Tenets, 30 June 1994, part 2

The subsequent perception is of two types, conceptual subsequent perception and non conceptual subsequent perception. Conceptual subsequent perception is the second moment of direct valid knowledge. For example, when direct valid knowledge perceives its object first time it is a valid knowledge. That very direct valid knowledge in the second moment becomes a non-conceptual subsequent perception. The third moment and so forth, all of them.

Subsequent perception is the second moment, second and onward. The moments onward from second of inferential valid knowledge. This to explain what mean, say, an inferential valid knowledge by way of reasoning infers impermanence. Way of reasoning infers impermanence, the first moment becomes inferential valid knowledge. Such inferential valid knowledge realizing impermanence in its next moment, second moment and third moment onward becomes conceptual subsequent perception because it is perceiving something already perceived earlier and it is conceptual because it is in something not direct but relying on reasoning, and it is in the aspect of concept.

In that way, we can then say conceptual subsequent perception, a way of describing it in another way, be such as the second moment of inferential knowledge perceiving sound as impermanent. The second moment of the inferential knowledge perceiving a person as selfless or the selflessness of a person. All of such moments, second moment and onward, are examples of conceptual subsequent perceptions. Subsequent perception is a correct mind because it perceives its object well, correctly. Therefore, the first three of the seven parts of mind, Direct valid knowledge or direct knowledge simply, inferential knowledge or inferential valid knowledge, and this third subsequent perception.

These three are good mind in the sense they are correct mind understanding or knowing their objects. Then the second type of non valid mind is wrong knowledge. The definition of wrong knowledge is knowledge incorrect. Which So it is simply incorrect knowledge, but the phrase used is knowledge which is incorrect. Wrong perception is wrong knowledge.

Wrong knowledge is a mind which is completely perverted in the sense completely contrary to what the object actually is. So it is completely opposite of the way it is. So in a way it is like a perverted or a turned turned back knowledge, in that sense, wrong knowledge. Wrong knowledge is of two types conceptual wrong knowledge and non conceptual wrong knowledge. Conceptual wrong knowledge and non conceptual wrong knowledge.

Now With regards to the conceptual wrong knowledge, let’s first look at what is correct conceptual knowledge. With regards to that, let’s look at this example. If one realizes through reasoning that I is impermanent, in that way if one has the first moment of realization of I as impermanent, then that becomes inferential valid knowledge the first moment and the second moment onward becomes subsequent perception. Now the impermanence about myself or I is a factual thing. Yet, if one misconceives or perceives knows, in the sense perceives I as permanent, then that is a conceptual wrong knowledge.

And that is an example of a conceptual wrong knowledge. And it is wrong knowledge because I it’s not permanent. It is impermanent, but it is wrongly conceived or perceived as permanent. We can look at examples say flower is impermanent, table is impermanent, book is impermanent, the light is impermanent, but the wrong knowledge in the case of wrong knowledge, the light would be perceived as permanent. Although it is impermanent, the book would be perceived as permanent.

The flower would be perceived as permanent, one cell, if we have a further example, one cell would be perceived as permanent. In that way it is mind which knows in the sense The word actually is knows, which knows or perceives things wrongly. And all these are in the conceptual aspect and they are called conceptual wrong knowledge. Ego grasping of person which is ignorance, that too is a conceptual wrong knowledge. Conceptual wrong knowledge therefore is called as such because it is a concept as it is a wrong knowledge.

Then what is meant by non conceptual wrong knowledge? Well, it can be seen by way of examples such as such as perceiving white snow mountain as blue or yellow. Or another example, say, if someone is suffering from bile imbalance bile imbalance, then if in front of such person’s eyes, if there is a white colored conch shell, it would appear to the person’s eye consciousness as yellow, although it is not yellow. So such eye consciousness perceiving white conch shell as yellow is a non conceptual wrong knowledge. The example of when we drive cars fast or when in the ferry as passenger, when the ferry is going quite fast, then outside the trees seem to be going so fast.

So such knowledge of seeing or perceiving trees as going or moving fast is non-conceptual wrong knowledge, and there it is caused by the transport vehicle being going so fast that it distorts and causes to have such sight and perceiving wrongly. These are called non conceptual wrong knowledge because of the obvious reason. It is wrong knowledge, wrongly, incorrectly, wrongly engaging in the object. And it is non conceptual because it is not a concept. It’s not a concept yet a mind seeing object directly.

Yeah. Those are the two reasons. So we’ll perhaps stop here for tonight. Tonight amongst the five types of non valid knowledge, subsequent perception, and wrong knowledge, the two first have been gone over and we shall go through the three next time and instead for remaining time it would be good if you have any questions. The That is right.

Yep. It is one of the three correct minds. Mhmm. That’s right. So it’s just matter of definition.

Knowledge is fresh and infallible. So it doesn’t qualify the fresh part, the subsequent perception. That’s right. Subsequent perception is yet not a valid mind and by that way they explain how if something is correct it doesn’t have to be valid. So the two valid knowledges are correct, yet if something is a correct knowledge doesn’t have to go back as a valid knowledge.

So the fresh part which is missing in the subsequent perception. The fresh, fresh, fresh and infallible. That’s right. The fresh part is the missing part in subsequent perception. Because of that, it doesn’t qualify as a valid knowledge.

So based on one particular object, it cannot be possible to have a mixture of those parts of mind, new categories of mind. So the clarification of your point translated was when one sees a person first time and when one knows at that moment the name of a person that is valid knowledge. But couldn’t at that moment as well be a subsequent perception of knowing such shape of being as a human already known in the past. So yeah, it cannot, in that case, be simultaneous. Firstly, there would have to be valid knowledge and then subsequent knowledge would follow after.

So if it is the same object of the mind at that moment, then these categories of mind occur sequentially. But if it is a different object then there can be mixed meaning simultaneous. For example, when here, when looking down can see all the people, in that sense, there is subsequent perception of seeing everyone. But they, without previous here, there is something new today to be perceived. So that’s a new perception.

Yeah. So there would be a subsequent perception focused on Dale and valid knowledge focused on Dale’s head. They’re two different objects. Yes. It is possible, but that would mean one become a Buddha at that stage.

Yeah. Because to a Buddha’s mind, everything is direct when it is knowledge, and other six types of mind are terminated. I was saying it could be depressing thing, but it’s a fact. That’s right. Yeah.

Good point. Direct valid knowledge, inferential valid knowledge, subsequent perception, they are not. What’s called wrong knowledge. So the moment they arise when do they arise? The moment they arise would be the time they arise when the causes and conditions are gathered.

For example with flower, their first initial perception of flower is direct valid knowledge and any other thing perceived directly fresh is a direct valid perception. Similarly when one meditates and thinks about impermanence consequently if one realizes impermanence directly, that is direct valid knowledge perceiving impermanence. So in a way yes conventionally but that’s still on a conventional level. And in that way, yes, when they arise they arise due to causes and conditions. The point raised on that is because we look at that from this coarse group’s point of view that it is still valid, direct valid knowledge.

But now let’s say in accordance with perspective of Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika then it would be said that the five senses when perceives their objects then the eye perceiving form would perceive our form as truly existing and forms do appear to eye as truly existing. Sounds similarly do appear as truly existing. And the explanation they are given is because the sense consciousnesses are stained by true-grasping, the grasping that phenomena truly exist. And as long as there is true-grasping due to that as long as there is a wrapping or staining of the sense consciousness with the true-grasping, objects of the five senses would appear to the five sense consciousness as truly existing. But the moment one removes true-grasping then they would not appear anymore as truly existing.

And that would be right in the context of prasangika. Oh, So in there still it would be said it is mistaken but it is not wrong. Wrong word actually used is in Tibetan the opposite, perverted complete opposite. And therefore, if something is mistaken, it does not have to be wrong. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Thank you all. This one is up and wasn’t there. Yeah.

So next session, there will be the examination.