We start out this class usually with a period of sitting, and one virtue of this is that perhaps we'll all calm down a little bit, and that state of calm will be a good a good state of mind to listen to teachings about mind. Teachings in some sense are teachings which are given to help us understand something. So in a sense they're teachings more on the side of understanding that on the side of compassion. However, the appropriate motivation for these teachings is that of compassion.

[01:10]

So although we may not be emphasizing the practices of giving, of ethical discipline, of patience, of diligence, end up practicing tranquility and concentration, I hope that you are working on those practices also. Those practices are the basis for understanding of mind and understanding the teachings about mind. Also, I guess someone just came to me today and told me that the last time he's come to the Zen Center at Green Gulch Farm, he's come to some meditation retreats we've had there. And he's gone to the classes that I gave in those meditation retreats.

[02:18]

I think he said that he got about 20% of what was taught. But even though he was getting just 20%, and probably that meant that some days he got 30%, and then some days 10%, and some days zero. I don't know, but anyway, 20%, I got the impression that 20% was pretty close to not getting much at all. That's what he meant. But he continued to participate in the program, and after a couple of weeks he noticed that something was happening to him, and he didn't know exactly what it was, but he thought it was very good. year for another retreat and the same thing happened he didn't basically didn't understand the teaching but he understood something and it was very good that he understood something even though he didn't exactly know what it was he understood or why it was he and now he's back again but he told me this story this morning

[03:48]

And I thought, and I said to him, you know, if you're willing to go to teachings, it doesn't need even to be so-called Buddhist teachings, but if you're willing to go to some teaching situation, or even to some non-teaching situation, like to a restaurant, or to a museum or to a baseball game or to a forest basically go there even though you don't think you're going to get much out of it and then you go and you start to feel like you're not getting much out of it but you don't you just you stay there with the situation not getting much out of it and after a while you're open to not only are you not getting much out of it but you're open to not getting much out of it you don't even necessarily try to get opening to not getting much out of it but by

[05:19]

what do you call it, willy-nilly, you come to be in a situation and you come to be open to not getting anything out of it. And I propose to you that to be in some situation, any situation really, and to be open to not getting anything out of it, when you're open to that, you're also open to something else. something called reality or the truth. And you might find that very good when you open to reality and let it in. But if you're going to a class on reality, where there's teachings on reality, You might try to get something from the class.

[06:26]

Just like if you go to a class on how to repair your car, you might try to get something out of the class, which is fine. But if you can also... Well, I should put it negatively. If you don't open to not getting anything out of the class, If you close to not getting anything out of class, you will also close to the truth. I'm actually kind of trying to open myself to not getting anything out of this class. I already am trying to not get anything out of this class. I really enjoyed it. And also it comes to my mind that the Buddha once said to one of his students, the Buddha said to his student, he said, when I attained complete perfect enlightenment, did I get anything out of that?

[07:41]

and the disciples said no Lord when you attain complete perfect enlightenment you didn't get anything at all out of it that's why it's called perfect enlightenment still I'm mentioning some things to you about mind and suggesting to you that understanding mind is essential to understanding the way of enlightenment. Understanding mind is essential to understanding the way of peace and harmony. And I just mentioned something which in some sense I'm implying something about mind to you before. I'm suggesting to you that if your state of mind is open to not getting anything out of life, you will open to the way of peace and harmony.

[08:53]

Whereas if your state of mind is closed to not getting something out of life, then you close the door to the path of peace and harmony. So the nature of mind is like that, I suggest to you. That one kind of mind opens to peace and harmony and kind of closes the door on it. And one of the keys to opening the door to liberation from suffering and disharmony is open the door to not getting anything out of this class. and actually I'm going to give you a lot in this class but you might not be able to get a hold of any of it because in some sense it would be very difficult and you never heard of it before and I'm going to present it really unskillfully but in a humorous way.

[10:06]

Understanding mind is essential to understanding the Buddha way both theoretically and practically. This is because the process of enlightenment is a purifying mind. Our problems arise from not thoroughly understanding our mind. And in a way we don't understand our mind because our mind is not purified. And one way to purify your mind is to stop trying to get anything of your studies of the mind. Study the mind, listen to these teachings just to study the mind and listen to the teachings. Don't try to get enlightenment out of this. Don't try to get anything out of it. It will purify your mind and then these teachings will be working on you. So in the very early part of Buddhism

[11:11]

The Buddhist said in the Dhammapada, mind is the forerunner of all conditions. Mind is chief. Mind, excuse me, all conditions are mind made. If with an impure mind one speaks or acts, then pain follows one, even as the wheel follows the ox. Mind is forerunner of all conditions. Mind is chief. Everything is mind-made. If with a pure mind one speaks and acts, then happiness follows even as it never leaves. In the Buddha Dharma, existence and experience are regarded as events, neither intentionally created by a god, nor as random happenings in a chaotic universe.

[12:24]

But they are results of mental, vocal, and physical action of individuals In existence, mind is not a static phenomena, but a dynamic continuum all around and in each individual that forms activity within itself and initiates further activity in body. This is not to say that there isn't chaos, but that chaos is mind-made. Chaos is not made chaotic. Chaos is made causally. And everything that exists depends on mind.

[13:31]

When mind arises with and is influenced by wholesome mental factors, it forms actions in such a way that happiness, peace arise. When mind arises with and is influenced by unwholesome factors, It forms actions in such a way that harmful tendencies and imprints are left upon mind to the ripening of suffering and unhappiness. Mind has the nature of clear light, but when it arises with unwholesome mental factors,

[14:39]

it is influenced by that. And when mind is influenced by these things, actions are formed in relationship to these unwholesome factors which ripen as suffering. So, for example, mind, which is clear, arrives with a view of seeing everybody in terms of gain and loss. So that view Mind, being pure light, doesn't defend itself from being influenced by the view of gain and loss. So gain and loss can be seen in the mind space. And then things can be seen in those terms. And in seeing things in those terms, one becomes involved in greed, hate, and delusion and plants seeds of suffering. But mind also being... can let in teachings which point this out and once these teachings have entered the mind the light of the mind can shine on these views of gain and loss and see how they lead to suffering and see that there's a way that there's a light that actually is untouched by these views

[16:11]

and then they lose their power. Okay, all minds are subjects. Minds aren't the only things that have subjects. Minds aren't the only things that are subject. A subject is something that possesses an object. All states of mind possess objects. They cannot exist without a particular object. And the defining characteristic of mind Mind, all states of mind are subjects, and the defining characteristics are clarity and cognition.

[17:24]

Clarity means that mind doesn't have a color or a shape or a smell. It's non-material. It's like space. But it's different from actual space because it is a knowing space. It is cognition. It is illuminated by knowing. It is a knowing clearness or non-clear space. And that any mental or physical phenomena that arise with it, there's space for them. Mind doesn't do anything to them. It just knows them. States of mind are not static.

[18:47]

They're dynamic, constantly changing. And yet they're actual phenomena that contribute to a causal continuity in other states of mind. I'm on the verge now of introducing an analysis of mind, an analysis of consciousness, into seven types. But before I do, if there's anything you want to say or any questions you have about what's come up so far. Kara?

[19:49]

I think I'm a little bit confused about the way you phrased getting something out of it. Yeah? I have a question for you. And when you say that, does that mean that it's our skillful thinking to have a call book mentioned Well, what I mean is, well, I mean many, but if you look at a person and think about them in terms of gain and loss, just look at somebody. And you think, well, what can I gain from this person?

[20:53]

Or what might I lose from this person? People come to me quite frequently and say that they're quite concerned about .. They're kind of embarrassed about it, but they confess it. They want to get something from me. And they feel that there's something off about that. And there is. They don't just come to see me. Or they don't just come to give me something. Yeah. Is that still something that would be used? Well, to want it, okay, there it is. To want to be happy is natural. And kind of, it's kind of unnatural not to want to be happy. You want to be happy. But to try to get happiness is contraindicated vis-a-vis what you want. In other words, to try to get happiness is makes us unhappy.

[21:54]

Have you noticed that by any chance? To see happiness as something you could gain is an example of a defiled mind. A defiled mind, like happiness, walks across the room and they think they want to get it. That's a defiled way of seeing happiness. not to mention something that you might take. You're concerned about getting happiness rather than wanting it. You're concerned about getting happiness rather than being ready to receive it when it comes. Wanting happiness is fine. Wanting people to be fine, to try to get things and to see that as a gain, to see happiness as a gain. to see a person as a gain. Like somebody walks in a room, you see it as a gain. Rather than you see a person as a gain, you see people as gain and losses.

[23:04]

Now, the people, if they knew about that, it might hurt their feelings for you to see them as gain or a loss. At first, they might be complimented that you see them as a gain. But after a while, they might get what they say that might get old. See them beyond your view of gain and loss. Make more sense? And life, you've heard of life, right? Life, life, life, life, life. How about like meet life and interact with it directly without trying to get something from it? Just like meeting a person. without trying to get something from them. How about trying to, why don't you give something to life? And again, give something to life without trying to get something from giving something. Give is your nature. Our nature is to give.

[24:06]

Our defiled, our defiling nature is to try to get. Our nature is to give because everybody else's nature is to give. Everybody's giving nature gives us our nature of giving. It isn't that everybody's taking nature gives everybody taking nature. But that's the way people often feel. That's the defiled mind. And mind is kind of like, hey, go ahead, defile me. Got some defilement? I can see that. Yes? Linda. About the states of mind. Yes. You're saying that all states are part of the world of cause and effect. All states of mind are part of the world of cause and effect.

[25:08]

Yeah. No state of mind. I didn't think I was pointing to no state of mind. Tell me about no state of mind. What do you mean by that? States of mind are in cause and effect, but cause and effect can be cause and effect of enlightenment or cause and effect of delusion. The process of enlightenment, of understanding and realizing peace and harmony and skillfulness with all beings, that's a causal process. There is not stepping out of cause and effect, right?

[26:11]

No. If we step out of cause and effect, then we have nothing. We have no phenomena. Nothing's happening outside. And within cause and effect, there is a process of realizing what we call enlightenment, and it's in a with realizing delusion. Buddhas arrive in relationship where enlightenment arises in relationship to being asleep or deluded they're actually they live in the same world and you don't have any enlightenment without and you don't have any delusion without enlightenment they're in a causal dance together and so most of us know a little bit about the delusion side

[27:16]

And what studying the mind is about is to learn more about the delusion side. The more you know about the delusion side, you're contributing. The more you learn about the delusion side, the more you contribute to the process of enlightenment. Enlightenment is to thoroughly understand delusion. Yeah, well, go ahead. You could probably keep going on, yes. When you have that thorough understanding. There's no more chains. No more chains. What used to be chains are now more like, what do you call it, flower adornments. What were changed before are now gifts to and from people. When you understand, you understand that it's an illusion.

[28:24]

There isn't really delusion. Delusion isn't really there. Delusion is, there is, however, a constant production of the appearance of things that don't exist. There is that. Is it getting chilly? Do you want to close the windows? Okay, okay. Wait, wait, wait. She's got a sweater on. You're okay? Everybody okay? Nice and cool up here? Refreshed? Awake? I don't try to get anything out of this cool air. Okay. Anything else at this time? Oh, yes, Vera? When you were talking about a subject being a subject and a subject has an object I was wondering if in certain states of meditation that subject object in certain states of mind a subject object well

[29:50]

If it's the state of meditation of a dead person, the subject-object would cease to exist. But if the person's alive and the functioning consciousness arises with that object, the seed which gives rise to consciousness also gives rise to the object. The seed of knowing gives rise to the known. So, and if you enter deep state of meditation, there's a certain type of meditation where you realize that the subject and the object that it possesses are not separate. There's a meditation which are not separate. In other words, that realizes that they actually understands that they're not just hear about, but actually understand and feel. that the subject and object are not separate.

[30:54]

That the appearance of separation is actually an illusion. The appearance of separation between me and you, there's a way of meditating that you see that that appearance is actually totally insubstantial, 100% insubstantial. It's just totally a fantasy. And then when you see that So it appears, even though you still see it, you don't believe it anymore. So then all kinds of, then you're a Buddha, basically. I mean, not a Buddha, but if you cultivate that, that meditation, if you keep, if once you see that everybody that you meet is not separate from you, absolutely not separate, And then you interact with people that way. Based on that, you become a Buddha because you start, you know, just giving yourself to everybody because everybody's getting you anyway.

[31:57]

So you don't immediately come to realize that you have this enlightenment experience of seeing. that the subject and object are not separate. But by seeing that and then continually meditating on that while you're going to McDonald's or whatever or, you know, the parking lot of McDonald's or going to a class or whatever you're doing, all the things you're doing, you're simultaneously, everybody you meet, you re-experience, this person's not separate from me. This person's not separate from me. You re-experience that. You meditate on that again and again. A hundred million, trillion times you meditate on that. As you meditate on that, your way of being with people evolves more and more towards Buddhahood. We're all evolving towards Buddhahood anyway, but once you kick into this meditation, they like have nice traction and you're really moving forward uh well you really know what you're doing man you know that before that you were a little bit off because before that you were trying to be nice to people that you thought were separate from you or you were trying to be thought were separate from you and who were like misguided jerks

[33:25]

Do you remember when you used to think that? That there were people who are separate from you who are like totally way off base and they're like not somebody to be nice to because they're not you plus they're bad and evil. Do you remember thinking that a long time ago that you used to think that way? But now even though you do think everybody's a good person, you still might a little bit think they're separate from you because they look like that. There's an appearance that people are out there separate. So there is a meditation where you realize that appearance of separation is a total fantasy. There's that. And there's also the meditation where you think it's not a fantasy. And that's the way most people are meditating. They are meditating on how they are separate from people. That's a meditation, too, in a way. that comes naturally to people.

[34:28]

But it's not usually called meditation, it's usually called misery. Or it's misery meditation, or it's misery inducing meditation, or it's misery inducing habit. And it comes, it's innate, we come by it honestly, we're born with it. We should be patient with ourselves and others who are still people as separate. Gloria? I have been remembering walking through a part of town that's kind of famous for being really violent. Of course, I was thinking about people and how nice it would be to have that. And it occurred to me as I was walking, you know, there were people standing outside, the wind was blowing, there were trees, and all around me there was

[35:42]

actually that non-violence along with the violence, but that the way I was looking at and the way that we tend to look at, that we focus, actually. The mind was going towards where the violence was and not the people. It was all there. And it just seemed that it might be possible, you know, if the focus somehow found its way there. At that moment, I just felt absolutely It's there. It's right there, but it's just... You'll see it for a minute. I thought for that minute, but it's right... It's there, all the people working for it. It's there, but it's waiting to... Yeah, nonviolence is already here, but we haven't realized it. And it's difficult to realize nonviolence unless you're fearless. Just like I said before, you know, if I close my eyes and my heart to not getting anything, you know, in other words, I only open my heart to getting something, but I don't also open my heart to not getting anything.

[37:01]

If you open your heart, by the way, to not getting anything, you also open your heart to getting something. When you open your heart to not, when you open your heart to the people aren't separate from you, you open your heart to getting nothing from them. But also you open your heart to getting inconceivably much from them. You get unlimited things from people when you open your heart to not getting anything from them. And when you really do that, you become fearless. And when you become fearless, then you can be nonviolent. and you can see non-violence. And you can also see violence. And you see, oh, violence goes and lives in the place where people are not open to each other or people are afraid of each other. So you see all these people who you're open to, who you're not afraid of, who you feel non-violent towards, and you see they feel violent towards those people they're afraid of.

[38:08]

And they're afraid of some of the people that they feel separate from. But anybody you feel separate from, it could flip in a moment. Even your very best friend. Even your mother or father. Or even your mother or father. How many people are afraid of their father? How many people are afraid of their mother? More than three. Even if your mother's this tiny little lady who's on the verge of death, you're still not going to be afraid of her because she might say, you're a bad daughter. Your mother can hurt you, you think. But when you realize your mother and father aren't separate, you will be not afraid of them anymore. And then you won't be violent towards them. but you can be violent towards your own family if you get afraid of them.

[39:11]

People can be violent towards their parents or towards their children when they're afraid of them. Right? Don't people, like, become afraid and then get violent? Fearless people are people who are open to their non-separation from other non-fairless people or frightened and fearless people. They're people who practice giving. And they practice giving not to try to get something, but they practice giving because they understand that's their nature. So yeah, is what's happening, but in order to get with the program, we have to be fearless. Otherwise, we just get these, well, actually, not otherwise.

[40:13]

And sometimes, there's fleeting moments of fearlessness. You're walking through a neighborhood that has a violent. And suddenly, you hear the wind moving through the trees. And every little breeze seems to whisper to Louise. And for a moment there, you just like, you take a break from being afraid of the leaves and the breeze and the people And in there, you see nonviolence right there, and you can even demonstrate it to people who would admit they're sometimes violent. You can go up to them and say, hello, big boy. And he kind of goes, wow, that's great. Thank you. Somebody's not afraid of me. Somebody sees nonviolence here. And then they can take a break too. Shall I go on?

[41:18]

Have any other questions? Okay, so there's... To make a long story short, I'm going to present an analysis of states of mind under seven headings. okay the first the first type is um what's it called it's called it's a type of the type of mind type of consciousness a state of mind a state of awareness okay these are synonyms it's a type of cognition got this clear got this clarity and there's a type of knowing And the type of knowing it is, is called direct perception or perceiver.

[42:22]

It's calling a state of mind a perceiver. The state of mind is the perceiver, the direct knower, the direct perceiver. direct perception or direct cognition. These are synonyms, okay? That's the first type. Second type is conceptual cognition or indirect cognition or inferential cognition. The third type is subsequent cognition. The fourth type is correctly assuming cognition. The fifth type is awareness to which an object appears but is not ascertained.

[43:34]

The sixth type is doubting cognitive awareness. And the last kind is called wrong consciousness or wrong awareness. Those are seven types. And we might not have time to go into each one in great depth during these five meetings. But I will offer another class in the spring here if we don't finish these seven types. What was the seventh? Seventh type is wrong consciousness or wrong awareness. Okay? So tonight I can start talking to you about direct perception or direct perception or perceptual cognition or direct perceivers sanskrit is pratyaksha so this is a kind of knowing which is free from conceptuality and is non-mistaken or non-deceived

[44:58]

Deceived. That's the definition of direct perception. So free from conceptuality means that the... deals with its object. So this, again, this is a subject, right? This is a type of a subject. that possesses an object and it deals with its object without recourse to an internal image. Because its object could be an image. Or its object could be the word image. This next term about non-mistaken or non-deceived is actually redundant in a way to this previous one, but it means that there's no error involved in what appears.

[46:23]

In other words, It does not apprehend the object in terms of an internal image of the object. Yes. Yeah. But like your face. Okay? So direct perception would be that I would have a... The subject would be over here. around my body, the subject, which possesses an object, which is the appearance of your face. But I'm not using an internal image of your face to know your face. And I'm actually knowing your face, your face, rather than my idea of your face.

[47:28]

How do I do it? That's the next step. The next step after telling you about what this is like will be to tell you the causal arising of such a state. Are you ready for that? I can come back to this, but she said, quote, how to you do it. I'm not going to tell you how I do it, but I'm going to tell you how it happens. Because we don't actually do, because this is a direct perceiver, right? It isn't that you are the perceiver and then you do this. So cognition is the perceiver. There's not a person who does this perceive. The person experiences this perception, but the person doesn't do the perception. This is a state of mind that operates in a certain way.

[48:34]

So is the question how do you perceive something or how do you perceive it without trying to challenge? Is that the question or is that the definition? I'm wondering. Well, in this type of cognition, in this type of knowing, you know people, you know them in a way that's free of you might actually have an internal image of them but you actually first of all you know them not using your image of them you could have a number of images for certain people you could have a whole bunch of images that you use that you have which are related to that person but sometimes sometimes you see that well usually you see the person and before you apply your

[49:44]

Your images, your internal images or concepts of them, you actually see them quite a few times actually before you come up with and apply an image to them. And you do that with everybody we meet. We first of all perceive them in this direct way and then we may or may not bring to bear an image of them and then deal with them through the image. Not everybody that we perceive directly do we then follow that direct perception. In the case when I say see, everybody we see like as a direct sense perception, we do not necessarily follow every direct sense perception of seeing someone with a conceptual cognition of them. when we say that this image and these images are lean, for example.

[50:51]

We don't always do that. But we often do. And there's a lot more of this. Yes? Given that internal image generally generated The internal image, which again is not operating at the level of what I'm talking about now, okay? So it might be better to wait to talk about how the internal image comes to play to when we move to talk about conceptual cognition. Right now we're talking about a cognition where we do not bring the images to bear. on the object. So we look at a person or a doorknob or a tree, we see it, we know it as it is.

[51:57]

We know the tree as it is, not by our images of the tree. The images we have of the tree could be applied to a lot of different trees. You look at a tree and you've got an image for it, you could apply that image to other trees. Even though the other trees actually do not, you do not see the same thing. And you could actually at the perceptual level tell the difference between two trees or two people or the same person on different occasions. So-called same person, you would see different people. Each time you see somebody, you actually see never repeated version of that person. in direct perception you see a fresh in some sense inconceivably wonderful wonderfully unique and you do that all day long with everybody you meet you meet the way that person is that person just at that moment and will never be again in all their richness and uniqueness

[53:16]

And even though that person could be like your father, who you can tell, even though this is not the father you had before, you can still tell, you can learn to tell that this person who you've never seen before is your father. Even though the father you're seeing right now is not the father who was there before, because actually it's a different person. you're actually looking at a different person who has a different shape, a different quality, and you're taking that all in, you still can learn to tell that that's the same, in some sense, connect that with the person who used to be your father. And you can do that without using the image of your father. And at that level, you cannot say father. In order to say you have to usually have a number of these experiences of this person where you know it's your father, not necessarily every single time, but a number of those experiences where you kind of know it's your father, not kind of where you know it could be interspersed with a few where you weren't sure, but a sufficient

[54:45]

mask of direct perceptions of this person such that you could then, in terms of just looking at the person, so that you could then have a mental direct perception of the person and then have a conceptual cognition of them. Or you would bring an image to bear called the image of, or the idea of, father. And then you could say father. However, all those moments of you would be actually undeceived by what you see. You know, you would be apprehending correctly what was there, apprehending the shape or whatever. That's what you'd be working with. And you'd know that that shape was your father. But when you pull out your inner image, one of your inner images or ideas of your father, and look at that to interpret your father, now you can say father, but now you're deceived because you think the image that you have of your father is your father.

[55:57]

Rather than this fresh father, you're now looking at a general father. you know, not unique image of your father, and then you can name that. That's the conceptual. But in the perceptual, you actually know the person who's there. Well, actually, you're knowing the person who was there a moment before. Most schools of Buddhist psychology would say you know how that person appeared just a moment before. Perception is caused by that. So maybe I should just say something now so this can sink in for a week. There's three conditions. for the irrational, perceptual cognition, of direct cognition.

[57:03]

There's three conditions. And I'm going to teach you this so that you can learn this because this applies to a lot of other things in Buddhism. There's four conditions in the Buddhist teaching. Four conditions and just four. Okay? They're called... This is going to be on tape, okay? They're called alambana pratyaya. Pratyaya means condition. Alambana pratyaya, atipati pratyaya, samanantara pratyaya, and hetu pratyaya. Those are the four conditions for anything. But there's three conditions that are discussed in the arising of sense perception. And those three conditions are alambana prajaya, samantra prajaya, and atipati prajaya.

[58:04]

So alambana means object. So one of the conditions for the arising of direct perception is the object condition. The next condition is called the atipati prajaya, which means the dominant condition. And the next condition, samanantra prajaya, is the immediately antecedent condition. So, object condition, dominant condition, immediately preceding condition. Conditions are how sense perception arises. So what is the What is the object condition? The object condition, for example, in the case with sense perception, there's five kinds of sense perception. In the case of a sense perception where you're perceiving a color or a form, where you're perceiving a visual form, in that kind of sense perception,

[59:15]

The object condition is the visual form. The dominant condition is the physical organ we call the eye. It's a subtle internal physical thing. It's not just the eyeball exactly, but it's located where the eyeball is. It's a subtle form of materiality which is the ability to be sensitive to electromagnetic radiation, very sensitive to that. In other words, it's very sensitive and interacts with . That's the dominant condition. And the name of the sense perceptions is named after the dominant condition. For example, we say eye consciousness. We don't say visual consciousness traditionally.

[60:19]

The reason why we say eye consciousness rather than visual consciousness is, number one, because there's lots of different colors, but it's really just one organ, one eye organ, and that's really what determines whether you're going to see something or not. That's always there no matter what you see. So it's also sometimes called the uncommon dominant condition, because my eyes are not common to us. When we look at a color, the color is common, but our sense organs are not. So all of our are dominant in our sense perception, but they're not common. We don't share our eye organs, but we do share the physical world which makes up the objects. of sense perception. We share that. And then the consciousness also arises, this arises independence upon the immediate preceding condition, and that is the condition of the immediately preceding sense consciousness, the immediately preceding cognition.

[61:37]

So these three cases are the story of the arising of sense perception. And the implications of this, some of the implications of this, help us understand how direct perception works and also helps us understand that even in direct perception, although it's not deceived and it's not mistaken, it is still somewhat diluted. And the key of the point of delusion is that the arising of direct perception, which does know unerringly what its object. It does know its object correctly. In other words, it knows the shape of a ball for the shape of a tree just like the shape of the ball or the shape of the tree is. It knows the color just like the color is. It knows the color as the color exists. It does that correctly.

[62:42]

But one thing it doesn't do correctly is that it's somewhat influenced or defiled by some associated sense that the colors out there separate. So even in direct sense perception, there's still some sense of separation between the knower, the subject, and the object. And I imagine that this will take a while for us to get clear, but I'd bring it up tonight and I'll go next week, but I also can talk about it more tonight. So again, when you have, in the case of the five types of sense perception, you have these five types of objects, visual forms, which are electromagnetic radiation, which are mechanical waves in air or water or other kinds of material, mostly air, but gases for the nose organ, liquids and tangible things for the skin, the skin organ or the touch organ.

[64:05]

These five are the object condition. The dominant condition is these five organs. And then the other thing is the immediately antecedent condition. So in order for perception to arise, you need some sensitive living tissue, which is sensitive to one of these modalities of physicality. So for example, electromagnetic radiation in the eye, they start doing their thing together. with that in a previous moment there was a cognition for this person and that becomes a condition for this new cognition to arise which knows the object unmistakably okay that's direct sense perception And it's going on, you know, for most of us, it's going on all day long, you know, incalculable number of times.

[65:16]

Well, actually, you could calculate it, but it would be a very high number. Billions in a day. Yes, Stan? What if there's no Ft? How does this whole thing get started? This mind process has no beginning. Beginnings and ends are things that, you know, we imagine. Our mind imagines beginnings and ends, but the mind itself is not subject of these mental constructions. Mind has created the idea of beginnings and ends, so we do have these ideas, but they do not apply to the place where, you know, the mind which created them.

[66:18]

So the process of mind has no beginning or end. And it's hard for the mind which imagines beginnings and ends to imagine no beginning and end, but that is the teaching for you to listen to, that this whole process doesn't have a beginning or end, that those are just beginnings and ends are things which minds create. Minds create lots of things that don't exist, and beginnings and ends of this process anyway do not exist. However, there are beginnings and ends of classes at the yoga room. But the classes at the yoga room are not actually the process of mind in the same way. But there's no beginning and end to this process, this mind process. But there is also not truly a previous moment either. Not truly, but in order to have this alchemical magic perception, in order for it to happen, there has to be a previous moment of cognition.

[67:26]

Now, I think maybe I could say this too now. There's five kinds of sense consciousness, which are direct perception and indirect perception, which is called... Actually, there's two other kinds of direct perception, three other kinds. So there's sense perception, which has five types, and then there's mental perception, which is direct perception, which is of two types. And then there's what's called self-knowing direct perception. or apperceptive direct perception. That's the third type of direct perception. And then there's yogic direct perception. So there's four kinds of direct perception, four types of direct perception. The first type is sense, which has five . The second type is mind. Mental direct perception has two types. And the next two, which are three and four, they just have one type.

[68:32]

And the third and fourth type of direct perception are self-conscious direct perception, which is the consciousness or the ability of mind to be conscious of itself. And the other kind of direct perception is yogic direct perception. So next week I'll tell you about these last two, and tonight I'll tell you about the second type, which is mental direct perception. Mental direct perception is actually not the kind of consciousness that arises depending on a sense organ. It doesn't arise depending on a sense organ. The sense organ is a sort of mental direct perception, and its objects are not the field of activity of the sense organs. So its objects are not colors, sounds, smells, tastes, and tangibles. Its objects... I take it back.

[69:45]

Its object can be... I take it back. Its objects can be... the smells, tastes, touches, and so on. It can know material things, but it does not arise in dependence on the sense organ. It arises in dependence on the object, which can be a sense object, but it also can know mental objects, like it can know feelings directly, It can know images directly without interpreting the images with an image. So it can know a word, or it can know a shape, or it can know like good and bad it can know those things those those mental i those images it can know emotions like greed hate and delusion it can know other kinds of things like faith patience diligence concentration it can know all kinds of mental the whole entire phenomena can know it can also know physical phenomena but it does not arise in support

[71:07]

that can be supported by the mental, by the physical organ. It arises in dependence upon its dominant condition is the immediately antecedent moment of cognition. So for it, its immediately antecedent cause is the same as its dominant cause. Its dominant condition, which for a sense cognition is what? The organ. The organ. Its dominant condition not a physical sense organ, its dominant condition is the same as its antecedent condition. So its organ, in a sense, is the previous moment of cognition. So its organ or its dominant condition is also its antecedent condition. This is rather difficult to understand. That's what I want to tell you this week, and then you can see if you got that now.

[72:10]

Sense consciousnesses arise depending on these three conditions. What are they? What? Object condition. Dominant condition. And the dominant condition is? No, it's not eye consciousness, it's the eye. The dominant condition is the physical eye organ, which is an inner... It's a subtle inner thing in the body. It's a subtle physical, inner physical thing. And then there's more gross external physical phenomena like liquids and so on. When those two interact, the external non-body physicality interacts with this subtle physical materiality organ. Those two are the object and dominant condition, and then the antecedent condition is the previous state of consciousness. Those arise and give rise to sense consciousness.

[73:16]

Mind consciousness, what makes mind consciousness? Object condition, which can be? Thought. It can be any kind of mental object, which means basically everything that's not physical. It can know directly without any conceptual mediation, including that it can know conceptions without conceptual mediation. It can directly know a conception. And it can also directly know physical things too, but it doesn't depend on, for its arising, the physical organ. However, it does depend on previous moments of the arising of a sense consciousness which didn't depend on the physical organ. And so a key thing I want to also plant tonight is that the previous, this antecedent condition for the sense consciousnesses and the antecedent condition for the

[74:28]

mind consciousness in direct perception, it's the same. It's the previous moment of cognition. And that previous moment of cognition on one side is a similar process, but on another side it is the place where the sense of separation between subject and object lives. And that's the place where we point to the place of the beginning of the sense of separation between subject and object. That's the organ. It's both the organ and the immediate antecedent condition. For the sense consciousness, that previous moment is just its antecedent condition. For the mind consciousness, in direct perception, it's both the antecedent condition and the . So in a sense, the mind thing just depends on two things, the object and the previous moment of consciousness.

[75:29]

But the previous moment of consciousness serves two purposes. It's the antecedent condition and the dominant condition. And in this picture, we can see that even in direct the seeds of the illusion of separation between the subject and the objects which it possesses. Okay? So, fortunately, you weren't trying to get anything out of this, right? So, it probably sunk in really nicely, didn't it? So I'll go on and talk more about direct perception next week and maybe have time to start getting into conceptual cognition. Yes? I will also bring you a huge and obnoxious reading list you can work on for the rest of your life. I'll bring a reading list next week with lots of stuff to read. Thank you very much.

[76:30]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_87.78