Wanted to meet here tonight because there's an amplifier. And my voice is like this. And can you hear me all right if I talk like this? You can't? You cannot hear me. You can hear me now? You can hear this? It's okay? All right, well, if you can't hear me, let me know. I'll try again and again. Pardon? There's closer seats, too. There's closer seats, too, yeah. Actually, I was listening to a tape that Alenia gave me, and the person said that his neuro-biological understanding of mind is that it is an emergent quality or emergent phenomena that emerges from the interaction between the

[01:19]

neurobiological and the interpersonal, the interaction of mind arises or emerges from that interaction. So I was saying last week about cognition is the interaction between the body, the sensing body, and the rest of the world. And that there is this... And so that is immediate cognition. So that some magical thing that knowing... knowing is an interaction or knowing is a process of interaction between a sensing physicality and a sensed world.

[02:42]

And the sensed world specifies specifies the cognition. Body specifies the cognition. They mutually specify. And the cognition also specifies the world, too. But this, I think part of what also being known now is that in the world particularly in the world, the interpersonal aspect of the world, we're also interacting with. So we're interacting with physical data. We're also interacting with people who are physical data to us, humans and non-humans who are physical data to us.

[03:52]

humans and animals, humans and dogs. And those persons relate to us and those persons relate to each other. And we're interacting with that interpersonal world. Our bodies are interacting with that interpersonal world. And that interpersonal world also affects the development of our senses. So I think there's a nice fit between certain research in neurobiology. In the Buddha's teaching, they don't have what we call a brain. They don't talk about the brain. They just talk about the sense organs. But the brain is a place.

[04:59]

The brain is kind of a place in some sense that all the sense organs share. but it really is also part of the sense organs. It's a sense organ. That's the story of the arising of perception. And then within perception there's basically two types, sense perception and mental perception. And then also you could say perception is basically of four types.

[06:05]

So it's two types is sense and mental. Another way to say it is four types, which is sense perception, mental perception, and which is called apperceptive cognition or apperceptive perception, and then yogic perception. Those four types. And I think we talked a little bit about sense perception, right? And mind mental perception. Did we cover those last week to some extent? We didn't do yet the apperceptive, did we? Okay. So if you look at your chart, this chart here, Didn't get that chart?

[07:11]

Did you ever see this chart before? I don't know where it is either. Anyway, on this chart, going down the vertical side, one of the entries is apperceptive cognition. And then if you go horizontally from that perceptive cognition, you'll see it falls under three categories. Okay? And all three categories are perceptions. Got this diagram and didn't bring it. So maybe you have to use your imagination now, okay?

[08:14]

So you have apperceptive cognition. And it's a type of what? What's it a type of? Mirai? Do you know what it's a type of? You don't know? Pardon? It's a type of mental what? It's a type of mental perception, right. However, it's classified separately from mental perception. So it's a type of perception. It's a type of direct perception. And you see it falls under the three categories of perception. One is inattentive perception, and one is valid perception, and the other one is subsequent perception. Subsequent cognition.

[09:19]

Subsequent cognition, right. And so if you look at under the horizontal line perception, you'll see that it kind of matches the X's... Oh, you can't do this without the chart. Okay. On the perception line, there is valid perception, there is subsequent perception, and there is inattentive perception, and then there is wrong cognition. So perception can be a wrong cognition. And wrong cognition can also be a conception. Both perceptions and conceptions can be wrong. The basic reason for being a wrong cognition is that you're cognizing something that doesn't exist. So the basic cognition that we're talking about in this phase of the class is the awareness of the presence of something or the existence of something.

[10:34]

A wrong cognition is to be aware of something that doesn't exist, or to be aware of the presence of something that does not exist. We are able to have cognitions that are wrong, where we're actually knowing something that doesn't exist. Perceptual cognitions can be that wrong, that wrong way, and conceptual cognitions can also be wrong. Okay? And there's four basic wrong perceptions. You know, perceptions which are wrong, which are sensing something that doesn't exist. One type. So there's the wrong with regard to the object,

[11:43]

the substance, the mode, or the abode, and the antecedent condition. So a perception can be due to the organ. So, for example, in seeing In the visual perception, because of something wrong with the eye organ, there can be a cognition of something that doesn't exist. Like, for example, a green sun or yellow snow, or yellow ice.

[12:46]

Because of something wrong with your eye, you actually know something that doesn't exist. Another way that can be wrong, be a wrong cognition, is due to due to the objects. Some objects are such that we perceive things that aren't there. And the typical example is if you take a... I don't know what. In our case, maybe take incense in a dark room and light it and then move it quickly in a circle and a person maybe sees a circle, actually sees a circle. They think there's a red circle in there There actually isn't a circle, but because of this particular type of object, it's sensing something that doesn't exist. Another example is, which I often experience when I'm in Europe riding on trains, you're sitting on a train and there's two possibilities.

[14:04]

One is you see the next train moving. but it's not. Your train's moving. So you think the other train's moving, or vice versa. The other train's moving and you think your train's moving. So you're sensing a movement of your train when there's not a movement because of the setup, or you're sensing a movement of the other train when it's not moving. You're knowing incorrectly a moving train that doesn't exist. And then the other example which may surprise you is that you perceive something that doesn't exist because of the previous state of cognition. The condition for sense perception, one of the conditions is the immediate antecedent condition, and that is the immediate antecedent state of consciousness.

[15:14]

And if the immediate antecedent state of consciousness is... The example often used is anger, that you actually see red where there's not red. actually see a red color where there's not a red color because of an emotional state that just preceded this. People say see red, but, you know, it's kind of surprising that you actually see the color. What did you say? You're saying this arises from anger? The previous state of cognition had so much anger in it that now you actually see the color red. One has no red. Or, you know, you see red, more red than there is. You see a non-existent level of redness.

[16:16]

The previous examples you may have more understanding of than that one. I don't know. But those are four ways that perception can be wrong. I gave four. I gave the object, I gave the object, organ, and the situation. Yeah, the situation when the trains are moving. That's the third one. No, there is a train there. You're not seeing something that's not there. What you're seeing... is because of the... you're seeing a movement that's not there. You're not seeing... So anyway, that was the third example. So those are the four ways that perception can be wrong. Situation or mode.

[17:21]

So, in the object, in the organ, in the setup or the mode, and the antecedent condition. Those are four ways that perception can be wrong. And, you know, it's possible that in an ordinary day you might not have any of those. Now, the third type, and I'm going back to the third type of perception, There's four types of perception, basically, and... There's four types of perception, and then there's... Are there four types of perception? Yeah. So there's four types of perception, and each type of... can be one of three types.

[18:23]

So the four types of perception can be inattentive perception. Actually, the four types can be four types. No. Yes, the four types can be four types. The four types, I'll just say this and maybe I'll find out. For example, sense perception can be wrong, it can be inattentive, it can be valid, and it can be subsequent. So across the top of the page you have these four categories in which perception can be perceived. Wrong cognition, inattentive cognition, valid cognition, and subsequent cognition. Sense perception can be that way. Mind perception can be that way. Mental perception can be that way. Actually, I have an amendment to that.

[19:28]

The apperceptive cognition, apperceptive cognition will not be wrong. The third type of perception will not be wrong. be wrong. But it can be. So the sense perception can be wrong. Mind perception can be wrong. But self-knowing, apperceptive perception cannot be wrong. It can be valid. It can be It can be inattentive, but it can't be wrong. Yeah, I can.

[20:34]

Before I do, I just want to also say, now the fourth type of perception, of direct perception, of immediate perception, of immediate cognition, is direct yogic perception. A direct yogic perception is a perception, so it can be, it's not in the whole vertical list, but I'm telling you, it can be valid, it can't be wrong, it cannot be wrong, it cannot be inattentive, but it can be subsequent. Okay? So those are the four ways of the four types of perception. Four types of perception, sense perception, mental perception, apperceptive or self-knowing perception, and direct yogic perception.

[21:38]

And those four, the first type can be all four types of cognition across the top of the chart. It can be wrong, inattentive, subsequent, and valid. It can be wrong, it can be valid, subsequent to valid, and inattentive. Mental perception can also be that way. All four, I mean all those four different types, wrong, inattentive, subsequent and valid. And now again, jumping to direct yogic awareness, it can be valid, subsequent, it can't be inattentive, and it can't be wrong. But the self-knowing, subsequent and inattentive, can't be wrong.

[22:45]

So it's not that the four types of perception can be four ways. Right. There's four ways that the four can be, but not all four can be four ways. So among the four types of perception, the first two can be all four. The third type, self-knowing perception, can be three, and that's on the chart. And direct yoga, I think, can only be two. Now to answer Holly's question. Self-knowing is a perception. It's a direct perception. But it never is wrong because it always is knowing. Every state has this ability to know itself, to be aware of itself. So it's never wrong. So when it's aware of a wrong cognition, it's not a wrong cognition.

[23:53]

When it's aware of a wrong perception or a wrong conception, it is sensing the presence of this state of consciousness. The state of consciousness which is wrong is sensing something that doesn't exist, or it's knowing, it's cognizing something that doesn't exist. a consciousness which is knowing something that doesn't exist, that is not wrong. In fact, when you do have a moment of a wrong consciousness, in fact, it is not a wrong consciousness to be aware that it exists. Inattentive, and then if you look at the chart, excuse me, So when you look at the chart and you look at apperceptive cognition, you'll see that it itself is of these three types.

[24:56]

Valid perception, inattentive perception. It's of those three types. In other words, it can know its object but be inattentive of it. It actually knows it but doesn't ascertain that it knows it. And it can be inattentive well, I guess to say that, and it can be very clearly and completely irrefutably, it can also know, it can be a direct valid cognition of some state. In the case of a valid perception, a valid perception, I'm pretty sure that in those cases the... the perception will also be valid. But in the case of, for example, the perception of a wrong conception, in that case,

[26:08]

The perception of a wrong conception is not wrong, but it would not be... I don't think you could have attentive cognition to a wrong cognition, except somebody else's wrong cognition. In this chart, which most of you don't have, there's a column which says non-imperceptive cognition. And that horizontal line applies to all the different types of cognition that are across the top. So non-imperceptive cognitions that don't know themselves, that know something other than themselves, and all the different types are of that type. So usually a cognition knows an object.

[27:18]

And the object can be either mental or physical. Yes? Maybe I misunderstood, but I think I understood you when you were talking about that attentive perception could not be wrong. That's what I understood. Could not be wrong? That's what I took from what you said, so I wondered if you would say it again more clearly. I meant to say valid perception cannot be wrong. Well, that makes sense. I didn't understand, you said it couldn't be inattentive and... I think what I meant to say was, for an knowing cognition, if it's knowing, if you have a wrong cognition, I don't think that the wrong cognition, the self-knowing,

[28:35]

Yeah, I don't think the self-knowing would be attentive. I think the self-knowing would be inattentive with a wrong cognition. That was the point you made. We went back to those examples that something could be wrong. Like, if it's wrong, Well, that's not good. Okay. In other words, well... I see now, looking at the examples of what a wrong cognition is, it begins to make sense. Whether it's a wrong cognition or right cognition, whether it's a valid cognition or a non-valid cognition, there is self-knowing. So all those basic categories of ways of knowing, they're all other knowing.

[29:50]

They know objects. And some of them, the objects they know can also be subjects. So mind can know subjects. Mind consciousness can know consciousnesses, can know minds. Sense consciousnesses don't know minds, they know physical data. But the self-knowing states of cognition, all different states of other knowing cognitions. So the normal other knowing cognition is said to have the mode of In other words, it's concerned with what's apprehended. The mode of the self is the mode of the apprehender. Namely, it knows apprehenders. It knows cognitions which apprehend things. Most cognitions know something that can be apprehended. Or you could say all cognitions know something that can be apprehended.

[30:57]

All phenomena know mental apprehension. And along with all those phenomena which are due to mental apprehension, in other words, along with every mental apprehension, is that it apprehends something that can be apprehended. Simultaneously, there's an awareness of the apprehender, and that's the self-knowing, direct perception. And that's direct, immediate. It's not conceptual. Yes? What self is knowing? Pardon? What self is knowing? Is knowing? You weren't here last week, right? I was. I remember the talk about the interpreter part of the brain. Is it speaking to that kind of function of knowing? Well, last week I said a number of times that when there's knowing there's not something that knows. There's not somebody who knows. There's just knowing.

[31:59]

Interaction between the body and the world, you have the body and the world interacting with it, and that interaction can give rise, that interaction is cognition. But there's not somebody having the cognition. So self-knowing is that when there's a cognition that arises in this way, cognition of that cognition, which is the same as the cognition. It's not something other than the cognition. It's the same as the cognition. The cognition has the quality of being self-aware. But that's not a somebody. And that is, some people say, where the sense of somebody having a cognition comes from. That quality of mind, of knowing the cognition, that every cognition is self-aware. There's a self-knower along with all the knowers of things. There's a self-knower of things that aren't that are other than the cognition, maybe some people might think, well, that's where the self-knower comes from.

[33:08]

And today I would not say that that's wrong, but I also wouldn't say it's right. Yes? So this aperceptive cognition, does that turn the light around? Is aperceptive cognition... Is it? No. It's not. So then, this... Are you doing that to Lynn? I'm sorry. You can keep talking, though. This apperceptive cognition, you said it was right there with cognition of an object, which I maybe don't have the right term for cognition. What is it called? Cognition when you're just cognizing the object alone? Cognition? Well, you said that it was that our perceptive cognition is right there at the same time. Is that something that we're all aware of, but we don't know that we're aware of?

[34:14]

Or do we, is it something is that way all the time? Do you have any further instructions to me? I have a request. Pardon? I have a request. Yes. I'm having a really hard time letting this in. And so one question that came up for me is that I'm missing a context for this study. Yeah. And my mind has been going to break things down in somebody in study. We're working on moving science. And I'm not quite sure this particular specificity of it and the breaking things down into Well, is it other than just the study of self, or how? I'm having a hard time because I don't have a context for this breaking things down into small pieces.

[35:19]

How's it going? It's kind of, sort of, in a way. Maybe that's the way. Maybe. Maybe. Yeah, me too. What? Me too. We agree. What do you agree on? That you don't have a context? Oh. The context is, I guess, that we're learning different ways of knowing. We're studying epistemology. That's one context. Does that give you any help? I think we could be breaking anything down into small pieces if the process of breaking down is helpful for understanding emptiness, for instance. Breaking it down just so that I have a knowledge of epistemology is interesting, but it's not as easy for me to commit to this confusion and difficulty of my perception and perception and conception are hard to continually define.

[36:26]

I haven't gotten down enough so that I can stick with it in a way when you add something. I don't have a strong enough picture. Eventually it may come. Well, one story, you want a narrative about this, is that is that over on the right-hand side of the chart, up in the upper corner, is wrong perception. Actually, it's wrong cognition of a perception kind. It is wrong cognition of the conception type, okay? So that type of cognition on this chart is the, well, it's kind of like the It's ignorance in the form of cognition. It's ignorance manifesting as a cognition. So it's a conception, for example, of permanence or a conception which doesn't exist.

[37:33]

It's a conception of an independent self, that things exist on their own. That's that type of thing. So there's that type of wrong conception or wrong cognition. And then if you move along the chart there, there's another type of conception which is called doubting or indecisive conception. It's another form of knowing. And so that would be a case where you would not be sure that the mistake in a wrong cognition, you would no longer be sure of that. You would have moved away from that and now be in a place where you're not sure of that. There'd be a different way of knowing. Now you're still looking at that same thing, namely a self,

[38:39]

but you're doubting it. Then you move again along the conceptual line to correct belief. Now you actually think that it's pretty much, that it's not there. The self or permanence. So that's a conceptual cognition, again. And with conceptual intake of teachings and so on, and other kinds of practices, your state of cognition, the way you're knowing things is evolving, you know, on this chart. Then it's possible to move from this correct belief over to what's called a valid inference, which is a conceptual cognition, where you now have analyzed the situation to such an extent that you are now, you actually are cognizing in a valid way, irrefutable way, finally you actually now are sure that that wrong cognition really is wrong.

[39:56]

So that's one . Now the other route then is to also practice in such a way on the first line Usually we're not so much concerned on the first line with overcoming wrong perceptions. They're not such a problem for us in our life. Now if someone permanently sees snow as yellow, if they often do that because of some eye problem, they can often sort of take that into account. And even though it still looks that way, they don't necessarily believe it. But most people are operating at the level of having mostly inattentive perceptual cognitions. But with yogic practice, you can actually have valid, direct perceptions where you actually are perceiving things, and you know you are, and it's very clear, and it's irrefutable. So after from wrong cognition to valid, wrong conceptual cognition, which is a source of our suffering, to a valid conceptual cognition, then

[41:10]

you can take that cognition, which you now have, and also then from that initial valid cognition, actually irrefutably understand the selflessness of phenomena and the impermanence of phenomena. Then you go back the other way one step, you have valid cognitions of that. So you keep cognizing what you understood. No, it's not the preceding, it's succeeding. Subsequent, afterwards. Once you have this conceptual cognition, for example, then you can have basically the same cognition again, except that it won't have the power of the first one because it's not the first time. But you still keep knowing that. Then the other level of evolution is the level of evolution or shifting epistemological perception level.

[42:21]

So you actually come to be able to have perceptions that you actually can ascertain. What's the practice? What's the practice? Basically shamatha, the concentration practice. But then the conceptual cognition that you have of some teachings, you actually verify the teaching and you directly see it. I mean, not directly see it, but validly cognize it. Then that understanding then can be revisited over and over. And as you become more concentrated, you can revisit it in direct perception and actually ascertain it in direct perception. So the final position, the highest position, is actually the upper left-hand corner of the chart, valid perception of what you have actually had a valid conception of.

[43:32]

So that's the evolution on this chart. And the rest of the chart is to help you understand the evolution. Yes? It might help us understand if we could try to come up with little examples of ourselves where... One of the less evolved states of perception and conception kind of hit the fan and then we see some karma happen. Or where we see kind of a path through and what comes out at the end appears to be more sort of dharmic results, more skillful results.

[44:36]

Just one little thing, I think, that mathematician at Princeton who went schizophrenic. And eventually, over many years, there was a movie about it. I think people will know what it is. Eventually, in terms of the ,, eventually learned to ignore, to discount, or somehow do some kind of operation, which is not exactly like what we're taught, but something, so that those wrong cognitions, wrong perceptions, wouldn't affect the karma in his life anywhere near. Are you talking about the beautiful mind? Yes, I guess that's it. So it is really hard to... get all the details, but if we could maybe come up with sort of, try to come up with stories that maybe fit some of the examples from the chart, maybe... I'm not saying you should in class, I'm just realizing that maybe I could do that when I get hold of a chart again.

[45:48]

Okay. Well, let's see. Um... Um... You've said already, in answer to the other questions, it seemed helpful to me. Okay. Organization to the left column, or are they just barriers? Well, for example, on the left column, one of the categories of the left column is perception. Right? Left meaning the vertical column. So that's a category. And then going across the page, you see various types of perception. Across the top, it doesn't say perception.

[46:53]

It has examples of perception. And then the next one. Yes? Direct and indirect? Yeah. You could also have either two more lines, or you could have two more lines if you want to. You could have direct cognition and indirect cognition. Then you'd have, instead of 11, you could put more examples in there. But the one that's here is which one? I'm just saying, pardon me? Perception is here, that has four X's. Yeah, so perception is one type of cognition. We could simplify the chart, you know. You could just have two horizontal lines, right? And then each horizontal line would have seven squares following it, all right?

[47:59]

So then you'd be basically saying, okay, or you could just have one line called perception, the perception line. Okay, now perception, what kind of perceptions are there? And going across there, they have basically four... You have a question about that? I'm just trying to understand the chart. I don't understand. Now I understand the top, the revolution across the top. Yes. But I don't understand the column. You understood, but you understand the top part of the left column, right? The top part of the left column is perception. I don't know whether that's referring to direct perception.

[49:03]

You don't know whether it's referring to direct or indirect perception? Perception is direct. So we could have a line that says perception. So say perception slash direct cognition. Or you could have one line for perception and another line for direct perception. And then if you went across, you would have the same things, because it's the same thing. So we could add... like we could have perception, perceptual cognition, perception, and you could have direct cognition. which is a synonym for perception. And then the box should be filled the same because we're talking about the same thing. And conception could be slash indirect cognition.

[50:04]

Indirect perception? Indirect cognition? Conception is indirect cognition. There's two types of cognition, direct and indirect. There's two types of cognition. So this is, if you're a Buddha, you're an epistemologist, and you know things about knowing. One of the things you know is that there's two types of cognition, which are called what? Correct and indirect. What else are they called? Perception and conception. Yeah. And then there's also another type of, there's another two types of cognition. Mental and sense. There's another two types. There's another two types. There's another two types. Apperceptive and what? No. If you would say apperceptive and direct yoga, that wouldn't be the two types.

[51:11]

That would be two of four types. Yeah. There's apperceptive and non-apperceptive. All states... Aperceptive or non-aperceptive. And valid or not valid. So these are different ways to understand this. But the simple chart is just the top, the top two lines. Care of everything. Aperceptive means... that this is the proposal that for every cognition there is simultaneous with that cognition something that's not in addition to it but the cognition knows. Well like the knowing, the sense perception of knowing blue, that's non-aperceptive.

[52:11]

That's the knowing of something other, that's the cognition of blue. That's other. The apperceptive cognition is knowing that there's knowing of blue. So if you look at the non-apperceptive, all the different types are non-apperceptive. All the seven types are non-apperceptive. And for every one of those types, of non-aperceptive, or non-self-knowing, or other-knowing, all, you can say, all the different types across the top are non-aperceptive, or non-aperceptive comes in those seven types. Aperceptive knows all those seven types. Aperceptive knows all the type of non-aperceptive.

[53:17]

However, aperceptive is not because it's a direct perception. In other words, we know when we have a cognition, we are aware of it, but not conceptually, but immediately. And it arises, it has the same conditions as the cognition which it knows, same conditions, same consciousness, it's just emphasizing that the consciousness knows itself. And it's not a conceptual cognition, it's a direct perception. So if you look in the chart, then you would expect to find it only under three types of cognition. Namely, three... Well, actually, you might think you... Four, because under direct perception, you have listed wrong... Under perception, you have wrong cognition. But wrong cognition is perception, but it's not direct perception. It's wrong cognition. Yes?

[54:19]

Yes. Well, we could put in non-comprehension, I guess, to put that in there, too. Non-comprehension, because you notice that comprehension goes under... under those two types of valid cognition and subsequent cognition. So those cognitions actually comprehend what they know. Most cognitions do not comprehend what they know. They know things, but they don't comprehend them. They know them in a fallible, refutable way. So, but you could also... In Sanskrit? What's another, would you say, what's another word for... Realize.

[55:25]

Realization. Yeah. But we could have another line called not comprehending, and then all those other states which aren't would get checks on that one. What? Yeah, there'd be six pairs, right. Are the pairs direct and indirect? Are the pairs direct and indirect? No. No, the pairs are not. For example, so all cognitions, you can say, are of two types. Two types comprehend all types of cognition, sensory and mental. All right? Now, sensory is direct, but mental direct or indirect. Mental can be direct mental cognition, or it can be conceptual cognition.

[56:29]

So if you take mental cognition, you can split it into conceptual and perceptual. And then when you split it into perceptual, you can split it into three. What are the three? No? No? Okay, so again, all states of cognition are either sensory or mental. The mental can be conceptual or perceptual. Conceptual is always mental. Perceptual Sensory or mental. But under the mental perceptual, there's three types. What are the three types? Wrong. One of them is wrong. Didn't you talk about that? No. Valid?

[57:43]

No. No. There's three types. The three types are are mental, mental perception, apperceptive perception, and those are the three types of mental perception. There are four types of perception. One is sense and the other three are mental. What? You gave a list of four types of perception. The first was sense, the second was mental, and the other two are also mental. That's what you were telling me. I gave four types of perception? Sense, mental, a perceptive, and direct yoga. Right. All except sense are mental. Right. Yeah. I forgot my question. Oh, does the sutra, the Samdhinarayana Sutra, use perception in this way, or does it also use it for indirect cognition?

[59:04]

When the word perception appears? When the word perception appears, is it always by this definition? Is it always talking about direct perception? I'm not sure. You're not sure? Do you want to talk about... Did I already talk about it? Would you please? Yeah, I could talk about it. But some people, especially some people, seem to be having trouble not understanding something. And I don't know quite what to do to help these people. Well, the yogic was the fourth type of direct perception.

[60:07]

And it is somewhat different from the previous ones in terms of its causation. So direct sense perception are the sense data, the sense organ. and the immediate antecedent cognition. Those are the three conditions for sense perception, which is the basic type of perception. Like I said last week, it's the body in the world responding. But the cognition needs, in order to arise, a previous cognition too. So there's a kind of cyclic thing there. There's a kind of a beginninglessness to sense perception in that it's this thing that emerges in the physical interaction between sense organs and the environment, but it also depends on a previous state of cognition.

[61:15]

So then you have sense perception. Mental perception doesn't depend on a sense organ. However, mental perception happens to people who are sense organ beings who live in an environment. So they have sense perceptions. Mental perceptions can know the objects which the sense perception know. So you have a sense perception. which has these conditions of physical object, physical organ, and antecedent condition. This sense consciousness can be a condition for the arising of a mental consciousness. And the mental consciousness can know the physical data. But it doesn't have a sense organ. Its organ is the antecedent condition. So it has the antecedent condition and its organ is the antecedent

[62:19]

But its object is the same object that the sense consciousness, which is preceded, it has. So it can know what the sense consciousness knows without a sense organ. That's mental-direct perception. Then there's direct perception, which is apperceptive direct perception. It accompanies direct sense perception, it accompanies direct mental perception, it accompanies indirect, all the indirect type of cognitions too. It accompanies them all. But it is a direct perception. It's not a conceptual cognition. So it accompanies conceptual and non-conceptual. It accompanies mental and sense. It accompanies all different types of cognition. It accompanies the enlightened cognition of a Buddha. It accompanies the most undeveloped mind of a sentient being. It accompanies all of them. it itself doesn't evolve, it just knows he's all. Then the of direct perception is direct yogic perception.

[63:23]

And its conditions are, its dominant condition, rather than being the immediate antecedent consciousness or being a sense organ, its dominant condition is the union, tranquility and insight. That's its dominant condition. Its object condition is whatever object it knows. It can know anything. And its antecedent condition is whatever consciousness just preceded it. And there is the case of where there is a... And this direct yogic perception is not listed on this thing, but direct yogic perception will be Direct yogic perception is not in this chart, but it will be in the upper left corner, because it's a perception, and it's valid.

[64:31]

In other words, it's an irrefutable direct perception. Its antithesis could be a non-yogic direct perception. its antecedent condition could also be a non-yogic, non-valid cognition. There's a first time for this. There's a first time it happens and a first time it knows. At that time it is a valid perception. It's the first time it knows something. And so at that time it would be this irrefutable, comprehension of the object preceded by when there wasn't irrefutable. Now, direct yogic perception can also be the next thing on the line.

[65:34]

It can be a subsequent cognition. There can be another direct yogic awareness, but this time it will not be a valid perception. It will be a subsequent perception based on the valid perception. In other words, the Buddha or an awakened being can see, can know something. for the first time in a state of direct yogic concentration and wisdom. And that can also be known again later. So the direct yoga can be those first two entries on the top line. valid perception and subsequent dash valid perception. But it's not called valid perception because valid has to also be new according to what I'm proposing to you.

[66:38]

One school of Buddhism, an important school, says it doesn't have to be new to be valid. But I'm telling you tonight that newness is part of what makes something really valid. But once you have the valid, then there can be a subsequent version of it. Correct and irrefutable is just not as powerful as the first time in terms of transforming consciousness. It's not as powerful a form of knowledge. So the most powerful forms of knowledge are those two up in the chart, valid conception and valid conception. Is that enough on valid yogic? I shouldn't say that. Yogic is always valid or subsequent. Yes? You said it's direct, and yet it's united or subtracted.

[67:39]

So there would be also, there would be conceptions there. So there would be metal science there. So if that's the organ, there is perfection in the organ already. The interest depends for its development on conceptual training. That's right. But Even if you had a concept that you're looking at, you could see it with direct perception, with direct immediate perception, using another image by which you ascertain the image. It's non-conceptual, but non-conceptual doesn't mean that there's no conception of consciousness. It just means that the consciousness is direct and doesn't use an image to ascertain or to apprehend the object.

[68:48]

So in direct perception there's still five skandhas, and one of the skandhas really is is conception. It says perception in our translation. So there is conception, it's just that the cognition is free of it. Because the perception doesn't use conception or images to mediate its access to what it knows. Or another way to put it is it doesn't mix with what it knows. But at first, for example, when we first learn about selflessness or impermanence, we mix images of impermanence to realize impermanence. We use images of selflessness, we use images of self to find selflessness, to refute self in conceptual cognitions. But in direct cognitions, you don't use an image of self

[69:51]

You don't use an image of selflessness to realize selflessness. And in the examples of incorrect direct perception, there's no example of directly perceiving a self incorrectly, because there's no direct perception of the existing self. of an independently existing self. That's not the kind of wrong, that's not an example of wrong perception. But there is an indirect conception or cognition, there's an indirect cognition of an independent self. And that's called wrong cognition. So the wrong conceptual cognitions are different from the wrong perceptual cognitions. Perceptual cognitions are mostly wrong about, you know, they're wrong mostly about physical things.

[71:05]

Whereas conceptual cognitions are about abstract concepts. imposed upon what's going on. So we have something and we put a self over it. And that's the wrong cognition of the conceptual type. Yes? A valid direct conception? No, I think this thing is a valid direct conception. Pardon? Correct. Conceptions are not direct. Conceptions are not immediate. So immediate experience. Perceptions are immediate experience. We're using the word perception. Conceptions are mediated or indirect. Exactly.

[72:11]

You can... It's possible that somebody could have some valid perceptions and working with those valid perceptions, then use conceptual cognition along with those valid perceptions to arrive at a valid conception. That would be possible. That would be the case of somebody who is an advanced yogi, so that they can have direct, valid perceptions. And then they started to get educated about how to have direct, I mean, how to have valid conceptions. so that that's possible, that they could go that route, that they'd already be more experienced at yogic direct perception than they would.

[73:13]

But yogic direct perception just... I think that... that yogic direct perception is not the only kind of valid perception. Yogic direct perception is valid perception. There must be also another kind of valid perception which is not direct yogic perception. Because yogic direct perception means you're integrating insight with tranquility. But I think there could be direct valid perception just with the concentration, without the wisdom. But to have the wisdom, you need to train at conceptual cognition and then bring the training with conceptual cognition together with the yogic direct valid perception.

[74:18]

Join the two. You have this special kind of direct perception. But there's other kinds of direct perception that could be ascertained by yogis that would also fall under the category of valid perception. I think you said last week that Buddha had direct perception, direct yoga perception, and it happens to be different, or it came to different conclusions about that than other yogis of that time. Right, right. Buddha had direct yoga perception, We shouldn't call it direct yoga. It means with insight. But he had actually some direct valid perceptions of things which other people also had direct valid perceptions of. No, he had direct perceptions of things. Other people had direct perceptions of things.

[75:28]

And then what did they do wrong with those perceptions? There might have been an antecedent. Hmm? Might there have been some antecedent factor that altered the way they... what they did with the perception? Hmm? Might the other yogis have had antecedent conditions which affected how they perceived what they perceived? Actually, it's more a matter of how they understood or interpreted what they had direct perception of. Because the Buddha was having direct perceptions prior to his understanding of what he was seeing. But when he did have this new understanding, then his understanding turned out to be different than other people's understanding who were doing these same things. So, and that comes under the category of mental perception. So the Buddha had direct mental perception.

[76:34]

Okay? Other people also had direct mental perceptions where they could see things. Immediate perception, like, for example, past lives and other people's minds. They actually could perceive these things. Other people could too. So I'm suggesting that that direct mental perception could be in Yeah, and I think I'll also say direct sense perception and direct mental perception and direct yogic perception, all those perceptions could be valid.

[77:36]

However, only in direct understanding of the thing that's being directly perceived. Only in direct yogic perception is there the correct understanding. Because other yogis who had direct perception, who actually can ascertain instantaneous experiences through their concentration, they did not have the correct understanding of what they were seeing. Yes, but there was, I think, error before the conceptualization. our lack of understanding. To say that there's errors... Well, we've got to be careful that we don't say that a valid perception is a wrong consciousness. So, is it their conception? Yeah, so I think that it probably would go like this.

[78:39]

They had direct yogic, direct awareness, valid awareness through sense, through mental, through those two ways, through mental direct perception and through sense direct perception they could see things. The Buddha and other yogis could see these things directly. Then they went back to conceptual cognition. They made mistakes. They saw things which the Buddha didn't see. So even based on direct, valid perception, they could have a wrong consciousness. The Buddha, however, did not make that mistake after a while and developed correct conceptual understanding of what he saw. Then, based on that, he had a direct yogic awareness of what he, of what was, had a direct yogic, direct perception, correct, valid cognition, conceptual cognition, and then he had a valid yogic direct perception of what he understood correctly about what he saw directly.

[79:54]

So he saw things directly, interpreted them correctly, also interpreted them wrong many times. He interpreted them correctly for the first time. And based on that, he was then able to have a direct perception of this correct understanding. So, this type of discussion, you see the quality of the discussion, we're talking about different ways of knowing and how the different ways of knowing shift. ...evolve one to the other. We're not talking about the practices by which you get to these places. That's more over on the psychological side where we study karma. So studying karma, we find out the reasons why we can't have, why this evolution is blocked or how this evolution is promoted. But in this discussion, we're talking about now we're getting into the different ways that Buddha and other people would know. We're talking about the way yogis know and the way non-yogis know. We're talking about how yogis can even make, yogis even can have wrong cognitions because they can see a self.

[80:55]

They can have a direct and amazing, you know, see instantaneously a sensory event and ascertain it. To have the concentration power to be able to see these things in direct perception. And then when they come to interpret it, they interpret it wrong. And even though they still can have wrong consciousness, just like people who are not yogi can have wrong consciousness. It's just that our imputation of self is not upon direct experience. I mean, not upon ascertained direct experience. Our projection of image, which, you know, imagine things that don't exist like a self, are upon... direct experience that's not ascertained. But those who can ascertain direct experience, they can make the same mistakes that we, who have trouble ascertaining direct experience, we can make the same mistakes.

[82:02]

Except they're making mistakes on things that we haven't seen. Some people have seen things which only advanced meditators like the Buddha had seen, but they made a mistake in the interpretation. And then their main job would then be to have that interpretation. But valid conception cannot be refuted. But the other kinds of conception can be refuted. Well, yeah, sort of. I was just saying correct belief can't really be refuted. Who has correct belief would feel like they're refuted. you know, somebody who actually believes that phenomena don't have a self, if they haven't had a direct, valid, I mean, if they haven't had a valid cognition of the selflessness of phenomena, you could refute them. Even though they're correct, you could refute them.

[83:04]

Even though they actually believe in the right thing, you could refute them. As a matter of fact, they can refute themselves. So it's possible to move from correct faith backwards to, you know, indecision. Backwards on the chart, back to indecision and maybe all the way back to like just plain, okay, enough of this, I believe in a self. And I know some Zen students who actually can really, they actually are making a case for self. Now, they wouldn't say it quite that way, but they say it like another way. They say like, well, there's something that has the... That's the way they put it. They wouldn't just flat out say there's a self. But they actually imagine a self and they really will say that there is something that has the cognition. But again, that's wrong. So then if they kind of like started doubting that and then after a while being sure, oh yeah, there's something that has a cognition. There's just cognition when there's cognition. If they haven't yet had a valid conceptual cognition of that,

[84:09]

You could talk them out of it. But once they've seen it, you can't talk them out of it anymore. There is sure of selflessness as we are of direct perceptions. What time is it now? Almost nine? What time is it? So I'm sorry this is so hard for you, but, you know, it's hard. This is a new type of study. It's epistemology. It's not psychology. And I could not mention to you that there's four kinds of perception, and just say there's perception, not tell you that there's four. And then I could not mention that among those four, you know, this type, there's basically, you know, this many types.

[85:24]

And then among the fourth type, there's basically that many types. I could not mention that. But now that I've mentioned it, what are you going to do? Well, there's always forgetting. the beginning is happening together with the environment? Pardon? Did you say the beginning is happening with the environment? I think I'm proposing that the basic type of cognition is... which is our body relating, interacting with the world. That's the basic thing. And that also is how that interaction, which is cognition, also is the way our body lives. Without that kind of interaction, which is cognition, we'll shrivel up and die. But we cannot not know. We cannot not know.

[86:29]

We can't be alive and not know. Being alive, we're interacting with the world. Being alive, the world's interacting with the world. If that interaction stops, we're dead. Which is to say, if cognition would stop, our temperature would drop rapidly below 98.6. Mine has already dropped to 97.5, and it sort of stays there. That's my normal temperature. I'm sort of cool. A lot of people are like that. Huh? That's normal temperature for a lot of people. Oh, really? And I'm not special? Not in that way. Anyway. To turn off cognition would be, is death, which is the same to say if your body's not interacting with the world, it's death. As long as your body's interacting with the world, as long as your body's modifying the world and the world's modifying you, you have cognition.

[87:38]

And so that's the basic cognition. And it's immediate. It's immediate. And, again... that it comes in these four types. Long, inattentive, in other words, you don't ascertain it, valid, and subsequent. Those are the four different types of immediate perception, of immediate life, actually. It's immediate life. It's immediate living. It's immediate cognition. Cognition, life, it's kind of the same. So if you have any suggestions, I could like, you know, evacuate the epistemological laboratory and move over to some more familiar territory next week if you want to, which is to move over to looking at thinking.

[88:42]

So we haven't been talking about thinking. I don't know if you noticed that. We're just talking about knowing. Thinking is... is the pattern, the intention, which arises with these cognitions. So each of these knowings that we talked about, these many different kinds of knowing, every one of them has an intention with it, has a shape or a pattern. Every one of them arises with mental factors, and the way those mental factors work creates a sense of intention. And that's where we have psychological phenomena or psychological behavior or thinking, which is a definition of karma. And that's where we see the results of past conditionings which occur in the field of this knowing. but then there's all kinds of other stuff going on too that conjures up what we call action.

[89:46]

First of all mental action and then verbal and physical action. So that way of talking is more familiar. And if you want to, for the last few classes, we can go over to which maybe won't be so hard. And then maybe some other day we can come back to this epistemology. side, but I propose to you that we need to not only study karma or mental activity, but I think we also need to understand what the different types of knowing are because there's one type of knowing which is called enlightenment. Enlightenment is a cognition, it's not a karma, it's not a behavior, it's a type of knowing, a special type of knowing. over in the corner of the chart. But I really don't... I was thinking of maybe spending half the class on the epistemology and the other half on psychology.

[90:54]

The epistemological approach to mind and the psychological approach to mind. So I could switch next week to that, even though we have not completely mastered the epistemological side yet. If you switched, I personally would not ever master it. No, I... Like, if you stopped it now... Yeah, yeah. When I say mastered, also I don't mean that I've mastered it. But I will tell you that I've come a long way. There was a time when I did not know that there was four types of direct perception. And that those four types... The first of the four types. May our intention of glory extend to every being and place. the true merit of Buddha's Way.

[92:13]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_86.36