Course Vocabulary

When studying a text that was originally written in a different language than English, it is important to understand there is a larger conceptual basis behind certain terms, and they may have different meanings according to context. Without knowing the root term in Tibetan and/or Sanskrit, and how it may have different connotations in different contexts, it can easily be misunderstood.

Furthermore, the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism, such as Gelug, may have a different concept for a term and use it differently than the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions. If you were reading their texts then you would need to know what their definition of the term is to understand accurately.

Below are some frequently used terms and a brief clarification of their meaning in this context.

There are several terms for mind in Tibetan, each with a slightly different quality. Sometimes this term lo, is translated as “intellect” or “rational mind.” In the case of mind training, “mind” works fine as a translation, but take note that it is primarily referring to conceptual mind and in other contexts it should be translated differently. To always translate the word lo simply as “mind,” unfortunately does not convey the full complexity or nuance of the meaning and some level of understanding is lost in other contexts.

This term specifically refers to a mind that is discriminating, that can make distinctions between this and that. It is a mind that can carry the activities of rational thought. It is not used to describe the mind of animals or insects, although it is unknown if it is used solely to describe a human mind. It clearly describes the rational mind of a dualistic being, the particular mind, which is always at the root of a sentient being’s problems.

When we translate this term simply as mind, unfortunately the specific attribute it connotes is lost, being swallowed up in the larger term, mind (sem). Yet when we use words like intellect or rational people don’t realize it includes all conceptual mind, which includes disturbing emotions and thoughts. Sometimes those thoughts and emotions are anything but intelligent or rational. So intellect and rational can be misleading as well.

It can have both positive and negative connotations. For instance, Khentrul Rinpoche’s name is Lodrö T’hayé. The lo is this word. In this case it is saying he has infinite intelligence, intellect, or wisdom (ability to accurately discriminate and understand). But in the ultimate wisdom teachings, oftentimes when this term is used it may have a pejorative sense because it is indicating one functioning from lo (mind), which means they are in a dualistic state.

Generally, this refers to the entire mind. It includes all eight collections of consciousness. It is often defined as: “That which is conscious and aware” (as in what “knows objects” versus the non-sentient world which is not “conscious aware,” such as the inanimate world and flora). 

Here is a more specific description from the Illuminator Tibetan-English Encyclopaedic Dictionary:

<noun> “Mind”. Translation of the Sanskrit “citta”. This term is one of three terms from the Indian tradition which refer to the overall fact of mind. The madhyamaka prasangika teachings of the Gelugpa tradition state that the terms ཡིད་ (yid –– most commonly translated as conceptual mind), རྣམ་ཤེས་(namshey –– most commonly translated as consciousness), and སམས་ (sem –­ the term used here and always translated as mind) are equivalent when referring to the basic fact of “a knower”. However, each is a specific term with a specific meaning:

1. The Sanskrit “manas”, ཡིད་ (yid/conceptual mind), refers more to the ability to think, it is the idea of “the thinking mind”. 
2. The Sanskrit “vijñāna” རྣམ་ཤེས ་ (namshey/consciousness) refers more to the sense of being aware, that there is something which knows / perceives, simply speaking.
3. The Sanskrit “citta” སམས་ ,(sems/mind) refers more to the complex apparatus which contains all of the perceiving, thinking, and associated apparatus that goes with the general sense of the English word “mind”. It has the sense of “the whole cognitive apparatus of dualistic mind” and is closest of all the other terms to the general sense of the English word “mind”. 

The term sentient being is literally the words having (chan) mind (sem) in Tibetan. So wherever you see the words sentient beings, you can think, “those who have mind.” Which then means, “Those who are conscious and perceive/are aware of objects”. Mind, being the term sem, which is the whole mind, all consciousnesses, thoughts, emotions, perceptions etc. Since this word, sem (mind), is defined as “being conscious and aware,” the word sentient is a pretty good translation. Sentient is defined in the dictionary as: “able to perceive or feel things.” So to say that one has mind is by extension to say that they are conscious and aware, which means they are able to perceive or feel things; they are a sentient being.

This active verb has two meanings: 1. “To train,” “to study,” or “to learn.” 2. “To refine,” “to purify,” “to clear away,” etc. in the sense of working at the removal of faults. In the case of lo­jong, it seems to mean both. We are training our mind, which means that we are refining away and removing our faults. The premise of this is fourfold:

1. The basis for this training/refinement: jang-zhi in Tibetan. The Jang is a different tense of the above word jong. Zhi can be translated as “foundation,” “ground,” or “basis.” The basis or foundation upon which the mind has the potential to be trained, is mind itself. Itself meaning its own pure nature just as it is. Because mind’s nature is innately pure, all those factors which we wish to be free from, all flaws, are extraneous to it. Meaning that they are not its nature and so are the basis upon which they can be refined away. Therefore the basis is the nature of mind.

2. What is refined away: jong­ja in Tibetan. Jong, being the same word as the second syllable of lo­jong. However, here it would not make sense to translate this as “training,” but as its latter meaning: “purify,” “refine,” “get rid of.” The second syllable ja can be translated as “what is to be…” Combined the two syllables mean “what is being refined” or “purified” or “gotten rid of.” That is all of what produces/forms samsara, and the suffering within samsara, that is to say, the disturbing emotions and flaws within our mind (defined below).

3. What does the refining: jong­jay in Tibetan. Jong, same as above, jay, the action verb, which signifies “the agent that does that.” The agents, which do the refining/training are the methods given through these oral instructions.

4. The way in which refining occurs: jong­tsul in Tibetan. How do they refine? Through the seven key points presented here. When they are applied accordingly (tsul), meaning they train/refine/purify (jong) those factors that we want to remove. 

5. The result of training: jong­dray in Tibetan. The results (dray) of training/refining away (jong) is that suffering is eliminated by getting rid of its causes, everything that we want to be free from. When those factors are no longer the case, there is a freedom from suffering which ultimately culminates in the attainment of total purification (jang) and realization (chub), enlightenment.

Most commonly translated as “disturbing emotion,” but also translated as “afflictions,” “afflictive emotions,” “negative emotions,” “passions,” and other things. It has the sense of what moves the minds or disturbs it. The English word emotion, while having the same base definition as klesha, used alone is not enough because it can connote positive, constructive and beneficial mental states, which “move” the mind, but not in a deleterious manner. This is always afflictive.

Commonly translated as “flaw,” but can also be translated as “fault,” “defect,” “drawback,” “pitfall,” etc. It can be based on how something looks or on the fully ripened effect that it produces. It means the opposite of “good” or “positive.”

Generally, this means what it sounds like. However, in the Tibetan language it covers a broad spectrum in that it does not simply mean “still meditation,” such as shamatha, whereby the mind is undistractedly and one-­pointedly resting. In the broader context, Khentrul Rinpoche has defined it as “blending the mind with whatever virtuous quality/insight we are cultivating.” For this reason some translators have, in context, translated this as “integrate.”

Quote for memorization:

Dang po gom chan gyi gom mi tang, ma’ong pa gom gyis gom chan me tang

“First, the meditator has to hold on to the meditation and not let go. Later, the meditation holds onto the meditator and doesn’t let go.” 

This verb is often translated as “to tame,” and often joined with other syllables to become a noun, “the one who is tamed,” etc. “To tame” is the most common translation. It can also be translated as “to refine,” “to subdue,” and “to train.” You often see sentient beings being referred to as “those to be tamed” and buddhas referred to as “tamer of beings.” In this context, some translators have translated this as “beings to be guided” and “guide of beings” because there may be an averse reaction of our typical concept for the term to tame. Thus in this context to tame means “to refine away and to purify all the causes for suffering, karma, and disturbing emotions.”

This term carries the sense of “dualistic mind which is completely wrapped up in its own, completely mistaken, thought process,” and also “the ordinary thought process of thinking–­at any level–­with dualistic mind, i.e., samsaric mind.” One very important thing to remember is that most of the time this term includes disturbing emotions. So when, in the teachings, this term is used we should know that it includes anger, desire, etc. It can mean “to tame the discursive thoughts,” etc. When we think about what a disturbing emotion is, it really is a mental state that is “a way of thinking.” If the mind thought differently, it wouldn’t be disturbed. So it makes sense that the term thoughts in Tibetan actually includes disturbing emotions since they are a way of thinking that disturbs.