Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute teaching, Ven Jampa Ignyen embarks on a detailed study of correct belief, the fourth of seven types of cognition, by working through a classical Buddhist philosophical debate about the nature of conception. The core question: does a generic image of a vase comprise all four objects that a conceiving mind engages with — the appearing object, referent object, conceived object, and engaged object? Drawing on extended examples with a vase and a bowl, he shows how conception fundamentally differs from perception: direct perception holds its reference object directly as its appearing object, while conception operates through generic images that appear *as* the object without being identical to it. He traces why this distinction is crucial for understanding how the mind grasps objects and for later realizing emptiness. Pitched at practitioners with prior training in Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 07 M and C 2001 08 21.mp3
UUID: 5adc2053-69ce-4a32-8db8-838a042ee171
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Mind and Cognition 2001 Month 07-09 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-08-21
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.2 minutes
Words: ~4,276
Seven types of cognition. And at present, which one are we doing? Correct belief. Yes. So correct belief What is correct belief?
Yeah. In the definition? It’s just that’s how it is in the Tibetan. It’s the Tibetan term for conceiving. Means to conceive or to long for something.
It’s a Tibetan word, shem. There’s a very famous text called the Sdom pa bzhi bral, the freedom from the four longings or the four conceivings by Śākyapandita. Here, this conceiving does refer to conception. So basically what correct belief is, is the conception of an existent entity. If the reference object of it exists, then we can call it correct belief.
Even like the conception of a vase is correct belief. Also, note that from previously, the correct conception is always new. Also correct belief is the exists within the substantial continuum of correct conception. First we have correct belief, and then from that we develop correct conception through a valid reason. So it’s the substantial cause.
Correct belief is the substantial cause of correct conceptual awareness. It’s a very important state for us because it’s now again, we have the seven types of mind, don’t we? Everyone everyone should be familiar with what the seven types of awareness are. There is valid perception, valid inference. We should memorize these by now too.
It’s not difficult to memorize. Valid perception, valid inference, subsequent awareness, correct belief, inattentive awareness, doubt. Sorry? Wrong words. Wrong awareness.
Wrong awareness. Yes. Wrong awareness. That order is very important. That’s more or less the order that we’re working in in reverse.
We’re starting at number seven. Basically, where we are is back in number seven. What’s number seven? Wrong awareness. We’ve got a lot of wrong awareness.
And beyond that we’ve got doubt. Beyond that inattentive awareness and then correct belief. We have quite a lot of correct belief. And then what’s after correct belief? Subsequent awareness.
Actually, awareness comes over valid inference or valid, comes after either valid inference or valid perception. So in developing correct awareness, we’re really starting down with wrong awareness first. And then from wrong awareness, we progress to doubt. And from doubt, we progress to correct belief. And from correct belief, progress to valid awareness.
And from valid awareness, we progress to subsequent awareness. So that’s that’s the general. That’s what we’re trying to achieve, that movement from in that direction. Is that okay? We haven’t got the wrong awareness yet, but Anyway, here we are at correct belief.
We’re going down in the other way. So we’re at correct belief at present. Now some of these debates on correct belief are useful. Some of them are more a little bit more obscure. We might just read through one of them, one or two of them, because they do give some extra information on on correct belief.
Why are we bothering to study these states of mind? Why do we need to recognize them? But what’s the purpose, for instance, in being able to look internally and say, oh, there’s a correct belief or there’s a doubt or there’s wrong awareness? At present, we really think that many of our wrong awareness says, plural, are correct. We’re correctly comprehending things as they are.
But in fact, they’re wrong awareness because wrong awareness holds its object in the wrong way, in a way that it doesn’t exist. Like grasping a true existence is wrong awareness. And that we have. We have the innate version. We have the imputed or the active version of that.
Self grasping can be a mental factor of ignorance. It can be the main mind associated with ignorance and so on. But at present we have lots of wrong awarenesses. We need to comprehend them at least in the beginning to be wrong awareness before we’ll ever try and change them. So one of the one reason why we’re looking at these seven types of awareness is so that we gain an understanding internally of these seven types of awareness.
It’s not to say that we’re going to be sitting there like twenty four hours a day looking at this wrong awareness, and this is a correct belief, and another wrong awareness, and so on, like this. This is really beyond our scope, and not necessarily that beneficial for us. But here it’s when we should check from time to time what our mind is doing. And especially when we have strong like, especially with minds that agitate, that don’t allow us to relax or disturb our mental continuum, then we should investigate whether it’s correct awareness or not. If it’s correct awareness, then actually it won’t disturb the mental continuum.
If it does disturb the mental continuum, make it coarse and unsettled and unhappy and so on, then it’s an indication that it’s a wrong awareness. Roughly speaking. Ultimately, want to overcome all wrong awareness or doubt. Even correct belief we want to overcome. Although it’s very useful to us, at present we need it very much.
But ultimately we need it’s something that’s left behind as one progresses, like as a Buddha for instance. But at present we certainly need to develop correct belief. Before we develop correct belief we develop doubt. Doubt about the wrong awareness or the objects of the wrong awareness that we presently have, whether manifest or unmanifest. Right.
So there’s some further debate about correct belief. Now halfway down page twenty eight, there’s a debate. The generic image of a vase is the four objects of conception holding a vase. Now someone is saying this. The generic image of a vase is the four objects of conception, of that conception which is holding a vase.
Now the four objects here are to do with the appearing object, the referent object and so on. Now, is that correct? Is the generic image all of those things like a referent object? An appearing object? Conceived object?
No, it isn’t. The generic image is the appearing object. It’s the main appearing object as distinct from the secondary appearing object. But anyways, one person is saying this to the author. So this comes up in the conception holding a vase is what?
It’s a type of awareness, isn’t it? So of the seven types of awareness, which one is it in general? Belief. Yeah. Conception comprehending of us would probably be either what’s comprehension or conception comprehending a vase?
Could be subsequent awareness. Yep. Or it could be no? Conception comprehending of us. It could also be valid inference.
Anyway, so here, this person is, making a debate. The generic image of a vase is the four objects of the conception holding a vase. Now the author Phywa pa would not accept this. And therefore he says, we say take the generic image of a vase. It follows it is the conceived object of conception holding a vase because it is the four objects.
Reason accepted. The four objects are back on page number eight, for instance, where it gives object. George, do you have a copy of the Yeah. Same. Same book.
Yeah. Might be useful otherwise. Yes. We haven’t progressed that much. In fact, in this text, we could probably could spend a long time on this text because there is so much meaning just packed into the text itself that it’d be quite easy to spend a long time.
So anyway, on page number eight, we have, if objects are classified, there are appearing objects, conceived objects, engaged objects. And then below that, we’ve got So really we’ve got a peering object. A peering object here and held object are the same. Conceived object and oh, what do we have at the very beginning? No, we don’t have that.
So anyway, the four objects here, it’s interesting they say four. We have a classification into five or classification into three. So which of the four is actually meant is not so clear. It doesn’t matter. What’s being referred to there is, say, the appearing object, the referent object, the conceived object, maybe the engaged object as well or the held object.
Doesn’t really matter. So anyway, the author here is saying, if so, take that subject. So the subject here is the generic image of a vase. So the generic image of a vase is definitely one of the So what the person is saying is take the generic image of a vase, it is the four objects. So the author says take the generic image of a vase, it follows it is the conceived object because it’s all four objects.
If so, take that subject, the generic image of a vase. Has everyone got this section here? So the author says: It is the assessed object of the conception holding a vase because it is its conceived object. And it’s its conceived object because it’s one of the four objects, because it’s the generic image. It’s each of the four objects because it’s the generic image.
So then the author says, if so, take conception holding a vase. It follows in consequence. It is discernment not mistaken about the generic image of a vase. Right? Because the generic image is the conceived object or the assessed object.
In other words, the referent object of the conception. If so, take that subject. It follows in consequence the generic image of a vase does not appear as a vase to it. So here, basically what the author is doing is saying that the generic image of a vase can’t be all four objects of the conception of a vase, because the generic image of a vase is only the appearing object. It can’t be the conceived object.
Here the conceived object is referring to the referent object or the vase itself. And if the generic image were the referent object, then because the conception holding a vase is an authentic type of awareness, meaning its object exists and it holds its object to exist, then it cannot be mistaken consciousness, a mistaken awareness. So in other words, what is being said here is that the in other words, the generic image cannot be all four objects for a conception, say, the conception of a vase. If it were, then there would be all these fallacies that would occur downstream. Why are we looking at conception here?
We’re looking at conception here and the nature of conception because this is what correct belief is. Correct belief is something like the conception of a vase. It’s correct belief because it fits that definition. It is what? Authentic, conceiving cognition, deceptively conceiving its object.
Here authentic because its object exists. It’s deceptive because, it’s mistaken awareness, because it’s holding its object It’s mistaken awareness because it’s mistaken to its appearing object, because it’s mistaken to its generic image. This we dealt with before. All conception is deceptive in that way. All conception is mistaken to its appearing image.
Because the appearing image, the main appearing object is the generic image. If in fact the generic image was the reference object, the generic image would no longer be the appearing object. It would no longer be awareness mistaken to the generic image. And as it says in the last section here, the generic image of a vase would not appear as a vase to it. It would appear in the way it actually exists.
It would destroy conception altogether. Because our conception, at present, we’re unable to discern that the generic image is not the object we we’re trying to hold. And that’s why it’s mistaken awareness because the conception is holding the generic image. As it says here, we’re holding the generic image to be a vase, in other words. Yeah.
When we think of vase, we’re holding a vase with that conception. In general, when we have to look, we look at a vase, we need the actual vase in front of us to do it. We need some means of holding the vase. If it’s there, we need eye awareness focused on it. We need light.
We need that light striking the retina. We need to be attentive to what’s happening. And so on. We need all these conditions. Then we can look and we can see a vase.
Conception also needs certain, conception is dependent on generic images. And without a generic image that looks like a vase, we cannot conceive of a vase. So when we think of a vase, we’re actually accessing the generic image of a vase to hold a vase. We can’t think of vase without a generic image. There is a referent object.
The referent object of the conception of a does exist because it’s like authentic awareness. It’s correct belief. Its object exists. What’s the object of the conception of a vase? Vase itself, isn’t it?
Vase is holding conception of a vase is holding a vase. It’s not holding the generic image. This in fact is what the debate is coming down to. Someone is saying that the generic image of a vase is all four objects for the conception of a vase. Yeah.
Yeah. That’s why it’s mistaken because the generic image is the appearance of a vase when not a vase to the conception holding vase. Generic image of a vase is not a vase, but it appears to be a vase. And in dependence on that appearing to them, our awareness, to conception, we hold the vase. We don’t hold the generic image.
Even so, the generic image is an object of that conception. It’s the appearing object. What this debate is about is just differentiating, say the appearing object of conception from the reference object of conception. This is not easy, but it’s important because this is dealing here with the area of correct belief. So it’s basically dealing with the identity of what correct belief is.
For us, it’s just about impossible. We’re aware of the referent object. When one is able to begin to differentiate the referent object from the appearing object in conception, one is close to realizing, emptiness. It’s difficult for us to separate the reference object from the generic image. The generic image is very subtle.
It’s not something that we at present have the capacity to comprehend. The mind is not enough. The mind is not stable enough as yet to do that. But Or the conceptions themselves. Yeah.
A conception can be valid. Absolutely. And in fact, scientific method is valid. But here we’re talking about the process of conception itself. How does conception function?
Conception, although it can is valid, it is at the same time deceptive or mistaken because conception is always mistaken to its appearing object. So this is the point that is being made here. As it says, if we were to say that the generic image is the referent object of the conception holding a vase, in consequence, the generic image of a vase would not appear as a vase to it. This is a very interesting point. What he’s saying is that conception has a particular process.
If we try and explain it differently, then it’s hard to establish the nature of conception itself. That in fact, the generic image of a vase is that which appears as a vase. It appears to that conception, and by appearing to conception, we hold a vase. And that occurs in every instance of conception. We’re using a generic image like in our memory or like in our speculation about the future and so on.
The reason why we’re investigating this is to gradually develop keener insight into the process of conception, which is so important to us. No. We don’t hold the appearance. We hold, here, the appearing object. We don’t hold the appearing object.
Object. We hold the referent object. In a way, the generic image is like a set of glasses, which allows us to focus on the object. And just as we don’t see the glasses as we look through them, We don’t see the generic image.
We don’t discern it as an object. No. It doesn’t hold generic image. Conception. Well, for instance, we can have well, we can use this bowl instead.
We can look at the bowl and we have an eye awareness comprehending the bowl. At the same time, we can think about the bowl. That thought that we have of the bowl, examining the bowl, analyzing the bowl, which is conception, is using a generic image of the bowl to do it. But that generic image is the appearing object of the conception. It’s not the referent object of the conception.
The bowl is the referent object of the eye awareness and also the appearing object of the eye awareness that’s looking at it. But for the conception holding the bowl, the bowl is the reference object and not the appearing object. On the other hand, generic image of the bowl is the appearing object and not the reference object. Yes. It is yeah.
It is. Just in brief. That bowl is the reference object of conception holding it, but it’s not the appearing object. Yeah. It’s the also the appearing, in terms of perception, the eye perception.
Yeah. Yeah. That’s right. For authentic perception, sense perception, generally, the reference object coincides with the appearing object or an appearing object. But, even so, the eye awareness that’s focused on such an object, can have different appearing objects as well.
But generally sorry? No. Here I’m talking about more so the impermanence of the object is also an appearing object of the eye awareness holding it. The impermanence of the bowl is also also appears it’s an appearing object. All the what is the impermanence of the bowl?
It exactly. It’s just the fact that the atoms and molecules are in continuous motion. That there’s not one particle that’s not changing moment by moment in this bowl. That in fact appears to our eye awareness, doesn’t it? Because there’s nothing the substance there’s of that bowl is not separate from the impermanence of the bowl, is it?
Then you can’t separate them out. If the bowl appears, the fact that what it consists of, all those atoms and molecules are in continuous motion also appears because there’s no other bowl other than that. Yes, sir. We don’t perceive it, but still it appears. Exactly.
But No. No. No. We’re just talking about perception here. This the fact that that is changing moment by moment appears to eye awareness, but eye awareness cannot hold it.
It’s too subtle for eye awareness to hold onto. Whereas the the bowl itself, eye awareness holds. Well, the impermanence of the bowl is a referent object, definitely, but not for eye awareness holding it. It’s more for the the conception holding the bowl to be impermanent is holding that. But eye awareness, because it’s reasonably gross in comparison to other types of awareness, doesn’t hold the impermanence.
Cannot hold it. But still the impermanence appears. So the impermanence of the bowl is an appearing object. It doesn’t perceive. It appears the impermanence of the bowl appears to the eye awareness because there’s no other, because that impermanence of the bowl is one in substance with the bowl itself.
There’s no if the bowl appears, the impermanence of the bowl appears along with it. Yeah. True. But also when we think about it No. No.
This is all in the level of concealer or relative truth. But if we don’t assert that, then we’re in danger of asserting that there is the impermanence of the vase and the vase itself are different in substance. Like there’s a fixed vase that we look at with our eye awareness, which appears to be fixed, right? And not changing. And then on the other hand, there’s an impermanent vase or bowl that’s changing moment to moment that also exists.
But these two are not actually separate, are they? They’re they’re the same. If one appears, the other appears. We don’t have to hold it. We only have to hold it if it’s correct.
We don’t have to accept it’s correct. Well, no, it’s not really. It’s more well, it doesn’t actually, understanding impermanence is useful for us in obtaining eventual understanding of emptiness. But what we need here is the fact. And if we can’t establish that the impermanence of the bowl is of the same substance as the bowl itself, then we really need to examine this in great detail.
We need to understand what the fact is. Are they the one substance or not? What faults would arise if they weren’t the same substance? For instance, if they’re not the same substance, then we should be able to separate them at the impermanence of the bowl over there and the bowl over here. If in fact they are the same substance, then why would it be that if the bowl appeared, its impermanence wouldn’t appear?
Because the basis of designation of the bowl, is just what? It’s the bowl with its parts. And when we go down, what is there? If it just all is looks like copper atoms. Yep.
But still, you don’t have in one sense, there’s no choice because all it is there are, you know, fibers of wool and they’re composed of atoms and molecules. Although we can’t our eye awareness cannot discriminate the separate atoms and molecules, still that’s all that’s there, isn’t it? There’s nothing more than atoms and molecules there. Synthetic. Oh, that’s okay.
This is not having a conception. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we accept that it’s made of wait a minute. We accept that it’s made of atom.
Well, we accept that it’s made of atoms and molecules, don’t we? Yeah. We need to accept that. Accepting it’s made of atoms and molecules is a type of conception. Yes.
It’s a correct belief in relation to the bowl. Then if we accept that, then we need to investigate whether in fact that the atoms and molecules of the bowl are separate from the bowl itself. They’re separate in name, but not separate in substance. The heat is not in here. So anyway, this example here is of something which is an appearing object to eye awareness, but not a reference object.
It’s possible that something can be a reference object of authentic eye awareness. It can be a reference object, but not an appearing object. Here, it can be an appearing object, but not a reference object. Actually, to get an example of something which is the reference object but not the appearing object, maybe more Sometimes it’s asserted that we can actually see. Our eye awareness can be indirectly aware of uncompounded space.
We can look in front of us and see that there’s nothing obstructing us, and we can go ahead. Is that possible? Lack of obstruction cannot appear to eye awareness because it’s permanent. But if eye awareness is aware of lack of obstruction, here some say eye awareness can be aware of the basis of designation of lack of obstruction, which is this sort of vacuous color. Well, eye awareness is only all that can appear to eye awareness is color and shape.
So if we have lack of obstruction, if it were to appear to us or This is why I think that it’s space space. How do you how do you mean conception mixed with it? Well, you really one wouldn’t talk about space and conception being mixed in a sense. But space can be an object of conception. This example here is just trying to find an example where something is the reference object of sense awareness, but it’s not the appearing object.
And some assert that lack of obstruction can be comprehended indirectly by eye awareness. And when it says indirectly comprehended and not directly comprehended, it means they’re it’s comprehended without that object appearing to it. Anyway, all we’re doing here is just doing a few examples of, correct belief. And, but these these issues are very important. Whether in fact, for instance, the molecules and the atoms of a bowl appear to the eye when it’s holding it.
One of the reasons for that is eventually when we’re examining emptiness, and emptiness is also the same, essence as the bowl itself. The emptiness of this cannot be separated from the bowl. There’s a similarity between understanding its impermanence. The difference there is that the emptiness is permanent and the bowl is impermanent. The question then arises, how does the emptiness keep up with the bowl?
How does the bowl keep up with the emptiness? Because the bowl itself is impermanent. Its emptiness is permanent. Sorry? Exactly.
No. No. It’s it just cannot nonexist. It cannot not-exist. That’s all.
It can, While the bowl exists, its emptiness exists. That’s all. It doesn’t change. Its emptiness doesn’t change from moment to moment, but the bowl does. Does.
What? The emptiness? Yeah. Emptiness continuous only applies to impermanent things. But if the bowl is changing moment to moment, how does its emptiness keep up with it if it’s permanent?
How does it know what to do if it’s impermanence is going in this direction? No. Emptiness is not a substance. That’s why that is not a That’s why that’s not said to be a from this Svatāntrika point of view, they say therefore, for that reason, it is not a definitive treatise. Sorry?
The same entity here, the same essence.