it’s what? Subsequent awareness, isn’t it?
It’s actually comprehending its object, isn’t it? Right? It’s non deceptive, isn’t it? That’s okay. Even if someone chops it down, the memory of it can still be a subsequent awareness, can’t it?
Because anyway, the the tree was destroyed in the second moment anyway, wasn’t it? In fact, everything is destroyed moment by moment, isn’t it? Nothing survives into the second moment. True? So no matter what we’re aware of, whatever we see in this moment doesn’t exist in the next moment.
Something similar exists, but whatever existed in the first moment doesn’t exist in the second. But still, our memories of objects can be a correct conception. So in general, when we think about something like that, like a tree, remember a tree and so forth, this is correct conception. Correct belief here in general is talking about thinking about objects and attaching attributes to them, such as sound is impermanent, Mootok is playing and so forth. So in general, correct belief is taking a basis and adding an attribute to it. And here there are five examples. So correct belief without reason is like the first.
Here given on page twenty seven, Discernment holding sound is impermanent, in dependence on the mere statement sound is impermanent. Where the statement sound is impermanent expresses the thesis sound is impermanent, but not the reason. So that’s a bit of a mouthful there. Thesis here really refers to a subject and a predicate together. Like sound is impermanent, a person is selfless, all existent entities are empty of true existence, and so on.
These are theses. So the first one there is developing correct belief about something without a reason. Sound is impermanent, without any reason whatsoever. If we just believe that sound is impermanent, then this is correct belief without reason. Okay.
Now the second one here is, correct belief by excluding reason. So if we hold, if we develop a discernment that hold sound is impermanent by reason, that sound is empty of function, then that is a correct belief by an excluding reason. In other words, if we were to formulate a reason, take sound, it is impermanent because it is empty of function, would that be a correct reason? Has no function. Take sound, it is impermanent because it has no function.
Sorry? It is wrong, isn’t it? Sound does function. It vibrates our eardrum. in dependence on that, we hear sound, and then we hear meaning, comprehend meaning, and so on.
So in fact, empty of function actually excludes sound, doesn’t it? Having no function excludes sound, because sound actually has a function. So therefore that second example there is called correct belief by an excluding reason. Correct belief that sound is impermanent, by reason it has no function, and having no function excludes sound. Say, a correct belief that Well, you could say, sound is impermanent because it’s permanent.
That might be even easier. Right? It’s a wrong reason, absolutely. It’s a correct belief because the predicate is correct. And the subject and the predicate exist.
The predicate conforms to the subject. No. The the reason there is wrong. Wrong reason. Correct belief.
Yep. Absolutely. That’s okay. The reason’s wrong, but the thesis is right. That’s right.
If you believe Santa. Exactly. Yep. Well, take or you could say, you know, that How common is that it could be created by god? Yeah.
That’s a that’s a correct belief. So The reason is wrong. It’s a correct belief with a reason. It’s an excluding reason from the Buddhist point of view. Well, that’s right.
John Howard is prime minister because he won the vote. Is a correct belief based on a correct reason? Sorry. No, but the thesis has to exist. Fundamentally, in the definition of correct belief it says authentic.
Authentic there simply means the thesis must be true. The thesis must exist. Sound must be impermanent. John Howard must be prime minister. That’s right.
Oh, well, if one has a wrong reason, that correct belief is never gonna get beyond the level of correct belief. One has to the right reason or potential reality of that? Not necessarily. Then it takes time. Then one Then one has to wait until that process matures in a sense.
Right. So this will come up as we go through these examples. So the first example there is correct belief without a reason. So just holding sound is impermanent. Then the second one is correct belief through by an excluding reason, where the reason actually excludes, the subject and the predicate both.
Now, the third one there is correct belief by indeterminate reason. So, for example, discernment holding sound is impermanent by reason of being an assessed object, where assessed object is the indeterminate reason for establishing that. Here, assessed object just means it exists. Anything which exists is an assessed object. So if we say, sound is impermanent because it exists, It’s really indeterminate, isn’t it?
Just because it exists doesn’t mean to say that it’s impermanent. Is that true or It’s no pervasion exactly. If it exists, it’s not pervasive that it must be impermanent. Well, it’s possible. Some people do assert that that if it exists, it must be impermanent.
There’s nothing which is permanent. And if that were the case, then that would be a correct reason. But there are things that are permanent, so therefore it’s an incorrect reason. So therefore that’s an indeterminate reason because just giving that reason that it exists cannot determine that subject to be the impermanent or permanent. So therefore, it’s indeterminate.
But holding that thesis by that reason, that indeterminate reason still is correct belief. And the fourth one here is discernment holding sound is impermanent by reason of being a held object of eye awareness. So this is correct belief by non establishing reason. Is that a correct reason? Take sound, it’s impermanent because it’s an object of eye awareness.
No. It’s not, is it? So that’s a non establishing reason. The reason it’s said to be a non establishing reason is that the subject itself does not conform to the reason. Sound is not an object of eye awareness.
So