In the longer version of this Heart Sutra, Sariputta asks Avalokiteshvara how a male or female offspring of Buddha would cultivate the profound perfection of wisdom. And Avalokiteshvara says, such a person contemplate the five aggregates as being empty of inherent existence, empty of independent existence. empty of existing, independent of its conditions and mental imputation, or not existing in such an independent way, not existing that way.

[01:27]

And in this sutra, we're just told that it starts off by saying Avalokiteshvara was meditating on practicing the Prajnaparamita, and Avalokiteshvara saw that the five aggregates of the psychophysical person are empty of or lack of inherent existence. So this sutra doesn't say that we should contemplate the five aggregates as empty. We're just told Avalokiteshvara was practicing Prajnaparamita, and he saw that the five aggregates were empty. So it doesn't say, but it seems reasonable that since he was practicing perfection of wisdom and he saw that the five aggregates are empty, that's because he was looking at the five aggregates.

[02:35]

So in other words, while practicing the five aggregates, I mean, Paramita, the basis of your practice of Prajnaparamita is looking at the five aggregates. And actually that's just, you know, all the kinds of conventional phenomena that you can... So whatever they are, you're looking at them when you're practicing the perfection of wisdom. So the perfection of wisdom is based on paying attention to the conventional world. That's your basis. And then you step from there into considering that this conventional world lacks... All particular experience in this conventional world lacks existing independent. And again, of course you all basically agree with that, but of course you all are innately disagree with that. So, without any effort, you naturally phenomena and think they do exist in this impossible way.

[03:46]

Just naturally you imagine, and I imagine, that things exist in a way that they don't, and that they never can and never will. But we don't have to work at that. That's our birthright. That's creation given. Meditation is to consider these things which we normally are looking at and and actually considering them as independently to bring this teaching to bear to all those things in an ongoing way. But commenting on this tradition, the teacher Nagarjuna said, actually like receive the teachings which I just mentioned, in other words, the teachings that whatever you're looking at lacks inherent existence.

[04:52]

You should be well familiar, well grounded in these conventional phenomena. You should be... Conventional phenomena in technical terms means well grounded in five aggregates. So five aggregates is technical, but it's just a way to clarify what we mean by conventional phenomena, conventional existence. So, it just means, you know, physical things and mental things. And we should be well grounded in that. In other words, paying attention to that stuff, step by step, breath by breath, thought by thought, feeling by feeling, we should be grounded in that. And then, if when we're well grounded, we can listen to the teaching that whatever it is that we're dealing with here, It lacks inherent assistance. And so we've discussed this before.

[05:56]

And have you been able to somewhat in the midst of your five aggregates coming and going? I should say, in the midst of the five aggregates coming and going? No, you haven't. Oh, Henry had. Good. How is it to practice that way? It's kind of cool. Kind of cool? And what aggregate is cool? Sense aggregate. Any questions about how to practice that? Yes. I'm feeling a little confused.

[07:02]

You talked a little bit about the material phenomena being empty without mental imputation. being empty without mental impetition, the way I would put it is that material phenomena exist depending on mental impetition, and they do not exist independent of mental impetition. So they're empty of existing, independent, of mental imputation. They're empty of that way of existing. They don't exist that way at all. And that's their emptiness, apart from what they depend on. But is there anything there without the mental imputation?

[08:07]

Is there something there that's empty of what we think is there, but something else is there? So that's, a lot of people, especially that's one of the nice things we're starting with, Some people think that if you are experiencing a form, and it's something other than this thing which exists as a form, if it's not just your mental imputation, if you took the mental imputation away, would there be something there? Right? So again, if you have this striker here, this hammer, this mallet, drumstick, if you have this, it exists for you and me in dependence on mental imputation.

[09:09]

It exists actually as a mental imputation. There's nothing more than that for us. However, it's not just that, but it does depend on that mental imputation. So if we take away that mental apprehension, that mental grasping, would there still be a stick here? Okay? That's kind of your question. Is it? That's a big part of it. What more? Do you want to flesh it out more? Well, the way that I was thinking of it was So if I did a chemical analysis of a drumstick and what constitutes it, and then I set it down, and someone else came along and did a chemical analysis of it, then they might come up with the same thing.

[10:12]

So the pieces of it are... potentially, for this person and this person, not as a function of their mental imputation. Right. The parts of it are not the mental imputation. But the parts without mental imputation don't constitute a thing. Without mental imputation, it doesn't exist. So the parts can be there, but... The parts can be there, but it's not a drumstick until I come along. The parts can be there, but we don't have something. We don't have something which is the parts. As the parts make up, we don't have that without mental impetition. So, in fact, we don't have the drumstick. Because the drumstick doesn't exist apart from mental impetition.

[11:15]

And is that almost not it? Almost. Yes. Last week we used the example of an apple and a person in another room. Yes. And all week I've been thinking, what about a person, a friend of mine is dying, what about a... That sort of raises the ante a bit and brings in a whole... a whole other sort of way of responding to this. Yes. One can't be quite so cavalier in saying that, yes, it may be dependent upon mental impotence and suffering, but at the same time, it's a very real and terrible thing for someone. So without getting metaphysical, as we work through, as beginners work through this, How have you come to grips with that? Well, I'm not saying this is how you come to grips with it, but just in terms of what comes to my mind in responding, I mentioned that this scripture implicitly teaches compassion also.

[12:31]

But it doesn't say that when the phenomena of a When you hear the sound of a crying, if you hear the cries of suffering of a person, you see a person who appears to be suffering, it doesn't say, practice generosity with this person. It doesn't say, practice patience with how you feel with this person. It doesn't say, practice the precepts with this person. And bodhisattva precepts are, for example, embrace and sustain all beings. It doesn't say that explicitly in the sutra. But this sutra is implicitly suggesting that if you see a suffering person, you would practice compassion, being generous with them, practicing, for example, embracing them, caring for them. And you would practice patience with the difficulty of working with them if there was pain there.

[13:35]

You would be diligent in all these practices I just mentioned. practice tranquility too, you know, to help you have lots of energy to work in this way with people. However, this sutra is explicitly mentioning that in order to realize freedom yourself and help other people be free, not just like nurturing them and ministering to them and nursing them, not just that, but that too. Those kinds of compassion are on the list, you know, nurturing beings, taking good care of them, that's part of it. But in another word, we're also trying to actually liberate them, but we can't liberate them if we don't understand the process of liberation. And if we don't understand our actual relationship with them, somebody who is liberated needs to demonstrate the actual relationship, which is, for example, one of non-duality, one of non-independent beings relating to each other.

[14:53]

So we need to practice wisdom, but the wisdom has to be practiced with compassion. That's what the sutra is implicitly saying that. And one of the ways we talked about that it's implicitly saying that is Buddha's sitting there and these beings are asking about how to practice wisdom. Buddha's demonstrating his samadhi. He's demonstrating... He's demonstrating his embracing of these two bodhisattvas and getting these two bodhisattvas to talk so that we can hear it. He's demonstrating, actually ministering to us by giving these teachings of liberation, and he's showing us how to be liberated. So if you run into a being, you embrace them as they come to you in terms of the five aggregates. Like if they run and jump on your lap, that's one way. If they stand in front of you, that's another way.

[15:55]

If they turn their back to you, that's another way. If they roll on the floor, there's all physical ways you relate to them and see them, hear them, smell them and so on. So you're doing that stuff with them. But you're also, while you're doing that, if you're ready, when you're ready and you feel grounded in that, then you bring this teaching to bear such that you can interact with them in a way where there's no seeking and grasping and greed, hate and delusion. Because without understanding of the relationship, there's some kind of like greed in it, some kind of seeking in the relationship with other beings, because you don't understand the nature of the self. And that undermines the whole process And even the compassion that you were doing before you started to do the wisdom, if the wisdom doesn't come to maturity, that whole process can go flat.

[17:03]

You can be really devoted to people, but if you don't understand your actual relationship, you can actually come to want to get rid of them. Abandon the very beings that you're devoted to because you have the wrong attitude towards them. It's implicit. I mean, I noticed that in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness the Buddha says, putting away covetousness and grief for the world. And is this a reference to that, too, that there is, as one understands this, perhaps in a more profound way? Is that what that means? Well, the Buddha can say, put away covetousness and, did you say greed for the world? At least one trend. Yeah. You can try to do that. just sort of like right off the bat. However, until you actually understand the Dharma, which is mindfulness, until you understand it properly, although you're mindful of the teaching that we should give up covetousness and greed... Grief, grief.

[18:09]

Grief? Grief. Covetousness and grief. There's still the conditions for that to be set up by lack of understanding. I mean, keep confessing them and letting go of them, which is fine. But when we have wisdom, there's no covetousness for you anymore. So then you don't have to, like, let go of it or put it aside. The conditions for it have been, to say, eliminated. They're not going to come up anymore. So... We don't want to be cavalier about the teachings of emptiness. It's not appropriate. The teachings of emptiness are not for people who are cavalier about suffering. So freedom is free from all suffering is part of what's proposed here.

[19:16]

but that freedom comes to one who practices compassion for those who are suffering. Any other questions about how to practice? Yes? You were talking about living our daily life practicing emptiness. So I find that the thought occasionally arises of emptiness, and I consider it, and then it goes away again, and then maybe it will come later. But what is continuity, or what is your suggestion? Well, part of it is, as Sutra says in some sense, This is what Avalokiteshvara was able to see. So probably Avalokiteshvara was looking at the five aggregates. But it doesn't say he was looking at the five aggregates and applying the teaching of emptiness to the five aggregates.

[20:25]

It doesn't say that either. But since he was supposedly practicing the profound wisdom beyond wisdom, while looking at the five aggregates, he probably had heard the teaching that the five aggregates are empty. So that's one part of it, is you just listen to that teaching while you're looking at aggregates. You bring that teaching to mind over and over. Yeah. And then there's more about That just started off by saying, regard them as empty. But what does that mean? I think it says, doesn't it say, regard the five aggregates as empty? Isn't that what it says? Isn't that what the instruction was? That they should regard or consider the five aggregates as empty? What?

[21:27]

Say it again. There are the five skandhas, and those he sees in their own being as empty, which is somewhat torturous. Well, also, also sees is a little different. I have a question about whether the way you do it is that you, of course, seeing that they're empty would be great, but I think before you see that they're empty, you regard them, or you... That's another way to translate. Because you can't see that they're empty right off the bat. It says earlier that he surveyed them. That's Avalokiteshvara. So Avalokiteshvara actually saw them as, but I think to start the practice, you start considering that they are. rather than actually being told you should immediately be able to see their emptiness, or see that they're empty.

[22:31]

But again, notice that in both what Avalokiteshvara saw and what you're either told to see or what you're told to consider, to consider that these things are empty. They are empty of inherent existence. Everything is empty of inherent existence. Everything that exists is empty of inherent existence, and things we don't want to talk about. Like, for example, inherent existence, we don't say that that's empty of inherent existence. Does that make sense? We don't say that because it doesn't exist. But then once we're going forward with considering everything as empty, Then comes a section in the sutra where it talks about not empty, not considering everything as empty, but considering the relationship between everything that's empty and... So, first of all, based on things that are empty, what are the things that are empty?

[23:46]

Phenomena. What? Everything compounded. Not just everything compounded. But everything compounded is empty, yes, but not just that. So, phenomena are empty. Anything else that's empty? Emptiness. Emptiness is a phenomena. Anything else besides emptiness is a phenomena. Emptiness is a phenomena. But emptiness is not compounded. So, compounded things that exist are empty. Uncompounded things are empty. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, right? Is there anything else? The skandhas. The skandhas are all the phenomena in five categories. Anything else? Huh? Space. Space. Is that something else from all phenomena? Excel. No, it's not. It's phenomena.

[24:50]

Nothing. No, it's not nothing. Space is a phenomena. Phenomena? No. What is compounded? Put together. What's uncompounded? Not put together, not made. So space is not made. I forgot what are uncompounded phenomena. Pardon? I forgot what are uncompounded phenomena. Space and certain forms of freedom. are uncompounded. Excuse me if that sounded cavalier. So things that exist are called phenomena. And so I was asking you anything else, but actually there wasn't anything else. So when Emmanuel mentioned space, that was included in what Jane said.

[25:55]

namely phenomena. But some phenomena are not compounded. And, by the way, I said this before, may I say it again, even though you don't know what it is? The Buddha said, did the Buddha say, I'll say, did the Buddha say everything is empty? I mean, did the Buddha say Did the Buddha say sarva-dharma-shunya? Huh? What? I suspect so. He didn't. He didn't say that in Sanskrit. He didn't say that in Sanskrit and he didn't say it in English. But basically, have you heard, have you seen it written that the Buddha said all dharmas are empty? of inherent existence. Did the Buddha say that everything... Buddha did not say that.

[27:06]

He didn't say it in Sanskrit or Pali or English or Chinese or Japanese. However, you said yes, didn't you? Why did you say yes? You said yes because you probably heard somebody say it. Even... The teacher said that everything's impermanent. It's not true that everything's impermanent. What did the Buddha say? The Buddha said, everything that dependently co-arises, or everything that arises and is dependent on conditions, everything that's compounded is impermanent. But some things are not compounded, they're not impermanent. Not everything's impermanent. But the things that arise that are composed, sort of what goes up comes down. The things that are composed, they're impermanent. So impermanence is not characteristic of space and emptiness. Selflessness is not.

[28:07]

It is a phenomena. It dependently co-arises, but it's not a compositional thing. back to our basic meditation, considering things as empty, which includes everything. All things are empty. But then we move on from there to also incorporate the further teachings, for example, in the Heart Sutra, the next section. The next section, which is basically going from form is not different from emptiness. Emptiness is... Well, actually, form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Form is not different from emptiness. Emptiness is not different from form. That section going up to all those things like doesn't arise or cease, isn't defiled, that section is the next teaching you would bring to bear to these things. You're basically looking at them as empty, and now you're going to understand the relationship between these things and emptiness, which is a little bit different.

[29:14]

Okay? So, this is a form, This is a feeling, it's empty. This is a color, it's empty. But also, this color is emptiness. So, this has the quality of being empty, but it also has the quality of being emptiness. It is modified by the adjective empty, but it is also... modified by the noun emptiness. It is actually that both are nouns. Form and emptiness are nouns. And they have a relationship. And their relationship is that they're the same thing. That's the next part saying they're the same thing. Could you say that that's because... Could you say that's because nouns don't exist?

[30:24]

Could I say it's because nouns don't exist? Sure. It's because nouns don't exist. So the emptiness and that forms are empty are different, but they're not the same either. Say it again. And form being emptiness and form being empty are not different, but they're also not the same. Is that so? Yeah. I mean, form is... But it's the same as emptiness. It's the same as emptiness.

[31:27]

How so? Hmm? How so? Well, when you let go of form, what happens to the emptiness? No emptiness. No emptiness. Right. That's one way they're the same. This is kind of to caution you from... This is to caution us from creating an image of emptiness that you hold out there and keep... Can it be real, apart from anything else? Is it to caution you away from having an image of emptiness where emptiness is... Kind of an independent conception that can just have its own place, something that we make real in our minds apart from content.

[32:49]

I know it's more subtle than that. Well, this is partly to tell us not to understand emptiness apart from the phenomena that it characterizes. That's part of what it's about. But we will have to have some kind of image of emptiness in order for it to exist for us. But even with the image of it existing, we can still misunderstand its relationship to other things which we have images about and that exist for us. Namely, we could think that emptiness could live separately from the things it's the emptiness of. We might think that, but the next part of the Sutra is teaching us to understand that that's not so. Yes, Jane?

[33:53]

Meditating on the aggregates, is it useful to identify what aggregate any given moment of experience is? Is it helpful to do that? A lot of people have found that helpful, to actually Be aware of, you know, classify what you're experiencing in terms of aggregates. Part of the... You could also... You don't have... You know, like, if you see a color, you can just say, well, I see the color. But you could also say, you know, understand that you're looking at an aggregate. So, as you start to think this way, you gradually come to understand that if something doesn't fall in these aggregates, it doesn't exist. And of course, the original way that that was used was to imagine, our normal way of thinking is that when you have all the aggregates, that there's something in addition to all the aggregates.

[35:09]

We have all the phenomena of a moment or our whole life or the whole universe, and we actually think there's something in addition to that. And putting it that way, you look like you don't know what I'm talking about. Me and my aggregate. Me and my aggregate. Right. I think there is a me in addition to the aggregates. So, usually we don't necessarily, when we see something, we don't necessarily feel like, oh, I'm seeing the universe. I'm seeing the universe, I'm seeing the universe, I'm seeing the universe, I'm seeing the universe." We don't usually talk that way. But you could. You could say, I'm seeing the universe. You could do it that way.

[36:13]

Instead of using the Buddhist five aggregates, just say, I'm seeing the universe. In other words, I'm seeing the totality of the moment. And I think there's something in addition to that. And most people do. You think there's something on top of everything. So the aggregates are another way to do that. Just say, well, five aggregates in the universe at a given moment. And people think there's something, just happens to be something in addition to that. And by coincidence, each person thinks that that thing that's in addition to it is them. And they don't think it's somebody else. They don't think it's the universe and plus two or three other people. Almost nobody does that. They think there's a universe plus one person, one self. Not one person even, one self. And then they try to say, well, and that self kind of like owns the universe.

[37:18]

But this person owns this person. So there's this person's experience, which is true, there is this person's experience, but we think there's a person in addition to the experience. In other words, a person who is in addition to the five aggregates. Because we don't think a person is a feeling. But when we have a feeling, that's a person. Or that's a self. Even though when you look at it and say, well, I didn't mean that. Sometimes people say, well, yes, I did. And then we can work with that. So, yeah, it is sometimes helpful. It has been helpful for lots of meditators over the centuries, over the millennia, to do this five-aggregate way of seeing the universe. Because this thing about, well, there's a universe plus me.

[38:19]

You say the universe, the universe doesn't come in these five different packages. where you could look into each of the five packages of the universe and check to see if there was a self in any of those packages. Because they weren't, you know, the different parts of the universe weren't labeled. For you to look and say, well, the person's not a smell, idea, the person's not a, what I mean by a self is not just a consciousness, it's not a, it's not a smell, it's a, you know, so on and so forth. But you can kind of get that idea just without analyzing it. Just say everything that's happening in a given moment and you think there's something in it. But also you can do it with any particular element that's happening that you think that there's something in addition to the element that the element's got itself on top of it too. We think that too. It's got an independent existence. So there the five aggregates won't work to analyze it. There we... aggregates and find out that we think that they have an independent existence.

[39:24]

So the first level of analysis is to see the five aggregates and see if you can find this person you think which is in addition to it. Then you look at the five aggregates and find out that you think there's an independent existence of the five aggregates and see if you can find that. So then you have a different type of teaching for emptying the aggregates than you had for emptying a sense of a person which embraces all the aggregates. And it's good to be able to do both. But this sutra, rather than analyzing the lack of self-aggregates of the person, it analyzes the lack of self of each individual aggregate that you're aware of, or the element in each aggregate that you're aware of. I have one more question about that. The third aggregate, how do you catch that? What was that? The third aggregate? Perception? Well, it can either be, you know, strictly speaking, you know, for a while at Zen Center, partly due to...

[40:41]

looking at the term, the actual Sanskrit word for that third aggregate is samya. And samya, in a way, it's usually translated as perception, I think sometimes it's a sensation, and it can also be translated, I felt, as conception. Sam-nya. Sam means to sort of gather together, and nya means to know. So in a way, sam-nya is actually more like conception, but it could also refer... ...of experience where there's direct sense perception unmediated by conception. So it's a little bit complicated, what I just said. But even if it's direct sense perception, there's still some conception going on, some mental apprehension. But perception is the way the mind actually we're talking about that today in priesthood, in the way the mind actually mentally apprehends the signs of the phenomena to come up with and bring that sign into contact with consciousness.

[41:57]

Consciousness knows, but like grasps the sign and brings it in contact with consciousness. So perception or conception are, they both have some merit as an English translation for samyā, the third skandha. But awareness, the basic knowing, is the fifth skanda. And the perception is actually grasping, is the actual mental apprehension. And that is what is known by consciousness. Consciousness knows what perception has grasped by getting a hold of a sign. And then that result of that grasping is what we know. And without that grasping, consciousness doesn't have, doesn't know anything, so there's no experience, there's nothing that exists without that. That doesn't mean we take a position to say that there is... Because, you know, we can't say that without mental apprehension.

[43:07]

I was thinking of formations close to conception. How would you describe formation? The formation aggregate, again, the fourth aggregate of phenomena is an aggregate which literally means made, samnya. Huh? Samskara. It means made. So the things in that category are things that are made, that are composed. And so a lot of things can go in there that are composed. For example, samadhi. Feeling could go in there, but feeling is so important it gets to be a skandha on its own. Perception could go in there, but it's so important it gets a skandha on its own.

[44:12]

Lack of faith. Any concept? Any concept or position? All those things, when they are known, when we are aware of those functions of mind, those mental functions, when they exist, they exist in dependence on mental imputation. Samadhi is different from, for example, contact between... There's also a phenomenon called the contact between sense organ, sense object, and sense consciousness. That's another phenomenon, the way they contact each other. That's something worth aggregate. It's another composed thing. Greed is another composed thing. Anger is another composed thing. Confusion is another composed thing. Philosophical views is another composed thing.

[45:16]

Diligence, lack of diligence. Physical ease and flexibility is one. Mental ease and flexibility is one. Lack of mental ease is another one. So many different psychophysical phenomena that one theory is that as the meditator started to analyze and get in touch with more and more of the complexity rather than make more and more skandhas, they just left it as five and let the fourth one grow. So, the first one has basically, in one system, ten subdivisions, or ten examples, and in our system it has eleven. The sense feels... colors, sounds, smells, tastes, and tangibles, and the organs which relate to them. That's the ten. Some people add another one. Some systems add another one. The next ganda has one mental function in it called feeling, which is the evaluation of the object that you're aware of.

[46:29]

Including, you could also be aware of the object of feeling. You can be Such an important mental function that is self. It's key, it's a key function in the dependent core arising of the idea and the misconception around self. And the next one is also very important because it's how you apprehend phenomena so that they would exist. The last one is very important too, consciousness. basic awareness. And the middle one's, of course, very important, but all the different... There's 54 in one system. There's 54 elements in that one. And some are systems even more. So they just kept putting everything new that they found in that one category, because the word samskara satisfies anything you could put in there. So you won't find emptiness in that category. So you're asking, are there concepts? Well, when you know each one of those things... When you know any element, then you would know them through conceptual grasping.

[47:37]

However, there's other concepts. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Those are concepts which are not listed in the fourth aggregate. Blue, green, red, yellow, brown. Those are not listed in the form aggregate. When you know blue, green, red, yellow, when you know them and they exist for you, there's some conceptual grasping going on. So they would go in the fourth aggregate? No. No. They would go in the first aggregate. There would be mental... There would be... The perceptions going to be involved in the origination of the phenomena of a color. And there would be a feeling about that color. Even at the level of seeing a color in direct perception, there's conceptual grasping.

[48:47]

However, there's not conceptual mediation. So in order to pull blue out of the universe and have it brought into your consciousness, your mind has to do it, apprehend it, grasp it. You have to, just like, what is it, just like you actually can't get a hamburger into your cells. You can digest a hamburger, but in the digestion process, for a while there you actually have a hamburger. And then you have little chunks of hamburger in your throat, little chunks of hamburger floating around in your tummy. But you can't take a chunk of hamburger and put it into any cell of your body without causing cell distress. You have to break the hamburger. You have to destroy the hamburger. Your digestive process has... Tofu burger. Same with tofu burger.

[49:49]

Drumstick. You have to break it down and make it into proteins and sugars and water into your body and go into various little cells and cells say, hi, come on in. Same with electromagnetic radiation. Certain forms of electromagnetic radiation never get apprehended by the mind. Now, you've heard of gamma rays, right? And you've heard of X-rays, right? You've heard of them, right? But when we're talking about them now, you're apprehending them purely as words. You're not actually seeing, you're not actually having a sense impression of gamma rays. But you are having a sense impression of another kind of waves, electromagnetic radiation, of a certain wavelength, which is between 400 and 480 angstrom years.

[50:59]

It's a certain little band of electromagnetic radiation. When that strikes your body and stimulates your eye, a consciousness arises, but in order for that color to exist, there has to be mental apprehension. And at that level is the level of direct perception and mental apprehension. And this is direct perception and it does exist. It's dependently arisen. Blue does exist. And then there can be conceptual mediation on top of that where you say, it's blue. However, before there's the word blue, there is actually the apprehension of a concept. but not conceptual mediation. But it's not really apprehension of concept. It is apprehending the phenomena as being that concept, that way the mind is granted.

[52:00]

So that would be, at the driver level of direct sense perception, it would be you're actually perceiving the color. Then when you have the word blue, that isn't a physical phenomenon. So we have this wide variety of words and they come to us by working with various other mental factors like vitarka and vichara. We apply ourselves to various images, words, and come up with quotes, bloop. Yes. It's interesting because it made me think that the blue canon to your consciousness either has to be digested by your eyes. Yes. ...get into your consciousness. But it interacts with your body, and that interaction with your body

[53:07]

gives rise to or works with the arising of consciousness. So actually the sense organ, in a sense, separates the consciousness from the actual electromagnetic radiation. If you take away the organ, The consciousness can't know. The funny thing is consciousness can't know blue unless it's separated from the blue by another kind of physicality. So you have one kind of physicality, which is this electromagnetic radiation, and this other kind of physicality, which we call the eye organ, which includes the optic nerve and everything, that kind of physicality between the radiation and the consciousness. But actually the three of them together are the experience, the blue. However, in addition to that, there has to be mental apprehension to present to the... The consciousness is bonding too.

[54:21]

It doesn't make an impression on the consciousness when this happens. But in order for there to be perception, there has to be this grasping sign Because we don't just perceive color, we perceive blue, green, so on. So we get actual... I have a sign there. Like that being the way of saying there's no accounting for taste, because there has to be, even though the same electromagnetic field or the same food, once it hits the psychophysical entity, there's completely different reactions. It could be complete attraction or aversion. that part of him is the same? Somebody could love or hate the same taste of soup or the same color. Is that that stage of mental apprehension you're talking about that's separate from the outside? I feel that more is the phenomena of feeling. It's that whenever you actually, even in direct perception, when you see a blue,

[55:29]

you have a feeling that goes with that. And one, you might be looking at blue, you know, you might feel in a given sequence of events, you might have several blue experiences and feel good about all of them, or good about half of them, and bad about the other half, or alternate back and forth. So you could have all kinds of different feeling patterns and associations with all those colors. And in fact, you do have feelings in association with whatever you have, whenever you see a... there is a feeling associated with it. As a matter of fact, one of the early ways of classifying sounds is actually classifying them according to the feelings that arise with them. But they don't usually classify the colors. But even though they didn't classify them that way, still, whatever color you experience, you do have a feeling about it. Right? And so that's something, if you're meditating on, if you're doing mindfulness of feelings, and you're driving in a car or something, and you're driving through some landscape, some feelings are coming and going, even though the landscape isn't really justifying it.

[56:44]

You know? Like it's really beautiful and you don't feel positive, and then suddenly you feel positive. Just like, boom. But it isn't that things got more beautiful. That often happens on Bingo's Road, that you go through... You know. Penny went to rescue him. Yeah, right. You can watch your feelings change in relationship to the images that you're... to the colors you're seeing as you move up the road. So there's that. Mental apprehension also, the way, but the way the mental apprehension occurs, that also varies according to the person's, to various kinds of predispositions we have. So, yeah, so some people see this, a certain field, and they apprehend certain things, other people... And then, and then even when we apprehend so-called the same thing, at least, literally the same thing,

[57:50]

by the same word even, we can have different feelings about it. Or you could even have the same feelings, but have the same disposition. Like, a man and a woman could look at a woman and agree that they see a woman, and both could have positive sensation about seeing the woman, but one of them might be very interested in the woman, and the other one might not be interested at all. Even though they both had positives, But one of them has a strong pattern of predispositions regarding women. So when it's a woman and it's positive, they have various other emotions arise. Whereas the other one sees and has a positive sensation too, but they have a different constellation of predispositions and those feelings don't arise. Like one of them is not greedy at all and the other one is greedy, for example. Or one of them is jealous and the other one is not jealous, for example. A lot of men, when they see women, don't get jealous.

[58:55]

When they see a beautiful woman, they don't get jealous of her for being beautiful. They get envious of her beauty. But a lot of women might get envious. But some men do get envious of really attractive women. They wish that they could get their makeup on like that. It depends on the person. It depends on your predispositions. So all this is going on, and each one of these phenomena... Arise independence on condition and mental imputation. And getting into the details of it is part of understanding more clearly and more concretely and more compassionately, actually, that this feeling, this disposition, that this concept, these things, these are arising independently. depending on certain conditions. Without the conditions, you wouldn't be this. And there's mental imputation, and that's why this thing lacks inherent existence. That way you're meditating, you're giving a lot of attention to the details, and you're practicing a certain kind of wisdom, which is wisdom of recognizing the conventionality of the thing.

[60:08]

That's part of wisdom too, but there has to be compassion too. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to pay attention. And then the Prajnaparamita comes in and says, okay, now also all this is how you can, will help you understand that this thing lacks inherent existence. Then you won't be cavalier about this. You'll be less likely to be cavalier about it. Mm-hmm. I'd like to ask a question about space. If we say that space is uncompounded, that seems to incline us towards saying that there are, in fact, five aggregates and something else, space. Or space and time.

[61:09]

Let's see. How does that chart go? Isn't it just like the five aggregates account for all compounded phenomena? Yeah, right. I think the way they did the chart is they have the uncompounded over here, and the compounded over here. On the uncompounded side, they have, in the early ones, they have the different kinds of freedom and space. And then over here they have all the compounded phenomena. Is time compounded? Time is, I think, would be classified as a concept. And can space exist without the universe?

[62:19]

Space exists without the universe. Space doesn't exist. Space is also a dependent horizon, but there's no space without objects. that aren't impeded by it. So space is the fact that objects are not impeded, that they have space to exist. And objects don't interfere with the space. So there wouldn't be space without things that aren't impeded by it, namely physical things. Yet it's still uncompounded. Hm? Yet it's still uncompounded. It's dependent upon... It's uncompounded, but anything that exists is dependent, but not everything that exists is compounded. Not everything that exists has parts. Freedom, for example, doesn't have parts. Emptiness doesn't have parts.

[63:21]

Everything else has parts. I believe. And anything that exists has a function. Space functions, freedom functions, and emptiness functions. Emptiness functions are the object of freedom. Freedom functions as the realization of nirvana, of peace, and also serves as a wonderful what do you call it, skill to encourage people to practice the Buddha way. But it's presented as uncompounded. Yes. I'm not clear now about this. How do they relate to us? Space and the two freedoms.

[64:26]

In terms of the skandhas, may I picture the three up there? Strictly speaking, I might have said tonight that the five skandhas include all phenomena, but it doesn't include all phenomena. However, they do include all phenomena. There's another analysis, which is the twelve iotanas, which means six sense organs and six sense domains. So there's five sense organs, ones that relate to the physical phenomena, and then the mind organ relates to mental phenomena. So mental phenomena would include things that can be known, for example, space, emptiness, and space, selflessness, and freedom can be known. They aren't really in the five aggregates, but they are objects of consciousness. So, the way that the... And also, I think, I guess also in the 18 Dattus, the 18 elements,

[65:34]

The realm called abhidharma, in the abhidharma system, those things which are known by mind include selflessness and nirvana. Selflessness and liberation are included, and space. So the eighteen dhatus, the eighteen centurions, the eye organ, the colors, and eye consciousness. That's three. And then you go mind organ, mind consciousness, and mind objects. Those are the last three. So those six pairs of three make up the 18. And there's 12. So those include everything. So skandhas, strictly speaking, do not include nirvana, space, and selflessness. Yes?

[66:45]

Are the nirvana, space, and emptiness permanent? Are space permanent? Is nirvana permanent? Is nirvana permanent? I don't know what to say about nirvana. Space is permanent. Because it's outside of time, right? It's outside of time, so... Well, it's freedom from time, yes. It's freedom from birth and death, yes. It's birthlessness and deathlessness, so it is outside of time. So in that sense, it's permanent. But all these kinds of permanences, none of them are like permanences. Right, they're outside of duration, right? They're outside of duration. Duration, actually, duration is... although they don't speak of it as time, but there's duration. All phenomena go through four phases, and duration is one of the phases. Duration, deterioration, and cessation are characteristics of all the phenomena that are arising and ceasing.

[67:53]

Those are included in the fourth aggregate, those characteristics and phenomena. They're not actually mental factors. So nirvana is, in a sense, permanent or eternal. It's outside of time. And it's also, what is it? Innocent. The way it's presented, actually, I didn't really present it correctly because in the analysis of phenomena, actually Nirvana's not on the list, what's on the list is different kinds of cessation. There's two kinds of cessation. And the cessations are also permanent in the sense that they're just a cessation. So, they're not impermanent. They're just nothing to write. That's it. No, they're just a cessation. It's like, again, you just snuff out a candle. The snuffed out candle isn't really like... It's not impermanent, but it doesn't last either.

[68:58]

It doesn't last, and yet it's eternal and not impermanent, like space. Did you have your hand raised? Yeah, maybe a little bit of a side point, but when we're dreaming and we think we see color, do we actually see color? No. It's a memory of color, it's somewhat a retroformation. When we say that we see color, we mean the color that we see, which is not actually out there, So I think Buddhism can deal with what we're finding out in my study of vision, is that there aren't colors out there. So, you know, there really aren't blues out there. But early Buddhism, you know, They talked as though they were colors, but anyway, it's really when that physicality, a certain kind of physicality, the kind of physicality that hits the eye, the kind of physicality that's very stimulating to a certain part of the body, that kind of physicality, when that touches and consciousness arises, we have the experience of color.

[70:24]

But in early Buddhism, they just say, you know, they talk as though there were colors, but anyway, it's really when that physicality, a certain kind of physicality, the kind of physicality that hits the eye, the kind of physicality that's very stimulating to a certain part of the body, that kind of physicality, when that touches there and consciousness arises, we have the experience of color. But the color's not out there. Which again, when we look at this, if Zen students look at this Abhidharma stuff and they say, wait a minute, then that color is empty of inherent existence. So why are we learning about this? About all these Dharmas? Because there really is no such thing as a color out there. There's no such thing as a color out there or a mukugyo mallet out there. There's no such thing as those things out there. But there is a color that arises in conjunction with electromagnetic radiation.

[71:38]

And we can analyze the electromagnetic radiation, and the people who are analyzing it, they're going to do all kinds of imputations and have all kinds of experiences, but actually what they're analyzing is not a color, it's electromagnetic radiation. This wave in the sky is not a color. It's only a color when it touches a person, a human. It's still not a color unless something happens to the person, unless it hits their eye rather than their elbow. And it still doesn't work unless they're alive. And then consciousness arises. And the consciousness does not arise without these supports. And the consciousness of color that arises without these supports is not called color in this system, in this teaching. Big color? Dream of color. Like right now, I'm dreaming of a blue sky.

[72:45]

And I can actually see the blue sky. But that's not actually blue. That's a dream of blue that I'm having right now. There's actually some white clouds drifting through the blue sky. Can you see it? That's not actually blue. It's dependent on the physical stimulation. That it would end when you covered your eyes, for example. That blue would go away. Or when the clouds came, that kind of blue would go away. It was that kind of blue. But the blue isn't out there. It's just that that kind of blue depends on that stimulation. And you can't imagine that kind of blue. And you can actually see the difference. Like right now, I can see the difference between the one I'm dreaming of and the one that I get when I look at that sky. However, it's not out there. There's no independently existing color aside from our... But our mental apprehension is not sufficient. Even though the existent thing is just the mental apprehension,

[73:48]

The thing can't exist only on the basis of mental apprehension. You have to have conditions and mental apprehension. But what we see is just our mental apprehension. It's not the actual conditions. And that's why the color is empty, the organ is empty, and the consciousness is empty. But the early level of presentation, they weren't emptying all these little elements. They were just showing you that any experience you had It depends on these things, the self of a person in that field. But now we're starting with not finding the self of any elements in the field. And that would be easy to transfer that back to the person. When you dream of blue, Did anybody have their hand raised before him that I didn't call on? Because he just raised his hand just now, and I cried at him.

[74:51]

Was there any floating hands that were not attended to? Henry? When you dream of blue, could you not say that there is no perception of blue, but there is consciousness of blue? In other words, The way I'm thinking, and I can be wrong about this, is that when you dream of blue and when you perceive blue, it's the same consciousness of blue, but there's... You could say you're having a conceptual cognition. That's what I said, you're dreaming of blue. You're having a conceptual cognition of blue. You think your idea of blue... In your dream, you think your idea of blue is blue. But now we think of our idea of blue sky anyway. We realize it's actually blue. We just realize that's just a concept of blue. On other occasions, we look at the sky, we have a sense perception, which we call perception of blue, and then we mediate that in the same way we're mediating, basically the same way we're mediating the dream of blue now.

[75:58]

But we are based on the actual direct perception of blue. OK. Blue sky, anyway. So there can be the dream of blue. There's a dream of blue. But that's not seeing blue. Just like I can dream of Shannon, but that's different from seeing Shannon. Right. Only in the perceptual mode, though. But in the consciousness mode, it's the same, isn't it? In other words, when I... No, it's not the same. Okay. So, on the level of direct perception of seeing, okay, you actually... Like, for example, I could see one of you and have a direct perception of you, and there's ways you could test me to see that I saw you. Or at least I could see you, you know, somehow. There'd be ways for you to, like, let me see you just for a moment.

[77:01]

And I would be trained to make a certain response when I saw him. And I could see you make the response, but not know that I did it. In other words, not convert that experience into something that I mediate conceptually. You didn't get that. No, I'm sorry. Did I not get that? So let's say you're driving down the road and you see a stop sign and you stop your car, but you did not say red light. But you didn't see it. And you can kind of tell you saw it because you stopped. we can repeat it over and over until you feel like you know you can do a test on somebody and you can train them so that even some they can some kind of very fast physical response can happen in them when they see certain colors and a different response will happen when they see other colors and you can flash those colors and they can have the response and you can see they saw it because and you can do it over and over again until you feel the likelihood of them

[78:24]

giving that response to that color, which was what they were trying to do, and not giving that response when some other color was there, which is what they were trying to do, that, you know, you could be pretty sure that they did see the color. However, it's possible that it happened so fast that the nervous system saw the color and made the response happen without the person ever saying the color, you know, mediating that conceptually and saying red or blue. So you could see a person that way, too. You could see them. And the actual seeing process could have an effect on you, and you could demonstrate that it was there, even though you did not say that you saw them. Okay? Right. Just let me say it a little further. And so, in a dream, however, you're considering the person, or the color, but we're turning colors off and on, and you're not doing any response to the colors.

[79:27]

You're lying there, okay, in your dream state, putting these red lights on and stuff, and you're not making any responses. You're not responding to color. And you might be dreaming of red at the time, or you might not. And also, if you're thinking of a person, and the very person who you did not think of, but you actually did see, you had a direct perception of them and you responded to them, and you didn't think of them, then you can take away the person and think of them without the direct perception. And you can see that that's a dream, which is a different kind of dream than you go back now, look at the person, have the direct perception, and then conceptually mediate and say, I see the person. So then you have the direct perception and the conceptual mediation. And you can feel the difference between that and when there's not the direct perception and just the conceptual mediation. imagining, but then it's not mediation, you're not mediating, you're just imagining.

[80:32]

So some things are just imagined, some things are conceptual imagination, imaginary mediation of something as a direct perception, and some things are just direct perceptions. So a lot of what's going on during the day is direct perception, and you never become conscious of it. A lot and a lot of everything that you become conscious of It's either a direct perception or something you're just dreaming of. In other words, it's not really a perception, and you don't think it's happening. You just think you're dreaming. Okay? That's my current understanding of this stuff. And I just wanted to mention, to share with you that the dropout rate in this class is very high. I soothe myself by saying, well, you told him it was going to be hard. And so lots of people dropped out. They said, in fact, they went to class last week. And now it's like 45, 30, 20.

[81:36]

So we'll see about who's here next week. Only persistence. And Emmanuel? Hello. A friend of mine in college gave me an example of having direct perception without any mediation. Tired, studying a lot, and he drove home 20 miles and all he remembered was getting in his car and then pulling into the driveway and the whole trip he had no memory of the moment it happened. He pulled into the driveway and said, oh my God. So it seems as though he had that 20 miles of direct perception without any... And I think sometimes you might be driving with someone and talking with them and almost not aware of the road at all, which is really not the best way to go, but people do get from one place to the other without paying much attention to the road.

[82:47]

Conceptually, if you're highly engaged conceptually, Like if you were reciting a sutra to somebody in a chair next to you, while you're driving, you would be having direct perceptions. That's how you stay on the road. But you might not be conceptually aware of it at all. The whole trip. It's possible. That can happen. But you would be doing the conceptual thing in moments of direct perception of your voice and so on, reciting the scripture. That would be another place where you'd be having direct perceptions of the sound of the words, not the sound of the words and so on. But there would be a tremendous amount of conceptual mediation going on. But it would all be sucked up into that and none left over. You'd be aware of how you're driving down the road. So that can happen. He just seemed to be so tired. He had nothing but drug perception. Well, we don't know.

[83:50]

We don't know. He might have been dreaming of, you know, something, and he just forgot to dream. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. Me and you are in possession of me. Please don't trade me to be in that place.

[84:13]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_83.49