I don't recommend that you read books for this class, but I did make a reading list. If anyone would like it, you can come pick it up afterwards. I passed one out last time and people said, could we have a shorter reading list, please? So this one only has about eight books on it. People want more than one book and less than sixty. Also, I have a handout here that I passed out last time. For those of you who didn't get it, I have that here also, a chart, which I think we might find useful in studying mind and its functions. Also, I wanted to review what I said last week basically about the practice, the yoga

[01:11]

practice of the Bodhisattva. And one thing I thought might be interesting to mention is that there's a text called the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali. And this isn't the only teaching on yoga in India, of course, but it's an important text. And I thought I'd bring it up because of just at the beginning, right away, the author defines yoga. And the definition of yoga is basically, one translation would be that yoga is the restriction of the fluctuations of consciousness. And I might rhapsodize on that a little bit and say, by this definition,

[02:19]

yoga is the ceasing of fluctuations of consciousness, or the attenuation of the movements of consciousness, or the suppression of the whirling of consciousness. And that definition of yoga could be used in the context of so-called the Bodhisattva's yoga practice. That definition of yoga could be used to apply to the Bodhisattva's yoga practice as applying to the first of the two basic aspects of Bodhisattva yoga practice. The Bodhisattva yoga practice has one part

[03:23]

which is called tranquility or concentration, and another part which is called insight. Those are two aspects. The first part, the tranquility training, is actually training the mind to attenuate the movements of the mind, which is another way to say, training the mind or training the attention to attenuate or actually enter the process of ceasing the movements of the mind, ceasing discursive thought, attenuating, restricting discursive thought. The training of the attention towards attenuating discursive thought comes to fruit as tranquility. And in the definition of the Yoga Sutra, I think they would agree that by this kind of

[04:30]

training, this yogic training of restricting the fluctuations of consciousness that leads to samadhi or concentration. So that's the same as in the Bodhisattva yoga, is that the restricting of the discursive thought, which is the wandering, moving thought, the restricting of that comes to fruit as samadhi. It's just that the Bodhisattva's yoga is part of that restriction of thinking, it's part training the attention towards not thinking, and the other part is in the context and together with the fruit of training the mind towards non-thinking or not thinking, then one resumes thinking. So the Bodhisattva yoga practice is training the mind towards not thinking, establishing calm, and in that calm resuming

[05:35]

thinking in that calm space, and developing insight through thinking. And then the more extensive story would be, the first step is to train the attention towards not thinking, coming to fruit as tranquility or samadhi, then in that samadhi resume thinking. Actually, I'd say it again, the first step actually is to practice thinking, to receive teachings, and you think about them, and through thinking about them you

[06:42]

come to some insight, then you practice tranquility of giving up thinking, you achieve calm, and in that calm you start thinking again and get a new kind of insight. The first kind of insight comes through what you have heard and thought about. The second kind of insight comes from the insight which comes from what you heard together with the insight that comes from thinking in a state of concentration. So it's operating on the previous insight plus the insight which comes now from thinking about what you already understand, and a new kind of insight comes. And then, after that, one returns to the practice of restricting

[07:53]

the fluctuations of mind, one returns to training the mind into non-discursive silence, back into developing tranquility again, and then without thinking, the insights which have arisen before are there in this new re-entered tranquility, and then a new level of insight emerges without thinking about what you learned, what you heard, what you understood. Now, a new type of insight which arises from not thinking about the teaching and not thinking about previous understandings. So in this class, I suggested that at the beginning of the class, the first part of the class, you use that opportunity to train

[08:56]

in what Patanjali Sutra would call yoga, what I would call samadhi or tranquility. In other words, you spend the first thirty minutes about just restricting or ceasing the movements of the mind. And the instruction I gave you at the beginning, during that period, was instructions of how to be conscious and to be aware in such a way as to curtail, attenuate, stop thinking. That was the type of instruction I gave. So for example, in the herd, there'll be just the herd. So when you hear something, in that hearing, all there is, is the hearing. Or in what you hear, the herd, there's just the herd.

[10:02]

Period. There's no movement or fluctuation or whirling of the mind around that. You're giving up, being discursive about it. So for example, someone coughed during the period. So if you hear somebody cough, period. Not think about it, like, I wonder if she'll cough again, or I wonder if she put her arm over her mouth when she did that to protect my back from whatever. So I'm not doing any of that. Just, that's it. Giving up all the things you could think about that cough. And the various other sounds that we hear during our meditation period, to hear them, and in the hearing of them, there were just the herd. That's training in what Patanjali would call yoga

[11:09]

and what I would call concentration. But I think he agrees because right after that, as a result of this training, he starts talking about Samadhi. So, first there's thinking about what you're hearing. Then there's giving up thinking. Then there's tranquility. Then there's thinking about what you heard in the tranquility, and a new understanding comes from that thinking. And then there's re-entering in tranquility, and a new understanding comes without any further thinking. So that's a cycle of combining not thinking and tranquility, and thinking in tranquility.

[12:17]

And I'd like to again say something that I said in the last course, which is there's one approach to studying mind, is an approach that has its source in an Indian, a great Indian philosopher, Buddhist philosopher, or a great Indian philosopher who was, I think, who was a disciple of Buddha, and his name was Dignaga, and he has a very important disciple named Dharmakirti, and from their work we have what might be called a seven-fold division of knowledge and awareness. And so the chart is about that seven-fold division of knowledge and awareness. And the seven parts are, one part is valid perception,

[13:42]

another one is valid direct perception, another one is valid indirect cognition, valid direct cognition, which is the same as valid perception, valid indirect cognition, which also could be said to be valid conceptual cognition. Those are the first two types. Is that clear? The third type is subsequent cognition, and that means a cognition which follows these two types of valid cognition. So after the valid perception happens, or valid conception happens, then based on that, without getting any new information, but just sort of reiterating that knowledge which came through those two types of valid sources,

[14:46]

there can be subsequent cognitions based on those previous two. The third type of cognition. Fourth is a correct belief. Subsequent cognition. And the third is called correct belief. In other words, something you believe is correct. For example, if you have heard about the teaching of impermanence, and you think that's probably true, or you're quite sure it's true, or you think it really is true, that would be, in this tradition, considered to be a correct belief. It's a conceptual cognition, and it's correct. Next kind is doubting consciousness, or doubting cognition,

[15:47]

a cognition where you're not sure about what's going on, or indecision, indecisive cognition. And the next kind is called, well, this isn't necessarily the right order, but anyway, inattentive perception. Inattentive perception. That's another type. And another type, final type, is mistaken or wrong cognition. Those are the seven types, and I think we'll be able to go through all seven in this course. As a matter of fact, I could go through all seven right now, and then we'll go into detail later. So, valid perception means a perception, a direct perception, where you know something.

[17:00]

For example, you maybe know a color. Blue, for example. You cognize it, and you ascertain that you cognize it. You actually know that you're cognizing blue. And you know it with certainty. And you know it as it's actually happening. And you know it in its freshness and newness. And you actually know for sure that it was blue. And you're right, it is. So, it's correct, you're correct, and you're certain, and you ascertain, and it's fresh. And then, jumping to the subsequent cognition,

[18:05]

based on this, you could see a bunch of other blues, and know those too, and be correct. But the correctness was based on the certainty of that first one. You're still certain, but it was based on that first one that you're certain. You're not really having that impact, that startling impact of a sudden certainty that you had on the first one. It's a repeat. And also, it's not fresh anymore. So, it lacks the shock of the initial certainty and also of the initial freshness. So, it's not really, according to Dignaga, it's not really a source of knowledge. It is a re-experiencing of the knowledge. And it's still correct, because it's subsequent to a correct perception in this case,

[19:10]

but it lacks the initial impact of the coming from not being certain about something, because it hasn't happened, and suddenly being certain that it's happening, plus for the first time. Okay? So, that would be a subsequent cognition following a direct perception of this valid type. Is that clear? Then, the other next kind... So, I just did the first and the third. The next kind, the second kind, is a conceptual cognition where you are also, for the first time about something, for example, like impermanence. I mentioned that you could correctly believe that phenomena that are composed, that are compounded, like people and trees and mountains and planets and stars and galaxies and Cadillacs, all these things are impermanent.

[20:11]

You could believe that teaching, and that would be correctly believing consciousness. Okay? However, in this second type of valid conceptual cognition, you don't just believe impermanence, you actually understand for sure that it's true, and you actually have knowledge that it's impermanence, not just hearing about it and saying it's reasonable. As a matter of fact, even just being really sure, but irrefutably sure, can only come to conceptual cognition by reasoning. So, you've heard about impermanence. You think it's right, and then you study and think about it and reason about it until you not just believe it's true, but you know.

[21:11]

You know it. You know it's true. Not by directly seeing impermanence, but by reasoning about the teaching of impermanence. And you know, and you know it for the first time. And that is an example of valid or perfect conceptual cognition, where the first time, and that you're completely certain about something which you might have believed before, but also it could be something you didn't believe before, but just something you were studying, you weren't sure. And then from that, there can also be another subsequent cognition from the conceptual cognition. So, if you look at the chart, you'll see on the line for perception, the first example of perception is this valid perception, and then you'll go down and you'll see that under subsequent cognition, following that valid perception, there will be a subsequent cognition, which is a perception.

[22:13]

And then when you come to correct, authentic, valid conception, there will be on that line a subsequent cognition, in this case a subsequent conceptual cognition. But again, you're still certain, because you've already become certain about this point of, for example, impermanence, you're still certain, but this state of consciousness didn't do the work of becoming certain. It inherited the uncertainty from a previous consciousness, which is really the source of this certainty. And also it's not fresh anymore. So those are the first three. Then correct belief, I think I already, you know, that you would hear about impermanence, or you hear about interdependence, and it would make sense to you, and you would think it's probably true, or, you know, really it's true, but you're not certain about it, the way you're certain about sometimes that something is blue,

[23:16]

and you just know it is. And again, believing impermanence, or believing independent co-arising, and studying them and reasoning, and believing the teaching that things lack self, but studying it and reasoning it with it, until in all those cases, for those teachings, and also for these teachings on mind, you receive them conceptually, you think about them, you reason with them, they seem reasonable. Like you might think, yeah, this seems reasonable, what he's saying about mind, but you study it until you actually know it. And the first time you know it is the source of your knowing. The second time is an accord, but it's not the source, of course. But it's not just not the source, but it doesn't have that same stamping of your mind with that kind of hard work of thinking about the teaching. Thinking, discussing, questioning, arguing,

[24:17]

until you're sure. And suddenly at that point, your mind gives rise to a new state of knowledge. And so, for these teachings of dependent co-arising, emptiness, selflessness, impermanence, these teachings come to you through words, through thinking, you reason about them, and then you come to have this certainty. So you go from correctly believing to a valid, perfect, conceptual cognition that those teachings are true. And then it's also possible, once you have that, to have a direct perception that these teachings are true. Then comes an inattentive perception, inattentive perception, inattentive direct perception.

[25:19]

So I use the example for the first category of like seeing blue and knowing that you see blue, right in the fresh, in that moment of seeing blue, you see that blue. And you know you see that blue. And it's irrefutable and fresh. But it's also possible to see blue, and most of the time we do, when we see blue, we see blue in an inattentive way. Where the blue is appearing to us, our cognition is impacted by it, it is appearing to our cognition, correctly, it is blue and it appears as blue. We're engaged with blue, and blue appears blue. And this is called a true perception. When blue appears to you, that's how it appears to you? That's right. And it actually is blue? That's right. That's a true perceptual cognition. But most of the time, very high percentage of the time, that appears to us, but we don't ascertain it.

[26:21]

We don't know, we don't actually ascertain like, yes, I saw blue just now. And we'll go into more details about that, but that's a very common type of direct perception of colors, smells, sounds, tastes, tangibles, and even mental perceptions, where we don't really know that we're having them consciously. I mean, there's some consciousness, but it's not ascertained. But it's not like direct, valid perception, where you actually know you're, and you actually are there in a perceptual moment, and you actually know it. But there it is, it's an important aspect of our life. And then there's wrong consciousness, or mistaken consciousness, and there's a little handout on that too, on the back of the chart, where we discuss, on the back of the chart, of these different types of consciousness and knowledge,

[27:22]

there's a discussion of mistaken and wrong consciousness. So, again, it's a very quick summary, which we can go over in detail. On this chart, where we say wrong consciousness, that means a conceptual cognition, which is wrong in two ways, and it means a perceptual cognition, which is wrong in two ways. Conceptual cognitions can be wrong or mistaken in one way, and still not be a wrong consciousness. So all conceptual cognitions are mistaken, in the sense that conceptual cognitions look at objects via an image of them, and conceptual cognitions are always mistaken in the sense that they confuse the image by which they apprehend the object with the object. So all conceptual cognitions are mistaken in that way.

[28:25]

However, they're not all mistaken in the next way. So, for example, a conceptual cognition of impermanence is that you have an image of impermanence, and you confuse the image of impermanence with actual impermanence, but you actually are engaged correctly with impermanence. But if you have a conceptual cognition that a person has a self, you're actually engaged... well, let's take a person. If you see a person, and there's actually a person there, you're mistaken in the sense that you confuse your image of the person with the person. The person is not your image of the person, but you use the image of the person to apprehend the visual object of the person.

[29:32]

But when you use that image, you can't separate the image from the object, and you actually take the object to be the image, and that's wrong. But you're not wrong about the person being there, let's say. Of all the people in this room, you wouldn't be wrong about it. But if you then think you see a self there, then the way that self appears to you wouldn't be the actual self, plus there is no self. So you're not engaged with what you think you're engaged with, plus the image you have of it wouldn't be the thing either. So that's a wrong conceptual cognition. Wrong in two ways, both in terms of what is appearing to you, you're mistaken about, plus what you're engaged with, you're mistaken about. So once again, conceptual cognition right now, I see you all,

[30:33]

and my image of you is confused with you. That's mistaken. But I think I'm not wrong about that I'm engaged with you, that my consciousness is engaged with you. Now, a direct perception would be, if I thought, if you all appeared to me as though you were red, or that you all appeared to me as though you were dolls, not real humans, that image of you as being dolls would not be what you are, plus you're actually, there are no dolls in the room. So then, I think I got it wrong. This is direct perception. The image of, the color of you, the image of, I shouldn't use image I guess,

[31:37]

the visual pattern of the doll, you know, that I would be seeing, wouldn't be there, plus the doll wouldn't be there. So both, in terms of what I'm engaged with, wouldn't be there, plus the image isn't there, isn't about something that's there. So the perceptions, when the perceptions, perception is always doubly wrong, because the object of appearance and the object of engagement are the same for perception. So wrong consciousness can be perceptual or conceptual. Okay? So that's a quick summary of all seven types, and I'll go back over them in detail. Can I ask one more question? Yeah. Cognition and perception, are they interchangeable or are they different things? Perception is a type of cognition. What's another type? Conception. Perception,

[32:38]

conception, or both? Yeah. So, I wrote that down right here, I wrote it there. So, perception deals with a percept. Okay? Conception deals with concepts. Two types of, two basic types of cognition, two basic types of awareness, two basic types of consciousness. Okay? Two basic types of minds. So mind, consciousness, awareness, and cognition. I can use them as synonyms. And there's two types of each. One deals with percepts, the other deals with concepts. What is a percept? A percept is a sense data, sense datum. Well, a percept is an object of perception. Perception,

[33:41]

so percepts are objects of perception, by the word, right? But also, a mental impression of something, perceived by the senses. So the sense organs, I don't like that word, I would say, I would say better, I would think a better definition would be a mental impression of something, the mental impression that something makes through the senses. A sense datum. So a percept is a sense datum. Okay? So a percept is sensory? Hm? A percept is more sensory? Yes. A concept is more idea? Yes. Right. So a concept is, a synonym for concept is idea. Right? Idea, thought, notion,

[34:43]

concept, synonyms. Okay? So a concept is a general idea derived from specific circumstances. Or a concept is something formed in the mind based on percepts. So consciousness deals with, consciousness dealing with concepts is conceptual cognition, consciousness dealing with percepts is perceptual cognition. Okay? So first, direct perception or direct cognition, perceptual cognition, perception, different ways of saying it. So there's basically four types of perceptual cognition.

[35:47]

Okay? So people who took the class already, what are the four types? Ha-ha, did you say, Tracy? So I'm not supposed to call on you? Ha-ha means don't call on me. I forgot. Anybody want to say what the four types are of direct perception? Huh? Is there, first of all, perceptual or sensory cognition? Well, yeah, that's right. I said, what are the four types of perceptual cognition? Oh, you said perceptual cognition. But you added the word sensory in there. You said sensory perceptual cognition. Right. Sensory cognition is perceptual cognition. Okay? That's one type. Sensory. Okay? So is there a mental cognition? Huh? Is there the other type, mental? Mental, right. Mental sense, in some sense, mental sense perception. Mental direct perception.

[36:49]

Right? That's two. And apperception? That's right. Three. Apperceptive cognition is a type of direct perception. And there's one more. Yogic direct perception. Yeah. It's okay to read your notes. Yogic direct perception. Those are the four types of direct perception. These four types are using percepts. They're dealing with percepts, with sense data. They're all dealing with sense data. Okay, so the easiest, in some way, to talk about is the five sense consciousnesses or the five forms of direct perception. Okay. Okay, and the five forms of direct perception. There's, excuse me.

[37:50]

Five forms of sense perception. Sense direct perception. Right. So, under the first category of the four, there's five types. And those five types arise. You could say, you could say they arise from five types of sense data. But the tradition chooses to say that they arise predominantly from five types of sense organs. You put the emphasis on the sense organ rather than the sense data. And one of them, is one of them the mental organ or is that not? That's, is one of them the mental organ? No, that's for the next one that you correctly remembered. The mental organ will be the organ for the mental direct perception. Okay, the sense organs, the sense consciousnesses have physical sense organs which are their dominant condition.

[38:53]

So they have, they have three main conditions. The arising of a sense consciousness has three main conditions. The dominant condition is called Atipati Pratyaya. And as my wife, I don't know if I should say this, but as my wife says, Atipati, Atipati Pratyadi. Atipati Pratyaya is a dominant condition for the arising of sense direct perception. Second, main, second condition is called object condition. Alambana Pratyaya. An object condition is what? What's the object condition? Phenomena.

[39:54]

What? Something that's happening, like a phenomena or something. No, the object condition would be the eye or I have to think about this. Go ahead, think about it. Do you want to think about it for a long time or a short time? I'm trying to think. The dominant condition would be... Didn't I say what the dominant condition was? The dominant would be the eye. I didn't say what the dominant condition was. I just said that there's a dominant condition. Oh, sorry. The dominant condition, I thought I said that, is the sense organ. Yes. Huh? He said it in Sanskrit, but he didn't... So, the dominant condition for... The dominant condition would be is a sense... like the eye could be... The dominant condition is for a sense for the eye consciousness. The eye consciousness is a direct perception and it's named after the sense organ

[40:55]

because the sense organ is a dominant condition. So, the eye consciousness is the consciousness of visual data. So, now I can tell you what the object condition is. Okay, what is it? It would be a color. Yeah, a color, right. So, the object condition is a color, is a sense data, a visual sense data. And then there's one more condition. Immediate antecedent condition. Immediate antecedent condition, right. And the immediate antecedent condition is? The state of consciousness. The state of consciousness? The preceding state of consciousness. The preceding state of consciousness, right. So, in one sentence, one simple way to think of it is that it's just that when you have sense data and they are interacting with living tissue that's very responsive to it and it's called a sense organ for that sense data

[41:56]

and that there was consciousness in the moment before this, in the moment before these two types of physicality started interacting, there was some consciousness before that. That consciousness then is the immediate antecedent condition for the arising of now this new consciousness. But this new consciousness now will be a sense consciousness because the two conditions are sense organ and sense data. So it would be a sense consciousness. So those are the three main conditions for direct perception of the sense consciousness type. So there's a lot that you could say there, you know, but one thing to say is that the arising of consciousness depends on that there was a just... that there was a consciousness just before that. That in the previous moment, in the previous moment before this consciousness arose,

[42:58]

there was another consciousness. Another way to put it is just that the previous moment, we actually have no way of knowing how long ago the previous moment was because there's no way to measure the time between the previous moment and this moment other than by moments. And moments are consciousnesses. So the previous consciousness is also the previous moment. And there was a previous consciousness, otherwise there would not be the arising of this consciousness. So it's just saying, this teaching is saying that when the consciousness arises in relationship to physical data touching each other, the gross physical data, electromagnetic radiation, and the subtle physical data, it's subtle in the sense that it's an ability, it's a responsiveness. It's not the eyeball itself,

[44:00]

that's the organ. The organ which is located around the eyeball is the way that the eyeball situation can respond to electromagnetic radiation. It's the responsiveness of the tissue to this energy that is the organ. And when that responds, it creates, and its response, you could say creates chemical reactions or its response is chemical reaction. So it has a physical reaction, a physical response to this energy input, this physical energy input, and that interaction between those two gives rise to a new consciousness, but also because of a previous consciousness. Without the previous consciousness, this interaction would not give rise to a consciousness, a sense consciousness. And there's a lot, there's a tremendous amount of depth

[45:04]

in the relationship between those three, which we can come back to and discuss, you know, forever that little triad there and how it works. Get enlightened just by meditating on those three working together. So that's a sense consciousness, how it arises. Okay, maybe that's enough for now and move on to the next one, which is direct mental perception. So this is also direct mental perception, also the the dominant condition will be a sense organ, like the previous ones, except the sense organ in this case

[46:06]

is not a physical sense organ, it's a mental sense organ. I'm just going to hold, so we've got this mental sense organ, I'm just going to put it right over here for a second, okay? Okay. The object condition for a direct mental perception can be an object just like the same objects that are the object condition for, for example, an eye consciousness, a color. Okay? Mental consciousness can also know colors, just like eye consciousness can know colors. We have this, we have this sense data called electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength, okay? It stimulates the body of a being, stimulates them around their eye,

[47:08]

this chemical reaction happens, and because there was a previous moment of consciousness, a sense consciousness arises which is aware of that radiation and sees it as color. Okay? That happens. Simultaneously with that, there is a mind consciousness, a direct mental perception, and the direct mental perception is also seeing that color, but without a sense organ, without a physical sense organ. So it has the same object condition, a mind consciousness that arises with the sense consciousness has the same object condition as the sense consciousness, namely the blue. However, the mind consciousness is not arising from the blue touching its organ and causing this chemical reaction,

[48:10]

because its organ is not a physical organ. Its organ is this amazing thing. What is the organ of this mind consciousness? Huh? Yeah. The organ, the thing that's getting, that's serving as a function for the arising of consciousness is the previous moment of consciousness. That's the organ for the mind consciousness. And so the mind consciousness has three conditions. Object condition, which is the same as the sense consciousness, which it coexists with. Its dominant condition, which is the previous state of consciousness, which was the antecedent condition for the sense consciousness, and it also has an antecedent condition, which is also the antecedent, the previous state of consciousness. So for a mind consciousness,

[49:13]

the dominant condition and the antecedent condition are the same. So mind, what does mind use as its way of sensing a current sense data? It uses its way of getting, of being stimulated by this thing is the previous moment of consciousness. And the previous moment of consciousness together serves both the antecedent condition for the arising of another consciousness, but it also serves as the way of getting and being stimulated by the current event. And then there's a rising of a mind consciousness with the sense consciousness. And they're both kind of mind consciousness, they're both sense consciousnesses in a sense because they're both dealing with the sense data. This is so interesting.

[50:18]

I don't know if it's true or not, but just that the tradition has visualized the process in this way. It's so intimate and amazing the way they see it. Yes? Same time as what? One is a sensory perception. There's also a mental perception. And so they're happening all, they're both happening at the same time. However, there can be mental perceptions in moments that aren't sense perceptions. Yes. Not every moment is a sense perception. Yes. So not every moment is a moment of sense perception.

[51:22]

Some moments are where what the mind consciousness or the mind, the perceptions about, it's about mental phenomena. It can even be about images. So there can be direct perception of images and there can be conceptual cognition of images. So you can have conceptual cognitions of sense data, but you can also have conceptual cognition of concepts. And then you might say, before I don't want to get into that right now, but anyway, you can have mental, direct mental perception of the same object that the sense organ is knowing and you can have direct mental perception of objects that sense organs can't know. Like, for example, anger. The organ

[52:23]

for perceiving anger, for directly perceiving anger, is not the eye or the ear or the nose. It's the mind organ that perceives the anger. Not the eye or the nose or touch. Not to say that you couldn't have sense data which helped you find anger. It could be that, but the eye by itself would not be able to perceive the anger. What if you had a fantasy? Would you have an object condition? For a fantasy? If you just had... A fantasy could be an object condition for a mental consciousness. It could be... An object condition for a mental consciousness,

[53:23]

for a direct mental perception. But, what would be the trigger for a fantasy? You see what I'm saying? The trigger for a fantasy? Fantasy? Let's see. This is kind of a big thing to bring up. Where do the images come from? When I see you, I have a fantasy about you. It's sort of the same subjectivity? No. When I see you, when Rochelle comes into my visual field and I see you, I usually... I'm usually... I'm most aware of seeing you through the conceptual cognitions. So I have a conceptual cognition of you based on the direct perception of you. So, I have lots of direct perceptions of you

[54:25]

and when they accumulate sufficiently, I actually then have a mental perception of you. And when that's strong enough, then I have a conceptual cognition of you. And then I kind of like... then I could say Rochelle. It's pretty hard to say Rochelle when you just have a direct sense perception of Rochelle, of this person we call Rochelle. At that point you can't say Rochelle. But if you have a bunch of direct perceptions of Rochelle, which accumulate enough continuity and impact that you can actually have a mental perception based on all that conceptual information, then you can say... have a conceptual cognition. So then I put a fantasy on you. And the fantasy is... I would, for now, use it as a synonym for image or idea or concept. The images of things

[55:31]

don't exist in the things. They're fantasies. So my image, my fantasy about Rochelle doesn't exist. I mean, my fantasy exists, but what I'm fantasizing doesn't exist. The image I have of you doesn't exist in you. It's just an image in my mind. So fantasy... so you want to know how the fantasy arises and... there's different teachings, but basically they arise from the ability of the mind to conjure images. And then, depending on predispositions, when certain things happen, we consult our repertoire of images and come up with images for things. So they arise different than just subjectivity. Images are different from subjectivity? Yes. The basic thing, which I said last week, is

[56:33]

mind is a subject. And basically mind is clarity and knowing. That's the basic quality of mind. Basically mind knows merely that something's there. And then that knowing and that knowing can happen by using an image to get a sense of something's there or by being directly impacted by that... by that existence. But again, that existence doesn't arise all by itself. It is affected by being mentally apprehended. And it can be directly mentally apprehended or it can be apprehended through an image. Those are two ways.

[57:36]

But in both cases, there's this basic knowing, which is mind or consciousness, which has two qualities, knowing and clarity. Clarity in the sense that there's no contents in this knowing other than what's known, which is related to... In the scene, there'll be just a scene, which is related to when you meditate on the way the mind basically is, you calm down. The mind is basically not discursive. The basic mind basically isn't thinking. It's just simply knowing with no admixture. It's a clear, bright knowing, basically. That's basically what mind is. And so when you train your mind to give up discursive thought, you're actually tuning into the nature,

[58:40]

the basic nature of mind. So another instruction which some people appreciate is just in order to develop tranquility, just look at the nature of mind. Look at the... Look at the mind, the nature of mind, which is there in every single moment of consciousness. All moments of consciousness have this basic quality of awareness, which is clarity and knowledge. And so when you look at clear knowing, you're looking basically at the continuous state of awareness, which is always there. So some people actually like that kind of instruction. And the other kind of instruction is by looking at the object and not thinking about it, you're actually tuning into the mind which doesn't elaborate on things, which is just a simple clear knowing. And it's calming to look at the basic nature of mind.

[59:42]

And once you're calm, it's possible to then start looking at how the mind thinks without getting too agitated. But usually when we start... when we get away from the... when we get away from the non-discursive clear knowing, when we get away from that and getting into discursive thoughts, usually we start to get agitated. And primarily because we're thinking and we're thinking about misconceptions. So we're stirring up our basic misunderstandings. Once you're clear about the nature of things, you can think without agitating yourself or your mind. Yes? I don't really see the difference between mental perception and conception. But I don't know if you could give an example, or I'm also willing to just keep that there by the side knowing that I don't quite see the difference

[60:43]

while we proceed. Direct mental perception and conceptual cognition are both mental cognitions. So they're similar in that way. So you could... One way you could exhaustively split all states of consciousness are into sense consciousnesses and mental consciousnesses. And in mental consciousness you would have direct mental perception and you would have indirect mental perception, mental cognition, namely conceptual cognition. So they're similar. But one is looking at its object and taking the object in the way the object appears to it. The other, the object appearing to it, but then it uses a concept to apprehend the appearing object. In other words, the object, or rather,

[61:44]

in both cases, the object comes forth and engages the mind. In one case, the way it appears is the way it's engaged. The thing you're engaged with is also the way the thing appears. Or the appearing object and the engaged object are the same in the mental perception. But in conceptual cognition you're engaged with something but the way it appears to you, the way you apprehend it, is through an appearance or an image rather than directly as you're engaged with it. So as soon as I have a name for something it would be conception then? Like, so... As soon as you have a name for a thing it would be conception, yeah. So I can see you and I can see brown without even having that name but seeing the brown. Yeah. That would be a sense perception. Yeah, you see the brown, and I take this brown thing off and now you're looking at a black thing

[62:45]

and you notice something's changed and you're sure that it's not, you know. But to say it's brown then you have to switch to and use an image. Because we don't use words, we use words on images, on concepts. We don't feel comfortable using words without a concept to put them on. And that's what words are. Brown is not for all brown, brown is for all browns. It's not just for this brown. I use brown on you but I don't use brown on anybody else. I use brown on this shirt but all those other shirts which have pretty much the same vibe, I don't use brown for them. Is that clear? But it seems like it's pretty hard to talk about that, the mental perception. Yeah, mental perception is hard to talk about partly because mental perception, until we get really,

[63:47]

really, really, really concentrated, mental perception is, is actually, belongs under the category of inattentive perception. It's a perception that you don't really notice. It's, you know, it's instantaneous and we don't really notice it. However, it does serve a function. It sets up conceptual cognition. It doesn't always succeed in setting up conceptual cognition. It doesn't always succeed. So, what I said before, if you have like a bunch of, if you have like some radiation coming of the blue, of what we call blue, boom, [...] and you're responding to it over and over and you have a series of responses to basically something in the blue range

[64:49]

or even almost the same blue at a certain point, for each one of those, for each one of those blues, there is a mental, a mental perception with each one of those along with them, okay? But after there's a series of them, the mental perception gets strong enough after that series to stimulate a conceptual cognition and that's what most people know when they know colors. You say, no, a conceptual cognition of colors, which is usually set up by several moments or many moments of direct perception, each one of which is accompanied by a mental perception, but those mental perceptions were not strong enough until there was a series and then there was a mental perception after the series was completed usually and this big, nice, fairly strong

[65:50]

mental perception, direct perception happens and that's sufficient now for there to be a mental cognition of a conceptual type and that's what we know and can name blue, quotes blue. That's the theory about how this works. This may be kind of off base but it sounds like the direct perception of getting a sense of particulars and specifics and conceptually a sense of generalizations and abstractions. That's right. It's not abstract. The direct perceptions are dealing with particulars and the conceptual cognition are dealing with generalities and what is to me comes somewhat surprising is that the particular

[66:50]

well the particular is really particular. It's unique and it has all these special qualities of this particular color or whatever that are not like any other color. It's not, you know, all the actual richness of the causal process that's bringing you this radiation is right there. Whereas the blue, the idea of blue, eliminates all the particularities and the richness of each one of those blues that led you to come up with this blue which works for all of those blues and eliminates all the richness and uniqueness of it. So in that sense it makes conception sound really poverty stricken and kind of mean. However, we do, we need it. We need it in order to learn about the whole process.

[67:53]

We cannot learn the process initially through direct perception. Direct perception does not teach us how to direct perception does not teach us how to meditate in such a way as to calm down. The instructions for for calming down are given to the conceptual cognition because it's the instruction to give up discursive thought are given to the conceptual cognition. However, the conceptual cognition follows from somebody talking and you hearing them on the sense level. You're hearing the words, you're hearing these, you're hearing these these vibrations that are affecting your body. You're getting all this information through direct perception and based on that you have a concept which teaches you how to not think about this whole process and calm down. But you can't through the richness of your experience you can't learn how to stop thinking about your experience. And even though you have a richness

[68:55]

we are always putting discursiveness on top of the richness. And the discursiveness all make things real complicated and active but it also eliminates a lot of the richness of our life. But you need discursiveness in order to learn how to give up discursiveness. It doesn't just drop away by accident it drops away by training and it doesn't just drop and the training doesn't happen by accident the training happens from instruction about how to train your mind. And all this is in the conceptual realm. So the conceptual realm is really where all of our problems are but the place where all of our problems are is where we learn how to become free of our problems initially. In the end of the process we are using direct perception to become liberated. The final part we are back to the very simple non-conceptual way of knowing.

[69:55]

But to learn how to get there you have to hear a lot of instruction and process conceptually. So conceptuality is not the ultimate state. The ultimate state is a direct perception. The direct perception the Buddha is walking around in direct perception but the Buddha can use conception to help people learn how to have direct perception of reality. And so we are working through this process and trying to get teachings about the nature of the equipment we are using to study the equipment We are trying to learn the facilities by which we study the facilities which are the facilities of bondage and liberation which is our mind which is body based. So that's we didn't get through

[70:56]

the next two there are two more types of direct perception apperceptive and direct yogic. So next time we will go into the apperceptive direct perception and yogic perception and then we will be ready to start with go more into conceptual cognition. So I have these charts if you want to study them I find if I look at the chart and ask myself questions about how it works I learn a lot. It's like it's a conceptual it's a conceptual picture you know but as you start playing with it the conceptions give you lots of education you can learn a lot just from studying this chart. Okay thank you. Another thing I would say if you look at this chart and imagine that you are going to give a class and people are going to come and ask you questions about this chart

[71:57]

then what would you say? You know that's another one way to study it. Study it as though you are going to give a class on it. That's what I do. And the reading lists are up here if you would like. I think it might have worked.

[72:22]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ