As I walked in just now, I thought, it rose in my mind, oh, we're going to Dharma school now. And then I thought, it's Saturday morning and we're going to school. And then I thought, oh yeah, Jewish people go to school on Saturday morning, don't they? Do you have shul on Saturday morning? And then the Christians go to school on Sunday morning, Sunday school, right? And Buddhists go to school every morning, right? Because every day is a good day for Buddhist studies. We've done a little bit of study, a little bit of learning, a little bit of contemplation

[01:13]

and critical analysis in the service of developing wisdom during this practice period and during this Sashin, and there's a few points which I feel are very important for your continued study of wisdom. As I pointed out in the Abhidharmakosha, chapter 6, verse 4, just before the verse, Vasubandhu says, remember what he said? He also declared the two truths, he being the Buddha.

[02:13]

And Nagarjuna, in his fundamental verses on the Middle Way, said the doctrine of the Buddha, the doctrine that the Buddha taught, is based on two truths, worldly convention, truth, and ultimate objects. Those who do not distinguish between these two truths do not know the profound suchness of the Buddha's teaching. That's in chapter 24, which is the chapter on the Noble Truths, so he teaches the four Noble Truths and then he teaches the two truths, just like the Abhidharmakosha teaches

[03:21]

the four truths and then the two truths. And then Nagarjuna says, without relying on convention, he teaches the two truths, the ultimate fruit cannot be taught, or it's not appropriate to teach the ultimate truth. And without understanding the ultimate fruit, freedom cannot be attained. So, in studying Buddhist wisdom, and in particular studying the four truths, or the two truths,

[04:22]

when studying the four truths, to study nirvana, which is an ultimate truth among the four, I would say, it's not appropriate to study nirvana without first studying suffering and its origins. And similarly, it's not appropriate to study ultimate truths among the two truths without becoming fluent and familiar with conventional truth. So in the Buddha way, it's not just looking at the ultimate truth only, or all the time. It's about realizing the all-knowing of the Buddha, which refers to a consciousness that

[05:29]

directly and simultaneously realizes all conventional truths and all ultimate truths. So, the Bodhisattva, anyway, aspires to transform his or her consciousness into this all-knowing consciousness of the Buddha, a mind which simultaneously knows all the conventional truths and all the ultimate truths. These two truths are two things we can know, and hopefully we will aspire to know. And then the question someone asked me, and I ask myself too many times,

[06:40]

well, I have four schools, and how could Buddhists disagree so much on such amazingly fundamental points? They don't agree, there are some fundamental points that they don't disagree on. They all agree all compounded phenomena are, what? All phenomena are, and all phenomena without flows are, and nirvana is. They all agree on that. But then, sometimes they seem to turn around what's ultimate and conventional truth. Different schools, so it's kind of like, wow, how can you do that? And what's the point of all these different schools? So basically what I would say is that all four schools are schools of a tradition which says

[07:45]

everything's selfless, everything lacks a self, everything's insubstantial. They all agree on that. But the way they understand selflessness is different. They teach different selflessnesses. Why teach different selflessnesses? I don't answer why questions. What's the benefit of teaching different kinds of selflessness? Well, one thing I would say is that the deeper the selflessness, the more dangerous. But also the deeper the selflessness, the more fruitful. The deepest selflessness, the deepest selflessness is the selflessness that understands all the selflessnesses. It understands the most superficial selflessness, and the middle ones, and the deepest ones.

[08:50]

That's the deepest understanding of selflessness. And also understands all the conventional ones. The deepest selflessness is the selflessness which makes possible the perfect and maximum benefit for beings. It's the selflessness which the Buddha realized. So it's the greatest opportunity, the greatest benefit, but the most dangerous. It's like the stock market. The highest growth potential stocks are the riskiest. So what is the danger? The danger is that if you were to approach an ultimate truth, or approach a selflessness, or an emptiness,

[09:54]

that was too deep for your practice, it might undermine your relationship with conventional truth. It might undermine your relationship with, for example, the conventional truth of the precepts. It might undermine your relationship with the conventional teaching of karma. So it could be possible that once you see the selflessness of things, and experience some freedom thereby, you might think, that doesn't matter what you do. And such things have happened in the Buddhist tradition, that people who have quite a deep understanding of selflessness, they have felt like it doesn't matter what they do, like they can do anything. Some of the, actually, some of the teachers in the Buddhist tradition in America who have gotten into big trouble and harmed people,

[10:58]

have said afterwards, you know, I thought I could do anything. And it wasn't that they didn't have some enlightenment, but the enlightenment was too deep for them, so they lost track with the importance of the conventional truth, of the conventionality, that what we do, that we do things, and what we do really matters, and there are persons, and the persons do suffer. And what we do has to do with the suffering of people. So, that's why there's four schools, because the first school is less likely to undermine ethics and meditation on karma.

[12:00]

And the last school, for some people, would be too much. So, if you continue to study these wisdom teachings, these teachings about various truths, conventional and ultimate, and as you consider which style of ultimate truth you wish to try to realize, part of what you need to watch as you study is, as you become more and more intimate with some ultimate, do you sense that you're losing your footing in the conventional world? Is it starting to dawn on you that you can do whatever you want, and it doesn't matter? Then you should probably say, disqualify yourself from that school and take a step back to a different school, the previous one. Does that make sense? So, this is a kind of guiding principle in your study of wisdom.

[13:08]

Continuing with the discussion of the Satrantika school... Excuse me, is it okay if I close the door? It's okay with me. Is it okay with you, Meg? It is? Yeah. Okay with you, Diana? Prudence? Prudence is kind of like this. It's okay. That was fun. Okay, so, as I mentioned earlier, I think that in the Satrantika school, which is a school following the scriptures, which Vasubandhu represents, the definition of ultimate truth and conventional truth

[14:22]

was what? Do you remember? What the definitions of the Satrantika school of the following the scriptures, what the definitions of ultimate and conventional truth were? Yes? Yes? No, the definition. The definition, yes? No, that's the other one. The conventional truth of the school following the scriptures is that something, which when physically or mentally analyzed, is such that the consciousness apprehending it ceases.

[15:27]

That's the definition of conventional truth in the Satrantika school following scriptures. Does that sound familiar? Yes. Huh? Yes, very good. A conventional truth is something, is an object, such that if it's physically broken or mentally analyzed, the consciousness apprehending it, the consciousness knowing it, ceases. That's the kind of thing a conventional truth is. And that's the same as what? It's the same as the Vaibhashika. So the conventional truth for the Satrantika following the scriptures is the same as the conventional truth in the Vaibhashika. And ultimate truth is not like that. Ultimate truth is an object that if you break it, physically, if it's a physical object and you break it, or if it's a, if you break it, the consciousness that knows it doesn't cease,

[16:29]

or if it's a physical object and it's a collection and you analyze it in your mind, or some emotional thing or some mental thing, if you analyze it in your mind, if then also it is such that the consciousness that knows it ceases, excuse me, doesn't cease, then that thing is an ultimate truth. Okay? That's the, and the Satrantika would agree with that. According to that definition, they agree. Okay, now the other school of Satrantika is a different definition. Its definition is, of an ultimate truth, is a phenomena which is able to bear logical analysis. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? That's quite similar, right? A phenomena that's able to bear logical analysis, but this is the part where it's different,

[17:30]

from the point of view of whether it has its own mode of existence without depending on imputation of thought. That's the difference. So, an ultimate truth will be something that bears logical analysis, but has something, some quality, that's not just due to imputation. Namely, it has its own characteristics that aren't just due to imputation. As a matter of fact, as we saw, if we deal with conventionalities, actually, we do deal with conventionalities, excuse me, that's an ultimate, if we would deal with an ultimate with a conventional mind, can you do that? No. Anyway, I was going to say, if we can lose track of the unique characteristics of some object

[18:37]

when we look at it with conventional, with conceptual cognition, because conceptual cognition doesn't see the particular qualities of a thing that aren't due to imputation. So, in this system, in the school of Satrāntika, which follows scriptures, the ultimates, the ultimate objects, the ultimate truths, are objects of direct perception. And the conventional truths will be ones, a conventional truth is a truth where the phenomena only exist through being imputed by thought. A conventional truth, yeah, a conventional truth is a phenomena which only exists through being imputed by thought or terminology. And then the examples of,

[19:45]

and then, in this system, conventional truths are permanent, they have common characteristics or general characteristics, and they are known by conceptual consciousness. And ultimate truths are impermanent, they have specific characteristics, and they are known by direct perception. Okay? So examples of ultimate truths are what? What? Ultimate truths? Space? No. In this school, examples of ultimate truths,

[20:46]

somebody said space? No. What? Chairs? People? Peanuts? What? IKEA products? Yeah. Things that are put together, in other words, things that are put together are things that are impermanent, impermanent things, and some of these impermanent things, according to the previous definition, wouldn't hold up to logical analysis. Right? But we just said that an ultimate truth is a phenomena which is able to bear logical analysis. In the previous case, a jug or water couldn't bear logical analysis. Or actually, it could bear logical analysis, it's just that the consciousness knowing it would cease. So I take it back.

[21:50]

In the previous case, those things, those jugs, they could bear logical analysis. It was the consciousness that couldn't bear their logical analysis. But before, although the jug could bear logical analysis, it was called a conventional truth because once it was analyzed, the consciousness which knew it ceased. So it was called a conventional truth because the consciousness which knew it ceased. Now the same thing, the same pot, in this case, is called an ultimate truth. It still can bear logical analysis, like it did before. Okay? But in this case, the pot, which is an impermanent thing,

[22:55]

Okay? How are you doing? I can slow down if you've lost that. You said in this case, in which case? Now switching to the Satrantika school following reasoning. Okay? We have a pot. I'll do it again. Over here we have a pot. And we say that this pot is a conventional phenomenon if when you analyze it or break it, the consciousness which was apprehending it ceases. Then that pot is a conventional thing. Right? Now, if you take the same pot and break it, Okay? The consciousness which knows it is,

[23:58]

if it's a direct perception, the consciousness which knows it can deal with that impermanence. So the impermanence of this pot doesn't contradict in the second system it being an ultimate. It can bear logical analysis and also it doesn't exist by imputation. Yes? Is there a definition for bearing logical analysis? Well, I guess that you could break it into parts. Yes? Okay. The two systems that you're looking at now, are those both Satrantika schools? I'm confused. Yeah, yeah. They're both... Well, the definition of one of the Satrantika schools

[25:01]

is the same as the Vaibhashika. So... And the one that follows the sutras? The one that follows the sutras... The one that follows the sutras? The one that follows the sutras is the same as the Vaibhashika. So I'm just saying that you have this pot and you have some object like a chair or something, and in one case, the chair would be called a conventional thing if you look at it and then you take the chair apart and then the consciousness which knew the chair ceased, then you'd say the chair was a conventional thing. But if you take the same chair and say now the chair is considered to be an impermanent thing... Okay? I'm saying the chair was always impermanent, right? In both cases, you've got an impermanent chair, right? Second case, you have the chair. The chair starts to disintegrate. And that's okay in the second case

[26:03]

because it's getting logically analyzed or whatever. But the consciousness which knows it doesn't cease. How come? It's because in the second case, the consciousness which knows the chair and knows the impermanence of the chair knows the subtle impermanence of the chair. And the consciousness in the previous case was dealing with the gross impermanence. So, when it looked at it and the gross impermanence manifested, it ceased. Whereas in the second case, the direct perception is looking at the pot but the direct perception is seeing the pot in its ultimate mode, namely its subtle impermanence. So when this pot is analyzed, the consciousness doesn't cease. And also, the reason why,

[27:04]

when the pot in the previous case, the reason why the consciousness ceased is because that consciousness was a conceptual consciousness which was dealing with the pot in its generic sense, through a generic image. And the generic image couldn't stand the impermanence, the gross impermanence of the pot. When you said previous case and this case, are you referring to different schools? Yeah, different schools, different definitions. Different definitions are different schools. So it sounds like they're saying the opposite thing, but it's actually that in the previous case they said that the thing, they're calling the object, they're calling the thing a conventional truth if, when it's broken or mentally analyzed, the consciousness which knows it ceases. But they forgot to tell us

[28:05]

that the consciousness that knows it, in this case, is a conceptual consciousness. And maybe they didn't even think that. But what the Satrāntikas would say would be if the consciousness that knows the pot saw the pot through direct perception, if it was a direct perception and there was no conceptual mediation, then that knowledge of the pot would also be impacted by the subtle impermanence of the pot. So when the pot was broken, it wouldn't disturb the consciousness that knew it, because the consciousness wasn't dealing with the pot just through imputation. It allowed the pot to impact it, to affect it. It was actually in responsive relationship to the impermanence of the pot. So when in one case it says

[29:08]

that this is a conventional thing, if when broken physically or analyzed mentally the consciousness ceases, it really should say it's a conventional thing when the conceptual consciousness that's looking at it ceases. In other words, it's a conventional thing because the conceptual consciousness is looking at it. And then when conceptual consciousness looks at things and they change beyond its generic image, then that consciousness ceases. And then in the other case, if the pot is being looked at by direct perception, then what's being seen is an impermanent pot, a subtly impermanent pot, not in a pot that could be broken or now is broken, but a pot which is constantly breaking. That pot is an ultimate truth

[30:09]

and the consciousness that knows it is a direct perceiver. Okay? Yes? Doesn't the consciousness that has direct perception of the subtle impermanence of an object have subtle impermanence itself? Sure. Everything has subtle impermanence. Except... What kind of thing? Space. Two kinds of nirvana. And what else? Emptiness. That's coming up. Emptiness doesn't have subtle impermanence and also emptiness doesn't have gross impermanence. But the consciousness, direct perception is just as impermanent as conceptual cognitions. They're both...

[31:09]

No continued existence. That's not part of the deal. Pardon? Oh, I see. You're thinking if we say that it doesn't cease, that it continues. Is that what you're thinking? No. That doesn't mean it continues. It's impermanent. But impermanent... It's impermanent and also the consciousness which knows an ultimate object and the consciousness which knows a conventional object, they're both impermanent. It's just that in the previous example when you say the consciousness ceases, it doesn't mean that that's what makes it impermanent, it just means the consciousness

[32:11]

it's cancelled, it can't function. So cancelled is another way to translate it. It's cancelled, not just ceases, it's cancelled. In other words, you can't have the consciousness anymore. Whereas a consciousness can reappear and cease, reappear and cease, both conventional and direct... conventional, I mean, conceptual cognitions and perceptual cognitions, they both appear and disappear. But if you have a conceptual cognition and you analyze some of its objects, it ceases. Whereas if you had a... if you were looking at the same, supposedly same object with direct perception, then when the object changes, the direct perception would change too. But the object would cease to be what it was and then a new thing would arise

[33:13]

and the consciousness which knew it would cease with it but then a new one would arise with the same thing in its new form. Does that make sense? Yes. The conceptual consciousness doesn't reappear. It can't reappear, yeah. That consciousness which knew that thing or which knows that pot, it can't get it together again. It's like Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again. But the subtle impermanence looking at Humpty Dumpty is seeing the impermanence of Humpty Dumpty before he falls. And then when he falls, this isn't a problem to direct perception. But the direct perception is arising and ceasing with the objects. Objects arise, that means subjects arise. Objects cease, subjects ceases. And ultimate objects or ultimate truths in this system particularly, this Satrantika system, they're impermanent.

[34:13]

But they're grossly impermanent and also subtly impermanent. So chairs are grossly impermanent because you can burn them and break them but they're subtly impermanent because they're always constantly vibrating and changing. Which we, you know, modern physics has gotten in touch with that, right? So what Buddhists are saying is that yogis can actually see that. Can you imagine that? That there's such a state of samadhi where you could tap into that kind of direct perception where you actually can see things changing. But that thing that sees them is not continuous. It's a pulsing, living, impermanent event too because all compounded things are impermanent and it rises in relationship to those impermanent phenomena. Okay? So there's a bunch of questions but maybe I should just take questions for a little while because there's something else I'd like to tell you about this system that I think is really important.

[35:15]

Yes? So now it's 10... Actually, can people remember your questions? Oh, there's one thing I'd like to tell you I forgot to tell you. You can go to the bathroom. It's part of the etiquette. You can go to the bathroom. So could you wait on your questions because I think the kitchen is going to leave and I'd like the kitchen to hear this. Is that okay? Can you remember your question? I know how you feel, Stuart. Okay, so according to this school freedom from suffering depends on the realization that the person which the school says is an ultimate truth is empty

[36:21]

of being a substantial and self-sufficient existent or is empty of substantial existence in the sense of being self-sufficient. This school says that that realization is freedom from suffering. Did you get it? This school says that the realization that the person is empty of substantial existence in the sense of being self-sufficient. That's what needs to be realized for freedom from suffering in this system which doesn't sound that different from what we've heard before, right? That's both schools here?

[37:21]

No, this school, this is the way this school puts it. The previous school, we said that what they recommended is you understand the non-existence, the emptiness of what? First of all, the partless permanent independent self but then they said also to realize the non-existence of the substantially existing self or the self-existent self and that part sounds very similar to this, actually. But there's something different about their emphasis here, some more sophisticated psychology here. Now, the next point we've already made is that persons are permanent, subtly permanent, excuse me, persons are subtly impermanent phenomena, right? Okay? And therefore, according to this school, are ultimate truths. Okay? They are capable of producing

[38:24]

effects, persons are. You already know about that. And the reason why they can produce effects is because they're impermanent. If you're permanent, you can't produce an effect. Does that make sense? Like, you know, I'm here right now and I say hello because I'm not permanent. I'm not permanently silent so I can talk and then I can stop talking so that you can hear me. And then we all change and something else can happen. So persons, because they're impermanent, they can function and they can have effects in their ultimate truths. And here's another point, important point, is they can throw or cast their unique characteristics, their uncommon characteristics, they can cast that

[39:26]

onto what? A direct perception, a direct cognition. Because direct cognitions know the unique qualities of objects, right? Remember that from yesterday? And conceptual cognitions know general characteristics. So a person can cast his or her uniqueness, her unique characteristics onto a direct perception. Pardon? It means that the person in their impermanent, vibrant, changeable self has a unique quality and it's an ultimate truth in that ultimate truths have specific characteristics and conventional truths have general characteristics so that they can cast their actual particular specificity

[40:27]

the way they are onto a direct perception. In other words, they have the ability to affect a conscious being. No, no, this is like a person as an object. You know? Now, the person is an ultimate truth and it's impermanent but the person is also... Truths are objects. The person as a truth is a person as something you know about. Truths are things you know about in this system, in all these systems so far. Truths are things you know about. They're objects. So one of the objects is a chair. Another object is a person. Chairs can do this too. Chairs are impermanent and they have unique qualities and those unique qualities

[41:30]

including their subtle impermanence can be thrown onto a direct perceptor. So direct perceivers or direct cognition or non-conceptual cognition it knows subtle impermanence. And we have that kind of cognition right in our body right now. We have a cognition which knows, for example, sensory events as they're pulsing, constantly pulsing and changing. It knows that. We're in touch with that right now. But we don't realize it usually. And the things in this school, the things which are objects of that consciousness which knows that vivid pulsing life which also conveys its unique characteristics along with its subtle impermanence that is a direct perception. And objects like that are called ultimate truths and one of those ultimate truths among the chairs and tables and peanuts

[42:33]

one of them is a person. Okay? And a person is very important because they didn't say in the school that what we have to realize is the emptiness of peanuts having a substantial existence and being self-sufficient. They said we had to realize it about persons. Okay? Let me finish this a little bit more, okay? Otherwise I think it'd be too hard to understand it. Now this is another key point. Persons, unlike other ultimate truths what are the other ultimate truths? Chairs. A person unlike chairs or tables are not self-sufficient

[43:34]

because they cannot be known without the cognition of some part of body and mind to which they are imputed. I'll say it again. Persons are different from other ultimate truths which are also impermanent and are able to cast their specific characteristics onto a direct cognition. They're different from that in that they cannot be known even by direct cognition without dependence on some part of mind and body upon which they are imputed. So persons are imputed onto and connected to the five aggregates, the five skandhas.

[44:37]

Whereas a chair or a table can be seen by direct cognition. It's an ultimate truth that can be seen in a self-reliant way, a self-sufficient way. You don't need to have some cognition of the five aggregates in order to know a chair. Pardon? Okay, so she said like pets. Okay, where would they go? If you're looking at the person of a pet, the pet person, then it would be the same. The pet person, the person of the pet would be, you wouldn't be looking You wouldn't be able to perceive it without cognition of the parts of the pet person that depend on the five aggregates. And pets, maybe pets, I think some pets

[45:41]

seem to have five aggregates. But we are not, I don't know, they usually don't talk about this, but... So, in other words, we... the person are not self-sufficient because they lack, they cannot be known, persons cannot be known without cognition of something about the body-mind aggregates. Because the body-mind aggregates are what the person is imputed onto. Now, we just said that one of the definitions of an ultimate truth is that it has its own motive existence

[46:44]

without being imputed by thought. And I just said now that the person is imputed onto the five aggregates. But in this case, although the person was imputed onto five aggregates, now that that's happened, and that's okay, I mean, that's how that happened, to know the person, you can know the person without any imputation on the person. The direct cognition can know the person without any imputation. But the person is imputed onto the five aggregates. The person is imputed onto a certain

[47:45]

five aggregates, and thus all its functions, including its activity of being able to impress itself in its unique qualities on perceptual consciousness, are dependent on the function of the aggregates. So you can't have a person without these aggregates. But you can have these other things without the aggregates. Did you say that sentence again? Dependent on being imputed onto the five aggregates? Say it again, exactly as it was. I'm sorry. Persons are not self-sufficient in the sense that they cannot be known without the cognition of some part of body-mind aggregates

[48:47]

upon which they are imputed. So, the perceptual cognition which knows the person, which apprehends the person, depends on the function of these aggregates, which you also can't have but you can perceive. You can also perceive the aggregates. Now, ignorant consciousness, that's the root of suffering, is a consciousness conceiving. It's a conceptual consciousness. Ignorant consciousness is a perceptual consciousness, not a direct perceiving consciousness. What did I say? Ignorant consciousness is a conceptual consciousness,

[49:51]

not a direct perceiving consciousness. So, ignorant consciousness is a consciousness that conceives of a person. It doesn't perceive a person, it conceives a person to exist substantially and self-sufficiently. In other words, not dependent on the aggregates. And direct perception can't see the person without seeing the dependence on the aggregates. So, direct perception can't make that mistake. When it sees the person, it sees the five aggregates. It can't see a person without not independence on that.

[50:53]

Whereas conceptual consciousness can conceive of a person that's self-sufficient. In other words, it can conceive of a person without, forget about the five aggregates. And that's sort of one of the key problems. Now, I'll just go a little further. So, according to this school, this is kind of interesting too, I think, according to this school, it is only the person that is innately misapprehended in this way. Which is part of the reason why the focus is on realizing the emptiness of the person's having self-sufficient existence. Because that's the innate tendency. Now, we can learn to do this with other things, conceptually, but it's innately done on a person. And again, evolutionary psychology comes up

[51:57]

in my mind at that time, right? Because there's some reason for that in terms of survival. Therefore, the goal of the yogi in this school is to generate a consciousness that realizes the emptiness that is the absence of a substantially existing person. Okay, now, here's the way it seems to me, is we have this ignorant consciousness sitting there, coming up here now and then. And what does it do? It conceives of a person as self-sufficient. It sees a person, there's a person out there, it sees the person, or there's a person in here and it sees the person. And then it engages with the person,

[53:00]

it has a relationship with the person, but then it imagines or interprets the person or mediates the person through the concept or the conceiving that the person is substantially existent and self-sufficiently existent. They do that to the person. But the person isn't that way. Actually, persons depend, different from other ultimate truths, different from other impermanent things, the person depends on these five aggregates. But it doesn't see the five aggregates, it just sees the person, because it's dealing with the concept, the nice spiffy concept of the person, forget about all these conditions around it, like the specific characteristics and the fact that it depends on the five aggregates, forget about that. So it doesn't see that. So since it doesn't see that, the person looks like a self-sufficient thing. That's the way it appears. So this is the root of ignorance. This is the root of ignorance, the root of suffering. Now, direct perception sees the person

[54:04]

in its vivid living color and impermanence and also sees the five aggregates there. All right? Maybe not, but all right? Now you've got these two kinds of ways of seeing a person. So why don't we just go with direct perception? Well, we need to understand the emptiness of the person. We need to understand this person doesn't have this inherent existence. Does direct perception understand that this person doesn't have inherent existence? Does it understand that? It actually doesn't. It's not an issue. It just sees a person in dependence on the five aggregates, which is the ultimate truth of the situation. It's got no problems. This is the source of suffering here. This is just like direct perception. What's the problem? That there's no problem.

[55:07]

What's the problem? What? Louder. What? Yeah, the conception's a problem. Over here in the realm of conceptual consciousness we've got major ignorance. There's other kinds of conceptual consciousness besides this type that are quite cool. But this one is deep trouble. That's where the liberation's going to occur, is over there. That has to be tended to. Now, emptiness is a permanent phenomenon. Right? It's not grossly impermanent and it's not subtly impermanent. So can direct perception in this school see emptiness? No. Direct perception can see people

[56:11]

and also can see aggregates and can see that people are in dependence on aggregates and not conceive of anything about people. Not make erroneous conceptions like they're self-sufficient. Can't do it anyway, but also it can see the way people are is that they do depend on it. But it can't come up with emptiness because it can't see emptiness because emptiness is permanent. And therefore emptiness is not an ultimate truth. Emptiness is a conventional truth. Now what sees conventional truth? Conceptual consciousness can see conventional truth. So conceptual consciousness could see emptiness. Now if conceptual consciousness saw emptiness especially the emptiness of what? Of the person's self-sufficiency then the ignorant consciousness somehow being brought in kind of proximity to a conceptual consciousness

[57:12]

that sees emptiness, this would like to start to work on the ignorance. This would bring the realization of ignorance somehow in contact there. But that's not the way it works. What has to happen is something more subtle and that is that somehow the direct cognition of the way the skandhas are working such that the self can arise this ultimate truth can arise in dependence on the skandhas that direct cognition needs to be somehow done in such a way that the conceptual consciousness understands the emptiness or such that the emptiness of the person is realized. And in order to do this

[58:14]

we have to do the wisdom work which is that we have to creatively engage with the teachings like what I'm just talking about. We have to think about the teachings like this together and with ourselves such that there is created how do we put it ... A wisdom consciousness is a direct perception that directly and explicitly cognizes mental and physical aggregates in such a way that it thereby implicitly realizes the absence

[59:15]

of a self of the person in relationship to the aggregates. It can't directly realize emptiness in the school but it can directly and explicitly cognize the aggregates but in such a manner that it indirectly understands the emptiness of the person in terms of self-sufficiency. And that realization frees us from our ignorance consciousness which can only see in this kind of faulty way and in order for the direct perception to do this there needs to be conceptual work such that

[60:15]

the direct perception has a way of implicitly understanding emptiness because it can't directly and explicitly understand emptiness. So this is the way this school teaches how to approach the realization of the emptiness of the person and both of the first two schools their goal is to realize the selflessness of a person. Now, questions? Stuart? Actually, it was a continuation of the inquiry about the permanence of consciousness so saying that the even saying that the consciousness is impermanent but that it again and again arises

[61:18]

cognizing the same thing suggests identity persists over time and... I didn't mean to say that it again and again perceives the same thing because it doesn't perceive the same thing because direct perception perceives impermanent phenomena so it's not the same thing anymore it's a different thing. We're talking about consciousness the cognition that is not broken by... That's why I said canceled maybe is a better translation than ceases. Whether we say canceled or ceased we're still talking about the possibility of consciousness that that even if we say that it's intermittent has identity that persists over time. You may draw that conclusion but that's not what's being said. You don't want that to be the case anyway, do you?

[62:20]

I don't see another way to understand it. Another way to understand it is that direct perception operates in a certain way and conceptual cognition operates in a certain way and they keep operating that whenever they operate they operate that way but it doesn't mean that they continuously operate that way. It doesn't mean that they are permanently operating that way it just means every time they operate that type of operation is what we mean by that type of cognition. You said you wanted another way to understand it, right? So the other way to understand it is that when you have a cognition of a certain type of a thing certain type of a thing that way of functioning is not possible under certain circumstances. So if you have a conceptual cognition and you have a certain type of an object

[63:25]

you can't do certain things with that object for that type of cognition. But for the other type of cognition you can do those kinds of things and so that distinguishes between the two types of objects. That's all that's being said. Nothing is being said about permanence or continuation of the cognitions. The word ceasing or not ceasing is just not to say that in one case it lasts and the other one doesn't but just to show you, give you a feeling for what kind of object you have. Now, does that help you at all? It doesn't look like it. I think, I appreciate your explanation your sort of going explanation I think that it's conceptually flawed and that it's a way of buying of repurchasing substantiality you know, that talking this way is a way of going back and creating

[64:29]

a substance of things by creating a subtle argument or a subtle basis for believing in persistence of identity over time. I'm not criticizing your explanation. No, what is the identity that's persisting over time? I didn't see it. Specifically in relation to specific characteristics that there is a statement such that cognition of specific characteristics doesn't get canceled. Meaning of that being that an identical cognition happens repeatedly or persists over time. No, it's not saying that. It's not saying that.

[65:30]

What meaning can we apprehend for canceled or not canceled? Anyway, it's not saying that it's repeated or that it lasts. It's not saying that. There are ways to criticize these schools but I think your criticism is of something that they're not saying. I don't think that they're saying direct perception. In the first case they're saying an object which when broken or analyzed is such that the consciousness which knows it is no longer possible. That doesn't say anything about things lasting, does it? When you say something ceases it sounds like persistence over time. Is that what you're saying? It sounds like it turns on a question for persistence over time.

[66:35]

Well, it's not over time. It's just in this moment. It just ceases in this moment. It doesn't cease over time. It just ceases now. It just can't function now. So like if I would say if you stand on a step and it doesn't have any support it will fall. That doesn't mean that I'm saying that the steps last over time, does it? Yeah, I think you are imputing duration onto something where duration isn't being discussed. So I guess from your perspective you see duration where they're not talking about duration. That's what I would say. I think you're projecting duration onto the conversation

[67:37]

and so you think it's implied because you're seeing it there. That's what I think you're doing. I don't think they're necessarily doing that. That's the only way you know how but I'm saying it's not necessarily over there. So when you see a permanent thing this is because you your consciousness, your conceptual consciousness is seeing permanence over there. Because this is saying that these things are impermanent. And you're saying, well, they're actually talking about permanence. But I think it's your conceptual consciousness that's coming up with that. I don't think it's over there. I think the impermanent things are being there and you're seeing that they're telling you that they're permanent. So I don't think so. Well, I think what you're saying is correct.

[68:40]

I think you've just now changed from a meta-language a definition about to a description of the event of perceptual consciousness. Yes? I would like to respectfully request if he would consider holding this question. Yeah, I mean, he's fine. He doesn't expect this to be settled right now. I mean, I have a question on that. Yeah, right. Yes? It seems that the understanding of the five aggregates is important. Yes. It's not to recognize them in the self. It's to recognize that the self depends on them. They're not in the self. But in your, like in your meditation, you'd be able to analyze events of your self. You need to know that this is not you, that this is the aggregates.

[69:40]

This school would recommend that you be able to see, when you see a person, that you would, you know, I shouldn't say recommend, but this school is trying to tell us that there is a direct perception of a person that does see the five aggregates interdependent with that person. And it's direct perception is part of what's going on, and we need it to realize freedom. And so, yes, direct perception is that. And it's going on right now. In direct perception land, right now we're all, like, seeing selves and seeing five aggregates, but we don't realize it. That's why we actually need to use our conceptual consciousness to learn about the five aggregates so that we realize the place where we actually see the five aggregates. Just like we need to somehow learn about the teaching about how impermanent phenomena are

[70:45]

so that we can realize the consciousness which is currently observing impermanent phenomena. And five aggregates are one way to try to teach us how to, like, not miss out on what a direct perception is seeing right now. Is it part of Zen teaching? Except for the heart sutra, yeah. But the heart sutra, we do chant it every day. And it says that this Bodhisattva of infinite compassion who's practicing perfect wisdom saw five aggregates. So Avalokiteshvara is seeing five aggregates. So Avalokiteshvara is seeing, this is a good example, is seeing five aggregates. Can you imagine the Bodhisattva of great compassion is seeing five aggregates and sees how persons appear in the world impermanently

[71:48]

in dependence on the five aggregates. This is what this Bodhisattva is seeing. And then it says the Bodhisattva saw that these aggregates are empty. But this school is saying that when the Bodhisattva saw that the five aggregates were empty he directly saw the five aggregates but he indirectly saw that they're empty because direct perception can't see emptiness because emptiness is permanent. However, it does not have duration. Permanence does not mean duration. It just means not impermanent. It's something that doesn't arise and fall and doesn't have duration. Emptiness is permanent but it doesn't have duration. Emptiness doesn't last for two minutes or two weeks or ten seconds. It doesn't have duration but it's permanent. Space also doesn't have duration. Okay?

[72:48]

So, anyway, Avalokiteshvara is looking at the five aggregates and sees persons because Avalokiteshvara can see ultimate truths like persons and can see five aggregates but Avalokiteshvara can also see conventional truths like, for example, a conventional truth is what? Shariputra? No, that's a... Shariputra is the ultimate truth in this school. A conventional truth is like emptiness in this school. So Avalokiteshvara can see but he can only see emptiness as a conception through conceptual consciousness because emptiness is permanent therefore it's not an ultimate truth in this system. Okay? Now, other systems is an ultimate truth but anyway, right now we're in this Satrantika school, so... Okay? Now, which school is Avalokiteshvara in? Well, he's in all of them, I would say. So he's seeing the five aggregates and he's also seeing persons. Then he sees the five aggregates are empty

[73:52]

but he doesn't see the five aggregates are empty in this school by direct perception. But anyway, when he sees that the five aggregates are empty he also sees that the person is empty because he sees the person in dependence on the five aggregates. So he's actually already... he's already accomplished this school because he's seen the five aggregates as the person, he's seen the person in terms of the five aggregates and he's relieved suffering for that person or in relationship to that person. Now he sees that the five aggregates are empty so all suffering is relieved. So is this a Zen teaching? I don't know. We say it every day, it's sitting there under your nose so it looks like maybe it is a Zen teaching because it's a teaching that's coming to Zen students on a daily basis for more than a thousand years for about 1,500 years it's been coming to Zen students but it's not exactly a Zen teaching it's a teaching of the Buddha which Zen students listen to Zen students listen to birds

[74:53]

and Heart Sutra and people. I wasn't questioning where we were in the school whether it's Zen or whether it's the Apostle Matter I was questioning whether something we should be addressing in our practice and how to go about doing that. Whether you should be addressing it? Right. Whether what you should be addressing what? Seeing the five aggregates? Yeah, learning about what the concepts are and applying them in our practice. Well, if you aspire to be a Bodhisattva then you do this chant which says Dharma gates are boundless you can change it to Dharma schools are boundless Dharma schools are boundless I vow to enter all the Dharma schools. So, as a Bodhisattva you should learn the Buddhist teachings you should learn the Buddhist teachings about the five aggregates you should learn the Buddhist teachings about ultimate and conventional truths this would be part of what a Bodhisattva learns now if a Zen student is not a Bodhisattva

[75:56]

then they wouldn't have to learn anything that isn't convenient for their schedule. What? Do you recommend the study of the five aggregates? Do you want to be a Bodhisattva? Do you want to learn all Buddhist teachings? I'd like to take this one on, it sounds very important. Well, if you'd like to learn about the five aggregates then you study the scriptures that teach about the five aggregates and you study the various Abhidharma systems which explain in a kind of concentrated way about the five aggregates. So, Abhidharma kosha, etc. and we have Abhidharma reading list which you can dive into and start swimming around there but I would warn you beforehand that don't expect to be able to understand it without some assistance. So, part of what the first level of wisdom is applied to learning about the five aggregates

[76:57]

would be that you'd read the scriptures but also listen to teachings about the five aggregates in other words, have a teacher to help you understand the meaning of the scriptures which are telling you about the five aggregates. Like the Heart Sutra, we have Heart Sutra class, right? In the Heart Sutra class they explain to people about did you take the Heart Sutra class with Stuart? Yeah, well Stuart did a Heart Sutra class. Did you do a Heart Sutra class? Not yet. Did you do a Heart Sutra class? Yeah, so people have done Heart Sutra classes and in the Heart Sutra class they teach about what the skandhas are and then they help you learn how to see the five aggregates. So, it is something we're doing here and it's not done in all Zen temples that they have classes on the Heart Sutra and study the five aggregates but it is part of the Buddhist tradition and it has something to do with why all Zen temples chant the Heart Sutra and not just Zen temples but most Mahayana temples throughout Asia have a close relationship with the Prajnaparamita.

[77:59]

So, yeah, this study is done in a class but it doesn't come up regularly. I just think it hasn't been coming up in your Dharma talks, for example, but you can go and learn about it. It's that kind of situation where you can go and learn about it but it doesn't really come up in the Dharma talks so much. Well, it does come up in the Dharma talks but I guess you can say not so much. But sometimes it comes up a lot in Dharma talks but you just haven't heard those. But it quite frequently occurs in Dharma talks. So the distribution, the frequency of these things is like, you know, like... I don't always mention that you can go to the bathroom, you know, but I sometimes do. Yes, Carol? This may be somewhat off the track but you just mentioned ignorance and ignorant consciousness. The other day you mentioned that ignorance by itself is not miserable,

[79:00]

whatever you say, whatever message, and that suddenly when ignorance hits something that it is misery. Ignorance isn't misery. Ignorance is the root of misery. Pardon? He said ignorance is bliss. That expression has some merit. Yeah, it does. Maybe we'd encourage people to study ignorance. Anyway, ignorance is, like, for example, the root of a plant is not the plant, is not the flower, okay, is not the leaves. So the root of suffering is ignorance but the suffering is different than ignorance. Like, if I ignore you, that might be bliss. You know, I don't have to look at Carol anymore. Great. Okay? But then when I don't look at you, then someone sort of punches me in the nose for ignoring you. And then I have pain. And the reason why I have pain is because I ignored you. So the ignorance wasn't so bad.

[80:02]

Misconceptions aren't so bad in themselves. The thing that's bad about them is that they often lead to misery. So it's perfectly fine for me to think you're a frog. But if I really believe it, I'm going to have problems. Especially if we live closely together. So I have to get over my ignorance of thinking you're a frog, otherwise we're going to have problems. Well, it's getting late again. So, is that enough for today? And tomorrow I'll finish the other two schools? We can keep going. We can keep going, but, you know, it seems like it's long enough, isn't it? You okay? To stop? Thank you.

[81:04]

May our intention...

[81:10]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ