And then now there's something reflected, and this thing that's reflected is external to alaya. So as soon as this happens, and something's in there, then this is external. So you have alaya, which is a dependently produced thing. You have the reflection, which is the organ, performs the organ function because it makes possible for alaya to be separated from something which will be its object. And the object will be external because it's reflected. And the sense of self arises. How does the sense of self arise? Causes and conditions. Causes and conditions. And what are the causes and conditions of the arising of the self? Manas. Manas. Particularly manas. How is it that there is something other?

[01:01]

The sense that there's something other creates the sense of this. The sense of something, and also the sense that something made something other, that this capacity to reflect created a sense of something other. The sense of other was born simultaneously with this reflection. So the reflecting capacity gives rise to a sense of self. I'm told it's very good, but it's only that you wouldn't want to. I didn't know that. No. Prove it. So, that's how self is born. Right like that. Hence, self and other. Very simple. Yes. I didn't come along with that one.

[02:08]

What? What? The idea of self. Is it getting hot in here? That's okay? Is it possible, in response to what Alan was raising, When a sense of self arises in order to establish its own substantiality, it seeks a location and therefore claims the body, this is my location.

[03:22]

Uh-huh. So just before you say it, let me just grok what these people are saying, Mark. Well, I see a way of connecting these things. I just want to close it. Because I think it also speaks to your question of where this separated experience or consciousness comes from. So this is the story that I just want to propose. Given the experience of eating food, for example, or being endangered by predators, there's a sense of something that's outside

[04:29]

and fleeting that's needed, or something that's outside that needs to be avoided. And then, this gives rise to the experience of embodiment, and at the same time, this experience of separation is then applied to the experience of thought, so that that kind of separation So that memory and habit is separated from current unfolding and response. I couldn't follow it. But it doesn't mean anything about what you said, I just couldn't follow it. Yes? Well, essentially, it's something along And it was this effort to make it practical, you know, to understand on a practical level.

[05:40]

And it seemed, it felt to me that it had to do with survival, that the whole sort of deepening of the way we interpret what our body perceives, you know, with reinterpretation, gets more and more subtle. because somehow our brains or our minds or something have become very subtle about survival, about what is a threat and what is okay, you know? And so this incredible process happens and it becomes so subtle, it's also about when someone says something to us in a certain tone of voice, you know? The survival mechanism becomes very, very subtle. And so then this sense of self and other is very hard to unravel because it's actually about the survival of the self or the body that is actually very basic to every living thing. Does that help you?

[06:44]

See, I mean, a simple story that's told about people... Well, can I say something before you tell your story? And that is, I think that the idea that survival is part of this sense of self and other, which animals were surviving before they had this idea, but once this idea started to develop then I think survival got played into it. And that because survival got played into this self-other thing, then self-other got very complex and highly developed, and because it got so complex and highly developed, it's extremely entrenched and complex, and therefore extremely painful and actually hopeless, because the whole system believes that keeping this thing going has to do with survival. Yeah, is that what you're saying too? Well, I mean, just trying to explain.

[07:46]

The food, that milk, is not there when you want it, when you need it. And then you have the sense that, well, it's out there, and then you touch it, and it comes, and then there's this coming together and this separation. So if you have a brain and a nervous system that's developed to a certain point that has the capacity for separating itself, for observing itself, it's easy then to take this primary experience of separation and apply it So that even though other animals appear not to have the sense of self, even though they have... I think what I heard you say was that there really is a separation between the baby and the child. The baby and the mother. Well, I'll say there's an apparent separation. Right. And without the ability to...

[08:56]

see that apparent separation, there is no sense of self and other. Other animals or other beings do not sense that, and therefore there's no sense of self and mother or self and food. No, but I'm saying two things. I'm saying that there's that kind of apparent separation, apparent external separation, then there's a nervous system that's developed to the point that it's capable of reflecting on itself. So given that self-reflection and that apparent separation, a sense of self arises. Because it internalizes this... Are you actually saying that there really is a separation or not? No, or not. So where is the separation? The separation is in applying the model of of a parent separation that comes from need for food to experience self-reflection.

[10:03]

Where did the parent separation come from? From not having food when you need it or being threatened by an enemy, and having a mind that can reflect ... You don't have food when you need it, in other words you're hungry, and you're saying that creates a sense of ... of separation. No, I don't agree. I don't think that when you're hungry, when the baby's hungry, it feels separated from the food, not until it creates a sense of self and other. It cries because it's uncomfortable, it screams and wiggles and various things, but at a certain point it does not think, the food is someplace separate from me and my mother is separate from me too. That's what I propose. Now, what I propose is that at a certain point the baby starts to see that the mother is separate and that the food is separate and that the father is separate and the wall is separate. Then, they mix in the issue of separation with survival, which then fuels and facilitates and hardens this idea that, really, we can't fool around.

[11:16]

We've got to keep the separation going, because if we don't keep it going, we're gone. I mean, we either won't get what we'll need, or we'll get something we don't need. So then all these complicated survival mechanisms, they aren't really survival mechanisms, they're counter-survival, but survival plays into this. So it gets very complicated and that's why this root is hopeless. And what has to happen is this whole thing has to get dropped or reversed. that's the proposal. And what you both brought up is part of what enhances and complicates and creates higher and higher levels of socialization around all kinds of human behaviors, which then are also all built on this self-other split. But the basic thing, which leads to this tremendous complication, which then we feel like

[12:17]

You've got to spend all your time out there dealing with that stuff, because that's where the problem will be solved, because that's where the problem is. All the messing around up there will never solve the problem. You have to come back to the place where it starts, the proposal, and see that right there, actually, there is no separation, it's just a mind-created thing. But on the way down there, all these demons come up and say, hey man, you don't have time to do this. You're going to get fried if you look at this any longer, because there's actually a threat right here. There actually really is something out there. So stop fooling around and fight it. OK. This is kind of related to what they were saying probably even farther. But I don't understand this business about it appears that This is the smallest unit that nothing can be cut off from, and those two things surviving. And I don't understand the idea of animals not having an idea of self and other, because when an animal goes after prey, it kills an apparent other.

[13:23]

It doesn't kill itself when it's hungry. It doesn't, you know, chew off its arm because it's hungry. Usually it doesn't. Sometimes they do chew off their arms. But not usually for being hungry. Okay, so what I'm saying to you is that, I won't say that no animals can pull this off, because animals are evolving out of my control too, but I propose that there are some animals, just like there's babies, who are, they're like this, you know, and a male deer, and sees a female deer, and it goes, and it goes right after her, but it doesn't think she's external to me. I propose that. He doesn't think that. He just goes for the smell. and without thinking that it's external. Because the mind does not reflect that and say that this is separate and that's external. That function is not there. He does not create the sense of self and female. But what about around food and animals that catch food?

[14:24]

I mean, I understand they go after the smell. Same thing. They go after the smell of the food. You have an animal in the dark, you know, and you turn all the smell on, and they just, you know, they just start moving towards the smell. They don't necessarily think that's an other. I propose. Now, some animals may be evolving into being able to make this split, to have this mind-organ. That may be the case, that some of them are doing that. But we don't see the indication of it. The indication of it would be a certain form of sickness, which they don't seem to have. which we do. The sickness which they seem to have which is related to us is usually sickness that has to do with relating with us. Like when we raise them and we torture them and we feed them and they pick up our neurosis by sympathy but they don't understand what we're worried about. They just know we're worried and they're worried too. But not because they think they're separate from us, but because when we're worried it's like a bad smell.

[15:27]

What do you do with this, you know? They get nervous, they wet their beds, you know, they chew up their furniture and stuff like that. But it isn't because of self and other, it's because we're nervous about self and other. And they're sympathetic because in fact we are connected to them and they know it. And they even act out what we don't even know about ourselves. for us because of their connection, not because of their separation. But some of them may be evolving this ability which we could be able to have the same neurosis that we do with the same understanding and then, you know, then they would be able to learn language. Let's see, I don't know, there's a whole bunch of hands now, so. Let's see, I don't know. Mark hasn't spoken yet. Yes, I would say that.

[16:28]

The early Buddhism mind organ and the Yogacara Manas are the same thing. And the sense of self arises in conjunction with the mind organ or the ability of the mind to reflect upon itself. And the ability of the mind to reflect upon itself is what creates a sense of awareness and object of awareness. Is there some hand over here? Barbara Allen and Albert. Not a lot. I don't know. To me, the defining difference between us and animals is our language.

[17:34]

And that's related to... I know, but to me it's... I can't see the language there. Even though it's located, I don't know. I don't know what to say. I don't know about the brain very well. I just know if you take the brain away, people can't talk. I agree. Even if you dent part of it. Yes? I think that might be the first word, is when there was first a sense of self and other. Maybe that's the first word. I don't know. Stuart? I wanted to say before that it was kind of interesting, the conversation that developed had to do with the reification of the necessity

[18:47]

the argument for the necessity for this process as a survival mechanism, a primary ego defense mechanism. We need to have this. We need our sense of self and other. And we need to have this kind of consciousness process because this is the necessity to survive. And I think that's something we meet with continuously when we start to contemplate this process and think about the reversion of the process of the creation of sense of self and other. I at least keep encountering in my own psychology, gee, I think I really need this. You really need what? I need to hold on to the substantiality of the sense of self and other and that this is an important part of my survival. I'm not arguing that that is necessarily the case.

[19:54]

I was just pointing out that our conversation is mirroring that kind of mechanism. Right. But when you say that, I want to say that we do need it. That's right. We do. But not for survival, but for enlightenment. And the reason why we need it is because we got it. And the substantiation of it, we need to because we do it. Because it's happening, we need it. And now we don't need to talk anymore about needing it unless somebody is not copying to it. Then we say, you need it. You've got to get one. You've got to get the sense of self and other, and you've got to get it heavy. And come back when you've got a nice healthy, hefty, solid, substantiated separation.

[20:59]

Then we can talk. Until then, you're dreaming that you don't have one. Because you do. Now, some people have brain damage. Or other kinds of developmental problems, you know. They grow up in closets or something. and which causes brain damage and so they don't have it and in that case they have to have special therapy so you don't just send them away you take them to a special kind of program or something speech therapy often to stimulate the you know the brain to get it so they can create a sense of self and other. I'd say we have it so we don't need it. You would? Okay. And what you're saying is, in the basic thought that I have about it, is that this is a kind of phenomenological argument. It isn't. I don't think that Vasubandhu is advancing the argument that there is a biological, the argument of the necessary biological development of this and that we have to justify it.

[22:14]

He's merely saying that when we have the circumstances of the arising of a sense of self and other, if we look at consciousness, we see this sort of operation, and it doesn't ask for justification in a sense other than, this is the circumstances, this is the occurrence. What he's asking for justification of, he's asking for justification of what he's just said to you. He's asking for justification of the presentation he just made, and the justification he's asking for is that you examine what he just said. He wants you to concentrate on what he said. And he doesn't want, and none of the teachers want us to spend any time arguing about anything that will distract us from looking at this.

[23:16]

So, if we spend too much time saying, when they say, you got a self and here's how you got one, if we then say, but I need one, then we say, what are you bringing that up for? I didn't say you didn't need one, I said you got one, let's look at it. And then people say, yes, but I need one. In other words, I don't want to hear you, I don't want to look at what you just told me, I want to talk about something else. Or they say, what's wrong with having a self? I didn't say there's anything wrong with it. I said, this is, well, actually, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just that when you have one, you get these four. Huh? No, there's nothing wrong with disease. You just get these four kinds of disease when you have a self. That's all. And I want you to look at the fact that you have these four diseases. Do you see them? You don't have to, you don't have to then defend that. You just have to see them. Can you see them? Can you see those four diseases that arise with the self? Was there anybody ahead of Charlie? Charlie? Oh, Taiyo was there, Charlie. Do you still have one? Yeah, we see the animals, we look at the animals and we think that Pierre thinks he's separate from them.

[24:27]

We project that onto them. If they're doing that, how come they don't do the other things that we do? And how come they don't have the same neurotic problems? How come they don't suffer the way... How come female dogs don't, you know, like, pace up and down before they have babies, you know, worrying whether they're going to be able to stand the pain, you know? The reason why they don't is because they can't imagine, like, the later pain as separate from now. They can't do that. So they're not scared and they don't have to have... go to the birth classes and stuff. because they can't imagine all the pain that's coming. And also the pain that they used to have, they can remember it, but they can't make it as separate. Therefore, they can't be afraid of it. But they can pick up fear from us because they can tell their master is upset. So because they're one with us, they get nervous too. So I don't see much sign in animals that they're doing what we're doing.

[25:31]

So therefore, even though I don't see that, I think a lot of people do see that in the animals and project what we're doing onto them. Now, there are certain things which we're doing, or which we should do, which they're doing. They do model certain kinds of behavior for us which we should learn from. They model devotion, courage, thoroughness. A lot of the behaviors that they do, if we did them with our studies, we would be really cooking. So, you know, the way a deer goes after, you know, whatever, the way a lion goes after whatever, that, when we look at that, that really is what we think it is. That really is beautiful, that really is wholehearted, really. I mean, they really are doing it, just like it looks, but they aren't thinking, I'm doing this. As a matter of fact, that's why they do it that way, because they can't think that way. And the fact, when you do something and you think, I'm doing it, you erode your thoroughness. So, if you would be thorough about studying the way you erode your thoroughness, you will plug up the leak in your thoroughness, and you will be as thorough as an animal.

[26:41]

However, you still will have this ability to split. it won't block you anymore from being who you are because you have exhaustively studied it and become free of it. So we have to do an extra thing that they don't have to do. We have to study the 30 verses. He understands English. I'll say then Charlie. Well, I say we have to drop it, but again, if I say we have to drop it like self has to drop the process which is other, then I'm saying, go ahead and do the same thing over and over for the rest of your life.

[27:44]

It must be dropped, yes. And it can be dropped, in fact, it is dropped because the whole thing is just dreamed up, you know. It's dreamed up and it's dropped. It's dreamed up again and dropped. It actually is an illusion. because it just arises out of this interaction between various elements of the mind that create this sense of self and other. It's just a mental production because of the way the mind works. That's all it is. Otherwise, we're not separate. It's just our imagination. However, we do do that, and as a result, we have all kinds of... we are human beings as a result. So in terms of practice, maybe I'll... In other words, in terms of practice you do, you sit upright in the midst of self-fulfilling awareness. Self-fulfilling awareness is the awareness of self interacting with other. It's the awareness of how the self arises from the other, how without an other there wouldn't be a self.

[28:50]

It's watching how the reflection of the self, how the reflection of something and making an object create the sense of self. Watching how that happens is the awareness that fulfills the self, okay? It's the awareness of everything you see as yourself. To be upright in that, it doesn't mean kind of lean into it, you know, indulge yourself in it, it doesn't mean be afraid of it, it doesn't mean be, you know, anything other than just be completely upright with the phenomena of your mind creating subject-object constantly. If you thoroughly do that, you'll see that there's nothing to it. You'll be free of this sense of harassment, and danger, and threat, and aggression, and lust, and attachment, and confusion, and affliction, and ignorance, and selfishness, and cruelty. And all that stuff will evaporate because there'll be no basis for it anymore. basis will have been seen through.

[29:53]

Would that be considered, per se, that state of enlightenment? Does that still occur even in that...? Yes, that's what you could call it that. Like it says in the Gangel Koan, those who are greatly enlightened or greatly, you know, greatly enlightened, greatly realized, greatly awakened... Great realization about delusion. We're talking about delusion here. The delusion is, it's not delusion that this sense of self and other, that's not delusion, that's just a little thing we've dreamed up, it's an illusion, it's a mental phenomenon. But to substantiate it, to believe in it, to think it's real, which we do, that's delusion. Buddhas are enlightened about that delusion, that's what Buddhas are. So of course that means that they're studying this very thoroughly, which means they study quite a bit. beyond where they sit when the Buddhas aren't even aware that they're Buddhas, so that's wisdom beyond wisdom.

[30:58]

Yeah, well, part of the thing about studying this thing is that it's not like, I'm a Buddha, I'm a Buddha. They don't think that way, except on their birthday. You know, they have Buddha's birthday, so what do you think they think on Buddha's birthday? They say, well, who is this for? John? inside the commentary, and I looked at his projects, none. Okay, well, can you remember it? Yes, I can. Okay, you can ask me individually, too, if you want to. Any short questions? I have a question for a couple of clients. You said that Manas is like this mirror reflecting some part of a light. Is there another name for, like, the object that's reflected from that? Is that a separate thing? No, there's this mirror, okay, and there's this part of this that's being reflected? Yes. Does that make like a third thing where the mirror and the reflection of it are different things?

[31:59]

The mirror is what ... you have a mirror, right? And there's something that seems to be in the mirror, right? Right. So the function of a mirror makes possible to see an image. Now, is there another word for the image than the mirror? Yeah, the image that's in the mirror is called the concept of the object. The image that's in the mirror is the third transformation of consciousness. So the ability to reflect is called manas, which also means think. This is what thinking is. Thinking is to take something in mind and make it an external object so that the mind is aware of something from itself now being separated from itself. So the image in the mirror, the notion, the idea, the concept in the mirror is one of those elements or self. The sense of self arises in conjunction with this and also the sense of self can be in the mirror. Yes?

[33:00]

The concept of the object, in other words, the concept of something being outside, that's what's in the mirror, that's the image in the mirror. But it's a reflection, you see, it's a reflection, in other words, it's something that's already there in the mind. It's not something pulled from outside, that's why it's an illusion. Something from inside is said to be outside. In other words, myself, I say, is other. And I really think she's other, right? I think that's Carrie. Yes? The translation that we're doing in Zendo, all the stuff in the parentheses have been taken out.

[34:24]

Yeah. So, Or the parentheses have been taken out. No. I don't think so. Is the namely there? Yes. Well, like in three, always possessive activities such as... I'm not sure... Brackets. The material in brackets. You can change the translation basically to whatever you want. If you want to make it... If you want to change it, So it makes it easier to memorize, it's okay with me. And if you want to show it to me and see if I think you've done something which is going to hurt you, like you've left out, you re-translate it in such a way that it's kind of misleading, I'll be happy to look at it. But you can change this, it's for your own heart, you know. This is just a translation we've got, I've got some other translations but they're no better. It's pretty hard to make a translation into poetry.

[35:29]

But, you know, it's very important, it is helpful if you're memorizing something, if it's somewhat, kind of like, if it kind of impresses you. So if you can make it more impressive and help you memorize it, that's okay with me. I mean, I couldn't myself come up with a better one than this, but I just didn't have time to do that. I was doing something else. So go ahead, change it. So we're trying to study self and other, how that happens. Hopefully this text will help you meditate on how that occurs. And I wonder if you can try to spot, practically speaking, if you can try to spot those four afflictions and see if also if you can sense that they hurt. even self-love and self-esteem.

[36:33]

See if you can spot those happening right around every experience of self. Also see if you can find experience of self, maybe some of you haven't spotted that yet. So look if you can find the sense of self and other and then around the self you can feel these these afflictions and what's afflicting about them, what bothers you. See if you can find out about that. Give your attention equally and trade every being and place with the true merits of reveals, it occurs in the transformation of consciousness.

[37:38]

Such transformation is threefold, mainly through the resultant, what is called meditation, as well as the concept of the object. Herein, the consciousness called the laya, called all the seeds, is the resultant. It is unidentified in terms of concepts of object and location, and is always possessed In that context, the neutral feeling is uninterrupted and is not defined, so are contact, etc., and it proceeds like the current of a string. She says she's had a hard time understanding what the text says.

[39:11]

Can you ask any questions? Yes. What about the first sentence? First sentence, whatever indeed is the variety of ideas of self and elements that prevails that occurs in the transformations of consciousness. That sentence? Yes. What about it? The variety of ideas of self and elements, is that like all-inclusive? Is that all ideas of self and elements? Yeah, whatever ideas of self and elements that occur in this world, they're due to they occur in the transformations of consciousness. Yes? Question being asked. when your mind is operating on the level of prior to self and elements, there is a level of conscious functioning where there isn't this distinction between self and other, okay?

[40:42]

At the realm of direct sensory experience for example, there's no idea of self and elements. There is such experience though, okay? Is it identifiable? No, you don't know about this. You have no objective knowledge of this level of experience. However, it is happening, just so you don't know it. But, when you talk about ideas of self and other, then that happens in the transformations of consciousness. And that's all of the ideas that you have? in the realm of where there's a self and another, all the ideas and all the images and notions you have of self, they all occur by this three-fold transformation of consciousness. That's what it's saying. Q. That's, for example, something I don't understand at all, that it occurs in the transformation of consciousness.

[41:43]

What kind of transformation? It sounds to me like there is a transformation needed for it to occur. I mean, I don't know what that means. Well, let's see, in order for there to be this sense of self and other, awareness needs to go through a certain kind of a process, and if it doesn't go through this process there will not be the establishment of this sense of self and objects, or subject and object. And in the commentary, Kalupahana gives Vasubandhu a lot of credit here for presenting it this way, in that he says that it's in a process. within a process that this self and other happens, because when self and other happens there tends to be a sense of substantial separation there, a kind of rigidification seems to occur in this, which is the problem.

[43:09]

We'll talk about it a little bit later. But the process which gives rise to it, itself, in fact is a process and the elements in the process themselves are dependently co-arised. So Vasubandhu is saying that out of a kind of ungraspable, both in terms of existence substantially or non-existent, he's not saying out of some void where there's nothing does this come. And he's not saying out of some kind of like solid mechanism of fixed entities does this come, but actually out of dependently co-arising elements of a process does this idea of self and other appear or manifest, which then seems to be quite solid and then brings on all these afflictions. Is it physiological, psychological, or both?

[44:11]

Yes, it's physiological and psychological. The consciousness arises out of materiality. So prior to this presentation here, this presentation starts at the level ... the presentation of this text starts at the level of telling you how the idea of self and elements arise. Okay? At an earlier stage of development, you know, evolutionary-wise, and even right now, at this moment at a more basic level of functioning that's going on, there is the arising of consciousness in conjunction with sense experience, and sense experience is physical.

[45:22]

Okay? Yes? Yeah, I don't know if it happens in one month, but at a certain point in a human being this sense of self and other does not occur. The equipment is not developed for them to make this sense of separation of self and other. They're certainly alive, there's consciousness. and they're responding to the physical, physically, and out of that physical response consciousness is happening. Okay? But they do not yet have the idea of self and other until a certain point. But when they do, it arises by this process. Yes?

[46:23]

Consciousness unfolds in such a way that it gives rise to these concepts of self and element. In this moment consciousness is processing in three different ways right now to give rise to the sense of self and other right this moment, and also this threefold transformation is not like the first transformation is first, the second transformation is second, and the third is third. They're simultaneous. Yes? You were saying that a young child or a young lady does not yet have a sensible self. Yeah. To what extent is this knowledge of a self a language having to do with language acquisition? Is it in there that this takes place? Is it in where that it takes place? Yes.

[47:43]

Okay. I don't know if this is going to work to just feel like this. I may have to present something. Yes? Go ahead. Since you talked about it in the context of Abhidharma the other night, and I thought that that must be, you must be talking about that, what is it, the chain of pulsation? Yeah, especially since he mentions several of the elements, contact and feeling, perception, that that must be, what he's talking about, the transformation of consciousness. Is that correct? No, the transformation of consciousness that we're talking about here is that consciousness is transformed into this alaya, this manas, and this mono-vijnana dhatu. that mind gets transformed into this resultant, into this reflecting capacity and into the concept of object.

[48:52]

Those three are what makes the sense of self and other. But there's other conscious processing which also follows this rule of dependent co-arising which doesn't produce sense of self and other. So, just let me say a little bit about the basic origins of consciousness in terms of physicality, and that is that there are two kinds of physicality, gross and subtle. The gross is electromagnetic radiation, which in a certain band of wavelengths is what we're particularly sensitive to as human beings, called, you know, light. The other one is sound, which is mechanical waves, and the media we're sensitive to it through is mostly air and water.

[49:57]

Mechanical compression and decompression waves that hit this... we're sensitive to all over our body, but we're highly sensitive around, you know, this area called the ear. And then there's chemical, which is the tongue sensitive to, and gaseous and chemical, which the nose is sensitive to, and the whole skin, the entire body is sensitive to touch, which is the most basic physical sense, and all the senses are adaptations of touch. touch is the most basic sense. In the earliest organisms it was mostly touch and then the surface, the surface that was touched evolved, you know, formed cavities which were sensitive to light or formed cavities which were sensitive to mechanical waves or chemicals or

[51:03]

gases, but they were all transformations of the basic skin surface and the skin is sensitive to pressure and temperature and gradients of texture and things like that. So these are the five sense what we call fields and they're gross. They're gross and they take up space and nothing can share the space with them. And the subtle physicality, subtle form of physicality, is what can respond. It's a kind of physicality that's particularly responsive to these gross physicalities. The whole body is sensitive to light, even the teeth are sensitive to light of course, but there's one part of the body that's very sensitive to light and that's the part that we call the eyeball, the eye.

[52:07]

But it's not the eyeball, that's the organ. Like if you look at an eyeball and say, you know, that's the organ, what you're seeing there is actually what you're calling the eyeball is something you see, but the organ is actually something rather subtle. It's the ability to respond to light, that's the organ. And it's located around the eye, but you can't get a hold of the ability, you can't really get a hold of it. You can eliminate it by taking the eyeball out. but it's very subtle. The part of physicality which is responsive interacts with the part of physicality which hits. All these kinds of physicality are ... Physicality is called rupa, and the definition of rupa is rupa rupani. Rupa comes from the word to be hit. So, being hit is physicality.

[53:08]

and that which is hit is the organ and that which hits is the field. They're not called objects yet because they're not really objects when they're interacting with the organ, they're a field. The organ plays in the field and this interaction between the sensitivity, the physical sensitivity, and the gross field, that interaction produces something. What it produces is consciousness. Consciousness is this by-product of this physicality. of something that can respond to another kind of physicality, produces consciousness, so life is born in that way. And we are connected right now to that level of physical interaction and the consciousness which arises from that. That's still going on in us all the time, you know, the ancestors which led to our animal existence. they all had that kind of consciousness too.

[54:12]

And of course the consciousness varies according to the type of sensitivity you have. If you have a compound eye or you know a certain shape of ear or something or a certain kind of a nose like the sense of the nose consciousness of a dog is a lot different from us, you know, because they have 220 times as many nerves to sensitive, so their nose consciousness is different, but it arises in basically the same way, so in that sense we still have that capacity that's still functioning in us. Those are the five sense consciousnesses. At a certain point However, there happened an evolution that ... How did it happen? Well, something happened, but I can't figure out how.

[55:22]

The consciousness, we had consciousness, right? We've got this wonderful thing called consciousness that's happened and the consciousness developed somehow a way to be sensitive to its own experience. that there was this physical interaction which gave rise to this awareness or this effect of the effect or impression of this physical interaction. The impression is non-physical, is a consciousness.

[56:31]

And it's somehow, in some way, and somehow it's not coming to me how it happened, maybe a little later, this awareness somehow reflected the same paradigm which gave rise to itself. And the paradigm which gave rise to itself was something interacting with something. And something was born which embraced the interaction. The consciousness embraced both sides in a sense, because it was born ... the consciousness doesn't look at the organ, the consciousness is aware of the object. And the organ, in a sense, in that way, the organ separates the consciousness from what it's aware of. So first there was this dance between the the subtle and the gross materiality, then there was this impression of that dance, or this thing that arose out of this dance, and it became then what we call an awareness of something.

[57:47]

And what it was aware of was the gross materiality. It wasn't aware of the organ. Okay? The organ, in fact, strangely separated this thing which is born of the organ and the object, or organ and the field, I should say. The organ and the field gave rise to consciousness, but the consciousness became aware of the field, not the organ. The organ is too subtle, and if the organ wasn't too subtle, in a sense, the organ would block the consciousness from being aware of the field. but the organ is very subtle. So in a sense, it's as though the consciousness can see through or see over the organ. But the organ still separates the consciousness from its object. What is the field for the organ is the object for the consciousness.

[58:52]

Okay, so this pattern occurs where these things interact And by interacting in this way they caused at some point this consciousness, and this consciousness was of the field, and the consciousness was isolated from the field by the organ. The organ cut, separated the consciousness from what arose from both of them. And that became then a paradigm which was then re-enacted in the consciousness itself. And the consciousness somehow managed to split itself into two parts. Into an object part and a subject part. However, this is going on still prior

[60:00]

to the evolution of the sense of self and other. We haven't quite drawn that in. The way that gets drawn in then is that, and this is before talking about alaya, you know. This is earlier Buddhism actually, this 30 verses thing is a later development, which Buddha talked about this, used these terms. He didn't draw this out as much. This is early Buddhism I'm talking about. So, the capacity of the mind to cut itself in two, just like the physical world in a sense, cut itself in two. Somehow it got to be two kinds. I don't know how that happened, but it got to these rough elements and these subtle elements, the ones that were hitting and the ones that were being hit. the ones which took the responding side and the one who took the expressing side, and they somehow fell into these categories and created consciousness out of this dynamic, out of this difference.

[61:13]

Gregory Basin one time talked about how, when you look at planets, how do they try to tell if there's life on the planet? One of the ways they try to find out is, is there some difference on the planet? Not just variety. Is there a difference? Is there a sign of difference? If there's a sign of difference, it might be life. Let's see. Can you think of any differences that exist on this planet? Water and rain. Hot and cold. Movement. Movement's fun. Hot and cold. Anything else? Alive and dead. Alive and dead? Any others? Well, is there really a difference between alive and dead? I don't know. Can you think of any differences? Now it's time to come up with differences. We're trying to find some differences.

[62:17]

I don't see a distinction between alive and dead. Well, he doesn't see that one, Roberto. Can you think of any differences? There's not much difference. Well, one of the differences is, ladies and gentlemen, one I just told you, but that's okay, you don't have to remember that, the difference between materiality that impresses and that responds. If you saw signs of that, you could guess maybe there might be some life there, you know, or you might see these objects moving and one seems to be like leading and the other one seems to be following, say, dancing clay blobs or whatever, you know. The water seems to be playing with the mountain. Just water and mountain may not be enough. Anyway, out of this difference, life arose. Difference in materiality, life arose. Then within the consciousness, difference occurred and a new life arose, a mental consciousness.

[63:26]

Before there was sense consciousness, there was consciousness of. set of physical things. And the consciousness was very much like what the object was aware of. The main difference between the mind and the object is the organ. If you take away the organ there would be no difference. It would just collapse into sameness and it would stop being alive too. So in the mind the same thing happens, somehow the mind somehow put a partition in itself and the partition in the mind, the fact that the mind could split itself into two parts not necessarily equal, that partition is the organ of the mind and that partition was called in early Buddhism manas or manodhatu, it's called or manendriya, mind organ.

[64:29]

and it split the mind into two parts and one part was the mental objects and the other part was mano vijnanadattu mind consciousness element and then the mind was separated from its objects by an organ and that organ was defined as very subtle definition which I Don't be surprised if you don't get this the first few hundred times. The definition of the mind organ was the just deceased sense consciousness. The just deceased sense consciousness is the organ of the mind. The way the mind splits itself into two is it uses the sense consciousness which has just died. What is the sense consciousness that just died? Kind of like a shadow or a, you know, a whiff or a perfume of the mind which is aware, which is separated from an object.

[65:33]

That sort of afterthought or that afterimage of the way sense consciousness works provides the way for the mind to split itself. A very subtle organ. Now, just like the physical organs are very subtle, this organ is more subtle than the mind objects. What was not developed also is thoroughly ... I'm not going to say it wasn't developed as thoroughly, but I don't know such a nice development of how troublesome this mind organ got to be in early Buddhism. But in this presentation here by Vasubandhu and Yogacara, they point to this particular function of the mind, this ability of the mind to cut itself into two. they point to this one as really the origin of the sense of self, this cutting.

[66:36]

And in early Buddhism too it must have had the same function. And then that which is on one side was the mind consciousness that which was able to be aware of things and the part of mind, still mind, the part of mind which you could be aware of, in other words, the environment or the world. And these things would be grosser than this thing. They're grosser. They're like, you know, ideas of glasses, noses, Cadillacs, men, tablecloths, things like that. That's grosser than consciousness itself. Still, if you try to get a hold of those concepts, they're pretty hard to get a hold of, but they're not as hard to get a hold of as the ability to be aware of them. So you had the same split on one side of the consciousnesses were very subtle, the organs a little bit less subtle than the consciousness, but more subtle than the objects.

[67:47]

So the ability to split the mind, the just-to-see sense consciousness is more subtle than a mind object. say so the mind objects interact with the mind organ and give rise to mind consciousness this is an early Buddhist teaching so then you have six consciousnesses and this is how you have the five and mind consciousness and you have six fields light color, I mean light, sound, so on, and mind objects, and you have six organs, ear, eye, nose, tongue, body, and mind organ. So it's a system of 18 dhatus, which we refer to in the Heart Sutra, 18 elements. Okay? And the three elements of the mind, which is mind consciousness, mind organ, and mind objects, those three

[68:56]

are basically the three transformations of consciousness. However, what the OHR did is that by calling the awareness alaya, and calling the object, the field of mind objects, the concept of the object, the concept of the object, and calling the mind-organ Manas, it emphasized a couple of things. By emphasizing light it told a story about how transmigration occurs, it explained all kinds of karmic accumulations. And we can get into all the stuff that explained that this earlier presentation didn't, and it also, by talking about Manas the way it did, it explained the arising of the self a little bit more explicitly and talked a little bit more directly and immediately about all the problems that occur in the process.

[70:06]

So by changing to this system, I think they go a little faster to the core. of the origination of delusion than the sixth consciousness method did, but basically they're the same. So, I don't know, I think this issue of what the word results in is very important and we can handle that unless there are some other questions. Yes? I started off in answering Thayo's question saying that there is there's a conscious experience that occurs before there's a notion of self or other? Well, let's just say there's a conscious experience that occurs where there is no sense of self or other. It's not really before because it happens at the same time. Right now, I'm discriminating between self and other and simultaneously I have conscious experience ... I mean, I have a consciousness which is not experiencing that way.

[71:17]

It's called, in case 21 of this Book of Serenity, the one who's not busy. Questioner 2 Is that different than the five? Is there or are you referring to the five? Q. Five sense consciousnesses. Yes? Q. Yeah. I'd like you to clarify this thing about fields of senses. Okay, what are the fields? The fields are light, sound, smell, taste, and tangible. Those are the fields of the organs. That's where the organs play. And that's the gross physicality? Yes. And then the subtle physicality is? The eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and Did I say pretty good aye?

[72:24]

What? Five. She wanted five. Yes? So the idea of not having a consciousness of self and other is pre-alaya or is that alaya? What you were speaking about earlier. Alaya by itself. You see, alaya, as it says there, is unidentified in terms of concepts of object and location, so alaya by itself cannot come up with objects, locations, self and other. Well, I don't remember what you're talking about.

[73:26]

In the evolution of the species, in the evolution of life on the planet, there are and were organisms which do not and did not have the ability to come up with ideas of self and elements. But now, for us, all this stuff is simultaneous. However, there's a hierarchy which reflects evolution, which in the present there's a hierarchy which represents evolution. And the level of direct sense experience is going on right now, we have direct sense experience, it just says it's not known because it doesn't have, you know, knower and known. Yes? Where does the lie dwell? Where does it dwell? It dwells in causes and conditions. That's why it's called the resultant, you see. The first word there is vipako, isn't it?

[74:29]

No, it's not. It's vipakoparinama. No, excuse me, it's the second karaka. The second karaka is vipakomanaskara, so the resultant. Manas is ... I mean, a laya is something that results from causes and conditions. So where does it live? Where are their causes and conditions? Everywhere, right? So is laya everywhere? Maybe. Or maybe it's just where certain causes and conditions are. and that so much of this hinges upon the concept of a liar. And then we have to ask the question of where a liar is. Now, we come to the sense of subject and object dispositions, discrimination occurring between various substances of the universe and so on.

[75:35]

You did ask that question, though. You asked where a liar was and I told you it has no location. But you don't say it's nowhere, because that's a location. Mental things do not have locations, however in order to create a sense of self and other you create the idea of location and then by having the idea of location you also have to like separate the consciousness from the idea and make the idea external from the consciousness and then you have self and location. And alaya provides the opportunity to come up to make up some locations, but alaya itself is unidentified in terms of object and location. Yes? Q. Where does the brain organ fit in the process of consciousness?

[76:38]

Or why don't we describe this using the brain as one of the organisms? Pardon? It feels like in this whole thing the brain is left out in a kind of glaring way and I never quite understand what that implies. What do you mean by the brain? The brain, the brain, the brain, you can, it's okay to say the brain is the organ if you want to, I'll let you do that, okay? However, that specifies the location of the organ, all right? But you can't see the organ. Peel the brain open, take the skull off and look at the brain. You can't see the organ, but if you took the brain away, you wouldn't have mind consciousness anymore. Or if you mess with it, that's right, if you take away the place where the sensitivity is because the sensitivity is located.

[77:57]

Now the brain, what do you call it, the mind organ, okay, the mind organ is not located, but if you destroy that part of the body, you there won't be a mind organ anymore. So the mind organ is now located but it dependently arises in relationship to this physical base which is the brain. And the way the brain works, the reason why, one of the things about the brain is that it evolved by the way it worked, not by what you call it structural. It evolved by what was adaptive. So it had evolution in there which which is hard to see physically why it did it that way. It did it for mental reasons. So the brain does have something to do with this, but as an organ, it's very subtle.

[78:58]

Its organ function is very subtle. And I have an article called Dr. Edelman's Brain, which maybe I'll bring down here and show you, which is about the concept of the idea of what the brain functioning is and it's very elusive, all these things happening. But anyway, I'd like to say about this word vipaka, calling alaya the resultant, Kalupa Hanna mentions, it's very good that he says that at the beginning, called resultant, rather than calling it a seed or the cause, because it is also seed and cause. it is also a cause. But by calling it a resultant first, he emphasizes, he doesn't make it so concrete that way. I don't know if I can get that across. He says it well.

[79:59]

in the commentary says, this is one of the important reasons why Vasu Vandu refers to a lie as a resultant. I'll read the previous sentence. It's in the commentary on verse 2. The first paragraph. The transformation, as explained here, avoids the notion of absolute beginning, therefore, as a temporal sequence, as prior to the posterior. Prior and posterior. This is one of the important reasons for Vasubandhu to refer to alaya-vijnana as vipaka, which is a semantic equivalent to dependently arisen, rather than as seed or cause in his initial reference or description of it. So by calling alaya a resultant, he's emphasizing that something caused it, that it dependently arose. And anything that dependently co-arises Well, you might think, well, I could dependently co-produce something solid, but by first of all talking about its causation, that's the first thing you're told about it is that it's caused, that it's a resultant, which lightens up.

[81:26]

And also, it lightens up on … people have a tendency to think alaya is a primordial source of everything. Alaya can be called the basis, you know, the most fundamental. of these transformations from which the other two in some sense are based, but they're based simultaneously too. And they dependently co-arise with alaya, but alaya dependently co-arises too, so it's not more substantial than they are. They're all ungraspable processes. but ungraspable processes still can lead to the sense of a self which does not vaguely exist but exists right up to the place where it ends and then the other starts. And the part that puts an end to it, the part which separates alaya

[82:38]

from something else, or in a sense the way alaya in some sense, in some sense alaya gets split in two, but not really because you wouldn't have one alaya and then another alaya. It's more like rather than splitting, yeah, it's not like you cut alaya in half, it's not like you cut the mind consciousness in half, it's like you take a mirror and hold it up to the consciousness. So the consciousness, alaya, is still intact. I mean, intact, I mean, alaya is still a dependently produced opportunity. And then there's the ability of mind to reflect something in alaya. Because in this case, there's nothing like outside mind, it isn't like there's a real, I shouldn't say real, but anyway, a substantial separation between

[83:41]

alaya and some other part of the mind. It's rather that alaya gets reflected and by reflecting something of alaya up into this...

[83:54]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ