The emergence of the Mahayana in India, when people actually started to see it and talk about it, happened quite a while after the, with Pranayama, and the texts that signify it were the Prajnaparamita texts, and then following that, many other Mahayana texts happened. For hundreds and hundreds of years, new Mahayana texts came, but the first ones that we really say are the Mahayana texts are the Prajnaparamita, and the Lotus Sutra came not too long after the Prajnaparamita appeared. But without the Prajnaparamita, you could not know what the Lotus Sutra was talking about, because the Lotus Sutra doesn't talk about emptiness very much. So the first wave of Mahayana teachings appear in written form,

[01:05]

which, as I said before, they reject the theoretical or conceptual approach of the Abhidharma. They reject the theoretical, conceptual templates that the Abhidharma offered as a way to study experience and realize the truth of selflessness, and the truth of no-self. So the first kinds of teachings that really are well-developed and published are teachings which offer conceptual frameworks, theoretical frameworks to realize the truth of selflessness. The Prajnaparamita

[02:16]

comes by and says, rejects the conceptual frameworks as a way to realize selflessness and suggests that we just immediately realize emptiness. No one in the early phases of teaching would say that emptiness is at any distance from us, it's selflessness, the selflessness of beings is right here. So the Prajnaparamita literature is rejecting the conceptual approach and just trying to say, let's just meditate on the immediacy of emptiness. And we know, most of you are familiar with the Heart Sutra, I guess, where it says Avalokiteshvara was practicing Prajnaparamita, the perfection of wisdom, he's looking at these templates

[03:17]

and he sees that all these templates, all these conceptual frameworks of the five aggregates, they're all empty. And they're empty of, actually, any conception of them. It doesn't say there's no form aggregate, it doesn't say there's no feelings, he just says they're empty of any conception of what they are. So feeling is empty of any idea of feeling. Colors are empty of any idea of color. Which, in a way, is a form. Of course, the self of color is that it's colored, so form is empty of color, of the idea of color. And then in this emptiness of everything, in everything's emptiness of any idea of itself, then in that emptiness,

[04:24]

when you're actually looking at that emptiness, realizing that emptiness, then they're actually, in that context, there are no feelings or impulses or consciousness or forms or anything. So, in that sutra, in those types of sutras, they're just saying, can you look at things and just see their emptiness of any conceptuality about themselves. Can you just look at that, because it's actually right there, it coexists with the ideas of them. But rather than giving you a way to look at that, we just tell you that and you just go right at it. And how that happens, and I'm not even going to tell you how it happens. So the path is also, it's also like the theoretical path, you know, is rejected, the Eightfold Path, as a conceptual approach to the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path isn't rejected, the conceptual approach to the Eightfold Path is rejected. So practice the Eightfold Path, we're not going to tell you how to do it. Matter of fact,

[05:25]

we're just going to tell you that in the way to practice the Eightfold Path is just to immediately realize emptiness. And this is a wonderful teaching, and it worked really well for Avalokiteshvara, but after several hundred years of this type of teaching really thriving in certain circles, while the earlier teaching is still going on, okay, so this new movement is growing, but the old movement is also thriving, where people are using conceptual approaches. And it may be the case that in the same monastery, some people were doing this immediate non-conceptual approach to practice, and other people were doing the conceptual practice and they were getting along very nicely. It's possible. But still, some of the people who

[06:27]

actually received this Mahayana teaching and practiced it, they felt actually that it was time to bring up another possibility, another way to practice the Mahayana, which was not to reject the conceptual approach, but to use the conceptual approach in the context of emptiness. To use the Abhidharma, the Abhidharma's conceptual approach, in the context of Abhidharma, I mean in the context of emptiness. So, this sutra that we're going to recite tonight, it's called the Sambhidharamachana, or the elucidating the ... is there a room next to Elizabeth? Or is she going to lie down? Are you going to lie down? Maybe you can get this ... are there more chairs in place?

[07:29]

So, this sutra is the elucidation of the intention of the Buddha Sutra, the revealing or the disclosing or the unraveling of the deep intention of the Buddha, when he was teaching in various ways. In this sutra, we now have the construction, a reconstruction or a new construction, actually a slightly different construction, a slightly different conceptual approach, which shows the type of consciousness which underlies the understanding of emptiness and underlies the conceptual approach. So, both the conceptual approach and the immediate non-conceptual, non-approach, they're both grounded in consciousness. There's a consciousness which knows emptiness and there's a consciousness which knows conceptual categories and uses them to realize emptiness.

[08:35]

So, in both directions, both immediately going to emptiness to realize the way and going through conceptual constructions to realize emptiness to realize the way, in both cases there's a conscious being who's doing the practice. And, of course, some bodhisattvas do both. So, they're not trying to give you a... In the Yogacara, they're trying to give you a picture of consciousness which underlies the conceptual and non-conceptual access to emptiness. And they're going to give you a conceptual approach to and a conceptual understanding of the consciousness which realizes emptiness. Okay? So now, we can... Is there enough for everybody here? Are these the texts?

[09:37]

So, here's a text. You know, it's kind of Mahayana Abhidharmakaya. Yes? What's Yogacara? Yogacara? Yogacara is like... It literally means the path of yoga that applies to all Buddhist schools. It usually used to refer to a type of Mahayana practice that provides a teaching, a conceptual teaching about the nature of consciousness which underlies all types of understanding and also uses that teaching of consciousness to realize emptiness. And so, one way to look at it is just that Indian culture evolved from the first introduction of Mahayana

[10:41]

to such a point that another type of Mahayana was able to be produced and this other type of Mahayana in some ways was more suited to lay people. Yogacara, in some ways, was better suited for lay people. And also, some of the people who led the Yogacara movement particularly the Asanga felt that the Prajnaparamita literature as it was being understood or, this word, Prajnaparamita literature that said, give up all theoretical, conceptual approaches to practice it too easily could be understood nihilistically. And if you live in a monastery in some ways, it's not so dangerous to hear the Prajnaparamita because you live in an environment

[11:44]

where everybody's... the primary commitment that they share even if they have different things they're studying their primary commitment is for precepts and to help each other practice the precepts. Whereas in lay life it's easier for some people to have a nihilistic interpretation of the Prajnaparamita and think that precepts aren't important and people don't necessarily think that all lay people are committed to the precepts but they naturally expect monks to be committed to precepts and they even know what they even know usually what the precepts of the monk is by the monastery because they can find out usually what the precepts of that monastery are so they not only know that they're committed to ethical precepts but they even know can find out what the ethical precepts of the place the person lives is like Zen Center years ago I had to publish some ethical statements

[12:46]

just to make sure that people knew what to expect at Zen Center so that yeah, so that they would if something happened that wasn't according to those principles then people would say oh well I thought you did this at Zen Center or you didn't do this at Zen Center but this seems to be happening it says in this document that you don't do this here but so Zen Center is not exactly a monastery in all its aspects but it is a place where we have a community that has to put up clear precepts and when you're in a community that has clear precepts you're less likely to slip into nihilism the people in the society at large who are kind of on their own maybe they're practicing precepts but then they read the Prajnaparamita and they think precepts are empty so I guess I can do what I want that's a nihilistic misunderstanding of the Prajnaparamita so this teaching is trying to protect the practice of emptiness

[13:48]

from becoming nihilistic alright, so would you please look over your text to page 1 or whatever the page is first page and we shall if you don't mind we'll chant this chapter 5 which are the questions of Vishalamati 1, 2, 3 Then the Bodhisattva Vishalamati questioned Bhagavan, Bhagavan Will you say Bodhisattvas are wise With respect to the secrets Of mind, thought, and consciousness Bhagavan, just how Are Bodhisattvas wise With respect to the secrets Of mind, thought, and consciousness For what reason

[14:50]

Does a jiva Designate a Bodhisattva As wise With respect to the secrets Of mind, thought, and consciousness Bhagavan replied To the Bodhisattva Vishalamati Vishalamati, you are involved In asking this in order To benefit many beings To bring happiness to many beings I would certainly prefer A world where the state of welfare Benefited in happiness of many beings Including gods and humans Your intention in questioning This fragile object Is good It is good, therefore Vishalamati, listen well And I will describe for you The way Bodhisattvas are wise With respect to the secrets Of mind, thought, and consciousness Vishalamati, whatever type of sentient being There may be in this Outer existence with its six kinds Of beings, those sentient beings Manifest the body and arise Within states of birth Such as egg-born or womb-born Or monster-born or spontaneously

[15:51]

Born initially in dependence Upon the three types of appropriation The appropriation of the Physical sense powers Associated with the support And the appropriation of predispositions Which proliferate conventional Designations with respect to Signs, names, and concepts The mind, which at all seas Brightens, it develops, increases And expands in its operations All those three types of appropriation Exist in the form realm The form realm of appropriation Is not too global in the formless realm Vishalamati, consciousness Is also called the appropriating consciousness Because it holds and appropriates The body in that way In all the cases, consciousness Because there is the same Establishment and abiding Within those bodies, but they are wholly Connected and thoroughly connected It is called mind because It collects and accumulates Forms, sounds, smells, tastes And tangible objects Vishalamati, the six-flow Collection of consciousness, the eye

[16:53]

Consciousness, ear, consciousness Nose, consciousness, tongue, consciousness Body, consciousness, and mind Consciousness arises depending Upon and abiding in that appropriating Consciousness, the eye Consciousness arises depending On an eye in the form In association with consciousness Functioning together with that eye Consciousness, the conceptual Mental consciousness arises At the same time having The same objective reference Vishalamati, ear, consciousness Nose, consciousness, tongue Consciousness and bodily Consciousness arise depending On an ear, nose, tongue Body in association with consciousness Sounds, smells, tastes And tangible functions Together with nose, ear, tongue And bodily consciousness The conceptual mental consciousness Consciousness arises at the same time Having the same objective reference Together arises one eye Consciousness arises together With only one mental consciousness Which has the same

[17:54]

Objective activity as the eye Consciousness, likewise The two, three, four, five Consciousnesses arise together Then they're still arises together With only one conceptual mental Consciousness which has the same Objective activity as the Eye And if an eye and a mirror are present Then just one image will arise Through the causal conditions for arising Of two images, or many images Are present, then multiple images Will arise, however that eye And mirror will not be transformed

[18:54]

Into the nature of the image It will never be fully linked To Vishalamati just as it is With the water and the mirror If it had any, gone, and abiding In their co-creating consciousness Their causal conditions for simultaneous and it's the rising of one high consciousness, our present, then just one high consciousness will arise one time. Think of all the conditions for the single arising of our survival, the sandwich of consciousness, our present, then after that, our whole sandwich of consciousness will arise one time. These are all ideas, ideas, stories, but let's rely on knowledge of the system of doctrine and rely on knowledge of the system of doctrine and our lives with respect to the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness. However, this knowledge that designates Bodhisattvas as being wise and respect to the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness, it is not only because of this that he designates those Bodhisattvas as being wise in all ways.

[19:55]

Vishalamadhi, those Bodhisattvas, wise in all ways, do not perceive their own internal appropriateness. They also do not perceive an appropriating consciousness, though they are in accordance with reality. They also do not perceive a basis. Nor do they perceive a basis consciousness. They do not perceive accumulations. Nor do they perceive why. They do not perceive an I. Nor do they perceive form. Nor do they perceive an I consciousness. They do not perceive an ear. Nor do they perceive a sound. Nor do they perceive an ear consciousness. They do not perceive a nose. Nor do they perceive a smell. Nor do they perceive a nose consciousness. We have copies of this chapter if you'd like them, right here, at the plaster, right here.

[21:57]

I just wanted to point out something kind of simple, and that is that the Buddha says that Vishalamati is involved in asking this question in order to benefit many beings, to bring happiness to many beings, out of sympathy for the world, and for the sake of the welfare benefit and happiness of many beings. The Chinese translation says, you ask this question because you want aid and comfort in innumerable beings, because you have compassion for the world, and want to foster welfare and happiness. This phrase, of course, you wouldn't be surprised that a Bodhisattva would ask a question with this motivation. Does that make sense? But I just want to point out that this phrase is found in the early scriptures, too. So, the Buddha says this to the monks in the first turning, also, that they ask this question,

[23:05]

and that also the Buddha teaches for this reason. So, the Buddha has this motivation, and his developed disciples ask questions with this motivation, and practice with this motivation. So, this motivation is not just appearing in the Mahayana, it was from the beginning of the scriptures, this way of talking was pointed out as motivation. And so, again, the first part of this chapter presents a conceptual, theoretical framework, and to end, it says that, if you understand this, Bodhisattvas who understand this are wise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness. And he said, that's not the whole story. They also understand the emptiness of mind, thought, and consciousness. That's what I mean by them

[24:14]

being completely or thoroughly wise. So, he puts the emptiness context at the end, after building this conceptual framework. He says they also understand that all these elements in the conceptual framework are empty, and understand their emptiness, they don't perceive any of this stuff. Because all these things, actually, all these things that we're talking about are actually conceptual frameworks, so they don't actually perceive them. But they're there, they're just not perceptible in emptiness. And mind, thought, and consciousness, mind, in this text, mind is citta, thought is manas, and consciousness is vijnana. And

[25:32]

citta, in this text, is also understood to be paraya, vijnana, or adana, vijnana. And in early Buddhism they had this citta, and citta is like the support for all forms of a mental life. And alaya now serves the same function, it really is the same as citta. Mind, so mind is of course the basis, or the overall embracing of all mental phenomena. And then manas means thought, or it also means reflection, or thinking. And there's two types

[26:40]

of manas in a way. One type is just the simple function of mind being able to be aware of itself, or be aware of its own mental associates, and that function of mind having like an organ by which it can be aware of mental phenomena. Mind is the basis of all mental phenomena, the source of all mental phenomena, they arise with it, it arises with them, but it has the power, or the faculty, to be able to be aware of its own associated contents. And that reflective power is thought, in this case, manas. And that reflective power, what it actually is, it is the previous moment of cognition, which is a very kind of tricky idea, but the idea is

[27:41]

that the ability of mind to have like an organ power is that there was a previous moment of cognition, and that previous moment of cognition also serves a reflective activity. But there's also another aspect of this mental organ, which is that it isn't specifically said in this text, but when Asanga reads this text, he comes to say to us that this manas, this thought, also serves as the locus of defilement, because when this organ capacity arises with mind, it's associated with the belief in a self, the esteeming of a self, the confusion of

[28:45]

a self, and the love of a self. So there's the functional aspect of the organ of mind, and there's the defiling aspect of it. This chapter does not point out the defiling aspect, I'm just telling you that now. And then the third aspect of mind, which is called consciousness here, are the six sense consciousnesses, the six consciousnesses which operate in direct perception, the five sense consciousnesses and mind consciousness, mind consciousness which directly perceives things, and sense consciousness which directly perceives things. So these are the actually eight consciousnesses, six, seven, eight. Manas is seven, the lie is eight,

[29:48]

and then you have this five sense plus the mind consciousness plus six, so the eight consciousnesses. It doesn't say eight consciousnesses here, but you can see them. Okay, so that's the basic conceptual structure here, the basic conceptual template for studying mind, which is the basis for understanding the next part of the chapter, which is that these things, which are the conscious basis by which we're going to understand everything, including themselves, these consciousnesses are the basis for understanding that these consciousnesses are empty, and in that understanding we won't perceive these consciousnesses. Doesn't say they don't exist, just that we're going to be able to find them once we can't find any conceptual apprehension of them. I was talking to a Jehovah

[30:53]

Witness about two weeks ago, and she was discussing Adam and Eve, and the first sin was when they took the bite of an apple from the apple tree that they were told not to take a bite into from God, and she said that sin started from becoming aware. It's this mental faculty that you're talking about where the self becomes aware of the self, or consciousness becomes aware of its self. How else would you denote that? I think that one other way to say it would be that consciousness was aware, but in some sense I would say maybe that consciousness was aware at the

[32:01]

level of direct sense consciousness in the Garden of Eden. They were perceiving colors and stuff like that, but they had no conceptual mediation in their awareness, and in the realm of direct perception, we're barely aware. We can negotiate a garden very nicely, and we can learn that this fruit is poisonous and this one's not, but we're barely aware of the objects that we're aware of, but we are aware, and we do relate to them. But when we have conceptual mediation, our awareness becomes much more conscious and clearer, and not, I would say, ambiguous. In direct perception, the awareness is somewhat ambiguous, because you're actually dealing with the actual richness

[33:07]

of sensory life, in which, when you look at something, you're looking at it, does something to it, and of course it does something to you. So in direct perception, actually, you can feel, you're actually in touch with the richness of our life, and it's not so clear whether that it's separate from you. So in order to be clearer about that, they had to separate themselves from the apple, and separate themselves from each other, and separate themselves from sex. Now, actually, that's not correct. According to Jehovah's Witnesses. Right. According to them, it was the awareness that was the sin, by taking a bite into the apple. I agree that it's awareness, but I think there was another awareness before that, which is sort of, you know, what we say, it wasn't... Direct perception? It was direct perception, yeah.

[34:07]

But it was, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to find the apple, would be no issue, they wouldn't have been able to bite it, and if they're told not to bite the apple, they wouldn't have known, but they sort of knew the apple was there, but if they bit it, they would be actually more separate from it, and then they have what's called, usually, objective knowledge. So when we say objective knowledge, that usually means conceptual knowledge, where we actually know that that object's out there separate from us. But before that, the separation is, it's not that clear, and really there is no separation, but in direct perception you don't really understand that there's no separation, but you can't really, you don't really clearly understand that there is separation, so your knowledge isn't really that firm, where if you say, the image isn't, you don't have a sharp image of the apple, but when you bite the apple, then you have more... So it is, I agree with that thing, it's knowledge, but it's, there is some awareness before that, it's just that it's not clear, and we kind of want it to be clear.

[35:10]

So there's also the story of Amoran Psyche in Greek myth, right, Greek mythology, of Psyche getting together with Lo, and they get together, but they get together in the dark, so they're actually having contact and knowing that they're together, but she doesn't know, she's not clearly aware of who he is, she knows something about him, but it's kind of ambiguous, because in the dark, she doesn't know that he's a god, she doesn't know that he can fly, she doesn't know that he's Aphrodite's son, she doesn't know that he's really good-looking, she doesn't know that stuff, she just knows that this is really important, this relationship, and she's very, you know, it's a big thing, she can tell him from other people, but she doesn't really know, so if she puts a light on him, then she'd be more sure, when she puts a light on him, then that disturbs their relationship, so she gets thrown out of the garden, she gets thrown out of her own little nice garden, which is Eros's palace, you know, she gets thrown out of the palace, and she loses him, so it's a similar story,

[36:15]

but they were, there is awareness before, otherwise there would be no life, so in some sense you could say that the Bible is actually telling something about human evolution at that point, it's a metaphor, it's poetry for the evolution of consciousness from direct sense perception to, I would say, conceptual cognition, where we have clear images of things, but the problem is when you have a clear image of something, it gets confused with the thing, and you think that the image is the thing, and that's wrong, it's not, but it's nice that you have a nice clear image now, but then you get kicked out of, the Garden of Eden is the direct sense perception, in a way, which is very rich, and then all the apples are different taste and different color and different smell, and now they're different taste and different smell, but they're like talking to you, and you're talking to them, there's this kind of very

[37:17]

intimate thing, which of course, that's the way things are, you know, and everybody you meet that way too, the way they smell, the way they look, the way they talk, of course they can't talk because we need conceptual mediation in order to talk, so all the people you're not talking with, but that you're just interacting with, it's very rich, very interactive, very ambiguous about who's who and what's what, but it's biological bliss, it's life, it's actually the way life is, that it's very interactive, and the world gives us life, and we give the world life, all the plants in the garden are born because of mental apprehension, and we're born of all the plants, and this is very ambiguous and kind of wonderful, and there's all kinds of possibilities rather than just the one possibility of it being an apple that's bitten into.

[38:18]

So basically it's the same thread, I see a common ground here, which is between the stories that you were talking about and the Buddhist theory, which is this awareness is the cause of the suffering. Yeah, exactly, they're very close, and here we just have a conceptual analysis, a theoretical picture, it would give you more information to make a little temple around the biting into the apple and getting kicked out of Eden story, which gives you some more psychological information about that process, but it's the same story, really, I mean it's talking about the same event, when we get exiled from what it's like in the realm of direct perception, and then we, it's hard to get back to it, but you can get back to it through a process

[39:23]

of meditation. Yeah, yes, I was just thinking the instructions they had, they had a meaning, so it was kind of like before the apple was bitten, it was, the bubble was, say it again, the instructions they had in the night, yes, had meaning, they had meaning, yeah, yeah, actually, does anybody know when you say don't bite them, or you say if you bite them you get kicked out, he said don't bite them, so I guess God didn't want people to evolve into spiritual beings, according to that, how intelligent is that, well, maybe he wanted to be the only one who knew anything, yeah, this picture of God is maybe a picture of God who is the only one who knows anything,

[40:32]

it's omniscient one who is not going to have any successors, or maybe it's a test to see if you believe it or not, there is a test to see if you believe it or not, yeah, well, I don't know, I'm not saying they didn't believe him, but just they, God told him not to, but the universe forced him to do it, if you look at the story of, if you look at the story of Amor and Psyche, there are various forces that pushed her to blow the next seed, and I think, I think the nature of evolution is that it pushed beings to take the step, and if God told them not to, that's kind of an interesting little twist, is it God? I don't know if it's God who told him not to, who ever wrote the story, who ever wrote the story, God wrote the story, well, they were going to eat, you know, eat of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil next, it was a tree, it was a tree of knowledge,

[41:39]

it's a matter of free will, no free will, I read somewhere that they actually, he actually told them in order for them to actually go ahead and pick a fight, because he knew it was a man or human nature to actually go against the grain, so I can't remember if it was C.S. Lewis or Amor, it wasn't God. I think another perspective on this is that before this happened, living beings were already serving the function of the universe being aware of itself, but again, it wasn't a clear objective knowledge in the universe before this step.

[42:44]

So this special variety of knowledge called objective knowledge, where the object seems out there separate from the subject, doesn't arise before this point. There's still the possibility of this type of knowledge, but it's not clear because in direct perception, you're actually in the realm of where things are really like still kind of mushing and souping and, you know, alchemical. So the universe gained something when it evolved to this level, it gained a new type of knowledge which you didn't have before, in this neighborhood anyway. But what's the object of the direct perception of mind consciousness, when mind consciousness has direct perception of phenomena? Mind consciousness can have direct perception of the same things that sense consciousness are aware of, and mind consciousness can also have direct perception of mental phenomena.

[43:49]

In both cases without any conceptual mediation, because mind consciousness, the organ for mind consciousness is the same as this Manas, is this thought. So the organ for Chitta is Manas, and among these six are among these six sense consciousnesses. One of the sense consciousnesses is a mind consciousness. But the condition for the mind consciousness are not the same as the conditions for the sense consciousness. The conditions for sense consciousness are, the three main conditions are, the organ, the physical organ, the physical data, and the previous moment of consciousness. consciousness. The previous moment of consciousness is the immediate condition for the arising of a mind consciousness, or for the arising of a sense consciousness. If you have a consciousness

[44:55]

and also the consciousness, the sense consciousness are named after the organ, not after the object. So the sense consciousness, for example, the first sense consciousness that's usually listed is the eye consciousness, rather than the color consciousness. So the conditions for eye consciousness are the eye organ, the subtle physical organ, the gross physical data, which is perceptible, like a magnetic radiation. And the previous moment of consciousness, those are the three conditions for the arising of sense consciousness. The mind consciousness, the conditions for the arising of that, the immediate condition is the same, it's the previous moment of consciousness. The object, however, is not the sense, it's not the object. Even if the mind consciousness were the object, the object's not the dominant condition, it's not the object conscious, it doesn't have object consciousness, because it determines from its inside, it

[45:59]

determines what the object will be. And it does have object consciousness, I think about, I'm glad to be in the next level of consciousness. It does have it, but its organ is not a physical organ. Its organ is this mind organ. So its organ is the mind organ. Consciousnesses which it arises with, you could also be aware of those, but it could also be aware of other mind consciousnesses, and it also can be aware of mental data that are arising with it. Okay, that's a little bit about the basic structure in this chapter. And the next big chunk is to talk about alaya, and for your information, last winter I spent quite a

[47:05]

few sessions talking about the evolution of where alaya came from probably, sort of the history of this concept. Again, this is a conceptual concept about where the concept of alaya came from. So if you want to hear about that story, you can hear about it by listening to those tapes. And there's also a text on this reading list called The Ocean of Eloquence. It's listed under O. And The Ocean of Eloquence has a discussion, it's basically, the whole book's about it, the main topic of the book is alaya vijnana. That is the history of how the concept arose,

[48:09]

and Sankapa's, the Tibetan teacher Sankapa's understanding of alaya. So if you want to learn more about alaya, if you want to learn a lot about alaya, that's a good book to start with. Is that Jeff Hopkins? The author's name is Gareth Sharpham. It's listed on each time he's reading this. So I don't mind going over it again, but I spent several classes on it last, and we wouldn't, you know, I think I made it better for you just to consult that. What's the name of the author's last name again? Pardon? What's the name of the author's last name? I think it's S-H-A-R-H-A-M. S-P-A-R-H-A-M. S-P-A-R-H-A-M. It's on the reading list under O, for Ocean.

[49:14]

Do you have a reading list? No, I forget. So anyway, it's a good book on alaya. There's other, there's lots of other places, but that's one where it specializes in the topic. Okay, so we can say a little bit about alaya by reading the text. So, initially, independence upon two types of appropriation, the appropriation of the physical sense powers associated with the support, and the appropriation of predispositions, which proliferate conventional designations with respect to signs, names, and concepts. The mind which has all the seeds develops, increases, and expands its operations. So this is talking about, this is his whole story about initially.

[50:18]

Initially, what? Well, initially, whatever type of sentient beings there may be in cyclic existence, with its six kinds of beings, in early Buddhism they had five, in Mahayana they have six. Whatever types of beings there may be of these six types, those sentient beings manifest body and arise within a state of birth, such as egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, spontaneous-born. So this is saying whatever kind of being are born, initially, at the beginning, they do so in dependence upon two types of apprehension, appropriation, and these appropriations happen through this alaya vijnana. In early Buddhism, they just had a type of consciousness which they called birth consciousness, they just called it birth consciousness, but they didn't go into as much detail about the

[51:22]

nature of that birth consciousness as this alaya vijnana does. Yeah, here it says the appropriation of physical sense powers associated with the support. Do you know what is meant by associated with the support? Do they mean like a body that supports the physical? Did you hear a question? She said, do you mean like a body? Support. Okay, it's a reasonable question, but my saying no points to the fact that the teaching is that the body is a sixth sense organ. That's what the body is in Buddhism. So it's not, so it's actually saying the body. All right, what's the support for that? Support for the body? No, for the sense organs, what's the support? Because they are the body, what's the support? It's kindness. It's kindness. It's a mind, so it's alaya.

[52:26]

So initially, here it says, initially there's an appropriation of sense powers associated with support. At the beginning of birth there's an appropriation of sense powers which are associated with the support. The support is alaya. Okay, so initially at birth these sense powers arise in dependence on mind. So they're saying the mind is the support for the arising of the actual functioning sense organs. Okay, so the mind. That's the first type, that's the first type of appropriation is actually appropriation of sense organs in support by the mind. So in some sense it's the mind appropriating the sense organs, but then the body gets sense organs too. In other words, the body comes alive in dependence on the mind, and mind apprehends the sense organs.

[53:30]

So the mind seems to almost be a precondition for the sense organs. Yes, a mind is a condition for sense organs. Pre- or pre-existing? It doesn't pre-exist, but there have been minds before. But this mind doesn't, it isn't like the minds floating around waiting for the sense organs, but because there have been minds in the past, now mind and sense organs arise together. And again, if you listen to those, if you read that book or listen to the tapes, originally they came up with this theory about a laya to explain how consciousness could go on in certain states of very, very profound meditation, or states of coma, or states of, you know, I guess coma is a good example, states of deep unconsciousness. How did life go on? How did consciousness continue to exist? And they came up with the idea that

[54:34]

consciousness can actually, like, can rest in the sense organs, even though it's not operating, can live in the sense organs. Which is not different, doesn't contradict early Buddhism, because consciousness arises out of the sense organs, which are always living in this field, sense organs are always living in the field of gross sense material, and they're always resonating with it, they're always interacting with it. And if mind lives in the sense organs, rests in the sensitive part of the body, the life can go on, even though none of these other mental factors are arising. So that's part of why they came up with this. But now they're saying at birth, it's not that there lies sleeping in the sense organs, because the person is coming alive now. You have this condition of some kind of materiality interacting with the environment,

[55:36]

and based on having a lie as support, there's apprehension, you get the sense consciousness is activated, you activate the actual power to turn it on. It's kind of like, you know, when you get a credit card, you call it in, and they activate it, it's like that. Another question, if I could. I don't know if this has been covered earlier, you can tell me. Lots of stuff has been covered earlier. This has been going on for several seconds. Well, it's mentioning alaya as the appropriating consciousness. Well, actually, it is, but actually, in this text, they have a different word for the appropriating consciousness. At birth, they say, they call it adana. Adana means appropriating. So at birth, in a sense, alaya is called adana. After birth, it's called alaya.

[56:45]

So one of the names for alaya is appropriating consciousness at the time of birth. Because it appropriates the sense consciousness, it activates them, you know, it turns them on. And then after that, which I really like this part of the text, it says, after that it shares the destiny of the sense organs. It shares the risk and the benefits of the sense organs. Sense organs get in trouble, alaya gets in trouble, alaya gets in trouble, the sense organs get in trouble. So this consciousness and the body then are closely allied from then on. Well, the question is... And one other little detail is that the body can deteriorate and disperse, and there's no causal continuity between this body and other bodies. This body disperses and

[57:48]

doesn't make more bodies, any more than the mind doesn't make more bodies. But the mind, which was associated with the body, it has a causal continuity to create further minds. So the mind you have in this life and the body you have in this life, as long as the body's collected and together with the alaya and so on, there's continuity for both. But when the physical situation develops such that the physical elements disperse, that doesn't cause another body. But the mind does cause further minds. So there's a different continuity, different process of continuity for mind and body. That's why the mind is the support for the birth of the body. Well, this isn't what I was going to ask, but how does the mind cause further minds? That was just a side point. How does the mind cause further minds?

[58:52]

Well, like I said, the conditions for the arising of a consciousness is a previous consciousness. The main conditions for the arising of consciousnesses are an organ power, which for sense consciousness is physical organs, and for mind consciousness is mind organ. And the mind organ is a previous state of cognition. The just previous state of cognition is the mind organ. So the organ-like power of your mind is that consciousness is just deceased. And the other main condition for the arising of consciousness, which is called the immediate condition, is also the immediately antecedent condition. So a consciousness just before this consciousness is the cause of this consciousness. It's not the same consciousness, it's a different consciousness, but it is taught as a condition for this consciousness. And all the different schools agree on that point.

[59:55]

In other words, consciousnesses don't come out of nowhere, they're conditioned by a previous consciousness. And they also need an organ, which is the previous consciousness. In the case of the mind-consciousness, in the case of a sense consciousness, it's the sense consciousness which has been activated by a previous mind consciousness. So you have a previous mind consciousness which is a condition for the sense consciousness, and then you have a turned-on sense consciousness, which is dependent on a previous So you have these two living things, which are conditions, plus an object, and in some cases the object is not, in the case of conceptual cognition, the object is not an external object, it's not really an important condition, the important condition is the predispositions of the mind in conceptual cognition, because it comes up with images from itself according to its own predispositions. Yes?

[60:58]

So when the physical elements disperse, and the conditions of the mind, conditioning the next mind, proceeds or... Say it once again, please? When the physical elements disperse, and they're not linked anymore, the mind in the sense organs, because the sense organs have dispersed... The mind in the sense organs are not linked anymore, that's by the way why we don't mind cremating people, but we don't burn the mind, we just burn the body. But I wanted to know about how the mind that produces, or is conditioned for further minds, how that works exactly, once the physical elements are dispersed. I'll start by saying, just to offer this for discussion, that it operates the same

[62:02]

way that minds worked before. In some minds, and minds don't need physical sense organs, so if you lose a body, there can still be evolutions of minds. So the body's been dispersed, the last consciousness at the point before it sort of got dissociated from the mind, so the body-mind become dissociated. We're not going to something permanent here, right? So we have body-mind dissociated, the body's no longer got the sense organs, it's all falling apart. But you have now the last cognition associated with the body. Now that cognition can be, it could be, the antecedent condition for another state of consciousness, and that state of consciousness can't be a sense consciousness, because...

[63:05]

Actually, it could be a sense consciousness once, maybe, because it could be associated with sense, because it could be associated with previous moment of cognition, previous moment of cognition could have been a sense consciousness, so in that sense it could still be connected to sense a little bit. But more likely, I would say, is that it's going to be a mind consciousness, so its organs is going to be the previous moment of cognition, its antecedent condition is going to be the previous moment of cognition, and it's all just going to be something coming from itself, from its own predispositions. So conceptual cognition would be handy at that time, because conceptual cognitions don't even need any objects, you can just refer to the cause of continuity of imagination. So that could be the one right after death. When you've got that, well then you can have another one, and another one, and if the repertoire of this consciousness, this last consciousness that was associated with the body, had all

[64:09]

these concepts for practice, and these predispositions to choose those concepts of practice to guide the mind, then there would be a causal continuity with that. So the mind could actually then ... it doesn't last, but there could be this causal continuity of minds, which aren't connected to a body, and a lie is there too, right? So this is a causal ... I just said the causal continuity, and the resource of imagination is a lie. So you have a lie which has all these images, the seeds for all the images, plus predispositions for how the seeds are selected, and if it was in a practitioner there would be predispositions to select those kinds of seeds which would promote practice without a body. And that would go on for some period of time, until this lie then apprehends another set

[65:13]

of sense ... apprehends the sense consciousness which before a lie apprehends them, they're not turned on, but when it apprehends them they become alive, and then it gets settled into and joins this set of sense organs, and we have what we call birth of a sentient being. Now the sentient being could be quite developed, however, in some cases. So the sentient being could be a Bodhisattva. Not a Buddha yet, but highly developed, and some of these consciousnesses, when at the moment of conception, they go, okay, here we go. I just wondered, what you just described was a new understanding for you, because it seemed a few years ago, I remember you maybe incorrectly, emphasizing that the consciousness will only

[66:14]

exist with the body. Sort of in line with the question Roberta first asked, that this support was actually a body, and there was, between body and body, there was no after thought. Does that seem different from before? That seems different from what you just said, maybe. It does, but I don't know if I actually said that, but maybe I did, I don't know. This just feels new, from things you've said before. Um, with this body that you have, you could have experiences where there's only four skandhas, right? However, you still have a body with sense organs, it's just that the sense organs are not operating, they're not always operating, and you can be happily meditating on infinity of space or something, and your sense organs would not be turned on, it wouldn't be functional. However, you could come out of that trance, and they'll be turned back on, okay? So, there can be just four skandhas.

[67:16]

That seems like not what I was asking. That seems separate from what I was asking. So I'm saying if there can be just four skandhas, it's possible that the sense organs are dispersed, and there's a causal continuity of four skandhas producing four skandhas producing four skandhas, a causal continuity that way, and that would be a story of the process of rebirth. Whether it would be a causal continuity of consciousnesses, and the Buddha did not say that the consciousness gets carried over from one birth to the other, he said that wasn't right, but he didn't say there wasn't a causal continuity because he said there was rebirth, and the karma of one life visits the next life, so this is a story about how there could be causal continuity in consciousness from the death to the birth. Without saying the consciousness lasts, because he doesn't want anything to last, because then you get a self. And by the way, I'll just tell you that there's another big wave in this, in a sense,

[68:28]

this Yogacara tradition, where they actually like stop talking about a life as one, because they feel like it's just too easily considered to be a self. But this is the first phase of the Yogacara, which we're trying to become familiar with, and the next phase we'll get to later, I don't know when. So the leaders of the first phase are Asanga and Vasubandhu, leaders of the second phase are disciples of Asanga and Vasubandhu, Dignaga and Dharmakirti, so all these people are historical Indian sages who presented conceptual approaches to realizing emptiness and practicing the Bodhisattva way, they're all part of the Bodhisattva tradition, but the latter two prove things which Asanga just says. He does have some debate, he does debate a little bit, but he's not really trying to

[69:33]

prove it to the same extent as the later people did. So the later tradition, these people are epistemologists, Asanga, there's epistemology in this text, but it's just basically taken on the authority of Buddha, so the first two great teachers in this tradition, Asanga and Vasubandhu, they're called the Yogacara people according to the scriptures, they just tell you what the scriptures mean in this great way, the second way, they actually follow reason and analyze and debate, they tell you why it's so and they use logic rather than just referring to the sutra to tell you why the other schools are wrong, they prove to you why the other schools are wrong. Chris? Isn't part of why alaya was taught as to explain how there could be this rebirth without object, not a sense object or even a mental object, how there could be rebirth and how

[70:38]

there could be transmission of karma, because alaya holds the consequences of past karma as seeds and predispositions, seeds for images, seeds for all the images of everything that you can imagine, plus the predispositions to access these in certain ways, even though you have a tremendous amount of seeds for images, depending on your practice, you access those seeds in different patterns, so one of the consequences of practice is accessing the seeds in a wholesome way, so there's a conveying of the consequences of practice from life to life or the consequences of not practicing very well from life to life, which will then of course also even before they had alaya, they still were saying you know that different karmic patterns would cause you to choose different births, so this you know these images, this poetic image of these beings called Gandharvas,

[71:43]

which are the name of the type of consciousness that's in this causal continuity between having bodies and these Gandharvas actually choose their parents you know according to their predispositions, some think humans are really interesting, some think cows are very interesting, if you think cows are interesting then that might influence who you hang out with, you might wind up in a cow dress, doesn't mean you shouldn't love cows, yes, how might we help Gandharvas, how do you help them, well again like I said you don't burn the mind, you don't want to burn the mind up, you want to teach the mind, the basic thing you teach the mind is take refuge in Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, so after somebody dies you want to keep telling

[72:48]

them to take refuge, that's a basic instruction. Now if you're pretty confident that they got that part down, you might give them other teachings, but actually just in case you're mistaken, you know you think oh this is a great teacher you know so we don't need to tell them about Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, we can just do the Prajnaparamita for this person because she's really like totally into Prajnaparamita, we'll just chant the Prajnaparamita for her and remind her to keep meditating on that, but just to make sure that we're not overestimating her understanding, we'll do Prajnaparamita in a parallel track, so one group of people chanting Prajnaparamita for the person and the other group of people chanting the Prajnaparamita and some other people doing the Yogacara, different teachings, so you have advanced ones so that you know what do you call it, they hit the ground running, but just as a insurance policy to make sure that the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha things come in there because that's

[73:50]

much simpler, almost everybody gets oriented by that instruction, so that's going to work for everybody, but if you wanted to get somebody a more advanced teaching you could do that too, but I guess if you have to choose just to make sure do Buddha, Dharma, Sangha as the person's dying and after they die and we say this 49 days, there's something about that, the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree for 49 days and we say 49 days, by that time if the person's going to be reborn, they have, they might be overdoing it, they might be reborn very very fast, they may have a plan to get born quite soon because they want to study with one of their students before the student dies, or actually not even before the student dies, but if they don't want to, they want to study

[74:52]

with their student, there's opportunity to be born somewhere in the neighborhood of where their student teaches, so they see the opportunity to get born really fast because they might not get another chance in the same neighborhood as their student, you see what I mean, and it's, you know, probably they want to receive teachings from their student, which they will, but also they want to keep an eye on their student, which is similar to receiving a teaching, when you're watching somebody teach, you know, like, you know, then you're receiving it too, I think, and so that that's one possibility, that you do it very fast, if you had that ability, but apparently nobody goes more than 49 days, and apparently one of the possibilities of that is that some people don't get reborn, Buddha didn't say everybody gets reborn, he just said there is rebirth, and he also says, and obviously, definitely not everybody gets reborn, our hearts don't get reborn, and the Buddha didn't get

[75:56]

reborn, but even people who aren't great sages, some of them don't get reborn, maybe, but some people do get reborn, and that's why it's really good to practice, because that will help you, you know, get in a good practice situation next time. Yeah, well, I'm curious about the alaya in the body, someone was telling me recently that they know somebody who got a heart transplant, and before she got the heart, you know, she didn't like margaritas at all, then she got the heart, it's really like margaritas, there's a other person, so it's like in the alaya, and they found out the other person went out with the family, and they're like, oh yeah, so-and-so loved the heart, so I'm just wondering what, you know, the body is not producing other bodies, but it is taking in the storehouse, right, it's storing something, it's in the communication, it's like

[76:56]

the hard drive or something for the alaya, it's like storing the body. Well, I just want to say that there's a difference between the heart organ and the sense organs, right, but I don't want to like make some statement that the sense organ is a subtle, it's a subtle material, so the sense organ doesn't have to be totally limited to the stuff around our eyeball, it's not really the eyeball, it's just that it's located around there, it's not eyeball, it's the sensitivity, it's the ability, it's like, you know, if you can play catch with somebody, that's more like your capacity, it's not really you, the physical body, it's the ability to catch the ball,

[77:57]

but if the ability gets involved somewhere around your body, you can extend your body with a mitt, right, but some people have a mitt on, they can't catch it, some people don't have a mitt on, they can't, it's the actual ability to catch it, that's the capacity we're talking about, so the sense organs don't have to be so strongly associated with with some part of the body, but the most fundamental sense organ is the skin, is tactile, so there is skin in a sense, there is tactility around the heart, the heart does have a sensing surface, I don't know if it has eyes or a nose, I don't know about that, maybe it does, but if it could respond to light and smell, then that sensitivity at a certain point, if it was strong enough to give rise to a consciousness, then there would be organs in other parts of the body than we're more familiar with, so that makes sense, it's the strength, it's the ability of the organ

[78:59]

to be sensitive enough in relationship to gross material that a consciousness will arise, so it's possible that this heart has some association with the organ of touch, it's possible, that we usually think of certainly this part of it, but there's also internal touch too, right, and the heart may be a part of that, we know we have pain in our heart, lots of organs around pain, right, so it may be that something about sense organs gotten mixed up there, and that alaya was somehow in that sense organ and got moved around with the sense organs and got stretched from one body over to the other body, because it was actually living in that sense organ, it was living in the heart as a sense organ, I mean the heart was a sense organ, which alaya was in, so when you moved the physical organ, alaya came with it, part of alaya came with it, so part of the person came into the body of the person, so the person maybe has two,

[80:04]

somebody else's alaya in their own body, because you moved the sense organ where the alaya, the alaya is actually living in the sense organ, it's located in the body, so if you move the body over here, the alaya goes with it, but alaya isn't just, alaya although it's grounded in the sense organ, it isn't totally there, it's all over the universe too, right, so consciousnesses are not located, you know, in the sense that they're just there and not all over the place, but they are associated with the body, so if you move the body around, the alaya goes with it, so that's why this thing about, you know, we're careful about moving bodies after they die, and again, some people, in some cases, there's, you know, you can move the body because alaya has, is not there anymore, but some cases it is for a while, it's not a person though, right,

[81:09]

well, I don't know, maybe it is a person, but it's not, it's not supposed to be a self, so anyway, that is possible, especially because they move the heart right after the person dies it's possible, yeah, that it's also possible if you move the eyes, it's possible you can move the person's alaya, so the alaya is associated with these five organs, right, and when the organ moves over there, alaya can move with it, but if you move one organ over there and another organ over there, alaya can go both ways, right, so you move one organ to Olten and move another organ to Palo Alto, alaya wouldn't have any problem going with them to a certain point, to a certain extent, especially, especially if alaya got moved over and connected to another body that was animated and held together by another, another alaya, so it would be able to move into an environment that had enough force to keep another body going, but the other, the alaya originally

[82:14]

couldn't keep, this body couldn't keep associated with this body, but it maybe can find a home in another body, so it might be possible to have two people living in one body, or, you know, we're going to make it complicated, but you have somebody who's alive and is receiving multiple donations, you know, they need new eyes, new ears, it's possible to have two people, it's predisposition, it's like this heart alaya, it's the karmic predispositions or yeah the inclinations, the alaya, somebody else's alaya could get somehow into your body in that way possibly. I'm not, I'm just saying, I'm just thinking about this with you, right? Now, again, you can't transplant easily the whole skin organ to somebody else, you know,

[83:20]

somebody needs a new skin, that's not a very popular transplant except for skin grafts, right? Or for, like, Aztecs used to do that, right, skin of somebody else, but it wasn't that the new person's skin was their skin organ, it was just like a mask that they put on. But unintentionally moving a heart, you might also bring touch sensitivity with it, and so the alaya of the other person, although they're dissociating with the rest of the whole body as a whole, it is possible the alaya wouldn't have it. I mean, it's not just possible, it does happen, alaya does inhabit bodies where some of the sense organs can't be activated, right? We know that's the case sometimes, somehow it takes up residence or apprehends sense organs, but it doesn't apprehend all of them, but the one in almost all of them, as far as I've ever heard, never heard of it apprehending a body where it didn't get the skin organ, the touch. So if Helen Keller had touch, but she didn't have vision or hearing,

[84:25]

right? I don't know, did she have smell and taste? But she definitely had touch, right? I've heard some story about this. So I'm just saying it's possible that alaya would inhabit a body that only had skin, skin sensation. So if it can do that, then it's possible that it could even move to another body and stay and kind of ground for the sense, the skin thing, but you'd have to have the rest of the conditions for the person to be alive. So you have to be careful when you get a transplant, right? What, 21 grams? Yeah. I think there's, there's, there's something to some, you could, you could, you could step speculate about this and there's some reasonableness to it according to this theory. This isn't too difficult for you, is it?

[85:28]

Much better than the doctors. Yeah. Oh, it's after nine. Oh, I read about this, you know, the heart transplant that had to do with the retention of memory, not muscles. And, and I was wondering if alaya has come to look at with that concept. You know, I had stories about remembering. The, the literal, the literal teaching is that alaya doesn't exactly go into the muscles. It goes into the sense organs, but the muscles have sense organs. And so it wouldn't really be in the muscles. It would be in the sensitive. It wouldn't be in the, in a part, it wouldn't be sort of in the muscles ability to contract. It would be in the muscles ability to be sensitive to the world. The sense organs are the padrava, are really the body as it relates to the environment. It's the body in relationship. It's not the body by itself doing its own stuff.

[86:29]

It's emphasizing the sense, emphasizing that materiality can be insensitive to relationship to materiality, which isn't so sensitive. The gross materiality doesn't demonstrate the sensitivity that, that the subtle does. And so if you, so you can say that memories are in tissue, but really memories are more like in the sense organs because the sense organs is where alaya lives. And alaya has memory, you know, it has the residual of past action in it. So you have a mind living in the body and in the muscle, in the part of the muscle that's the sense organ, you have alaya living. Alaya lives, we have a mind that lives, that takes up residence, according to this teaching, in sense organs. But it's not in, it's not necessarily, uh, you know, the teeth seems to be a place that never really seemed to have nerves, right? So anywhere where there's sensitivity, where there's touch sensitivity, alaya would be there.

[87:34]

Okay. And so, and so a memory would be there. And so you could, you could touch part of the body and you'd stimulate alaya because it lives there. And it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not limited to there, but it's, it's associated, it's limited there in the sense of, I mean, it's a, it lives there in a sense it's associated with there. Mind is not located, the mind is associated and in a sense lives in the body, in the sense that it shares that which is associated with it. So that is possible, all that's possible. That's past nine, so can we stop? You can ask me afterwards. I never go to bed. Do you want her to ask you a question? No. They don't want you to ask them a favor.

[88:43]

So don't forget to apply the last part of the chapter to what they're talking about tonight.

[89:43]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ