Today is, as you may have heard, December 8th, and the Zen tradition has somehow chosen this day, the awakening of Shakyamuni Buddha, December 8th. actually, December 7th, in the evening through the night, and in the morning of December 8th, the Great Awakening was fully realized. And I thought about telling you a little bit about this, some stories about this night, the night of awakening.

[01:11]

And then I thought, well, maybe I should wait until next week, because some of the things you're learning will help you understand what happened. Then I thought, well, there's something nice about telling you the story tonight since this is the day. Want to hear the story? Want to hear the story, Donald? We can still, I think, come back to it maybe over and over, actually. Because what we're learning here will, I think, actually help you understand how it was for him. Yeah, because he went through a mental experience that night. He had been practicing for, we say, six years in kind of an aesthetic way.

[02:22]

And then he decided that he had gone too far in the direction of asceticism or too far in the direction of self-mortification and he decided to eat a little bit of food and maybe wear a little bit of clothes. And then I guess around December 11th, the resolution arose in him, various conditions led to him feeling like now was the time for him to sit down and not move, to make a commitment to sit down and not move until he finished the work he started out to do. thought that this was time to have the final session of training.

[03:26]

And there is a story which does not appear in the Buddhist canon until very late. It maybe never appears in the canon, actually. It's a lovely story which you may have heard. And although it's not in the canon and it's a later appearance, it does have the elements which I think ring true to the process of spiritual practice, which I've talked to you about before, and that is, until you make a commitment to certain things, the resistance to those things doesn't need to arise because you're not doing them. So, for example, if you commit to sit still, or if you don't commit to sit still, it doesn't need to manifest because it's successful. You're moving. But if you make a commitment to sit still, the resistance to it comes out.

[04:36]

And he not only decided to sit still, but he decided to meditate in such a way as to overthrow the habit-hardened predispositions of his mind and body. And when those predispositions, because they're part of the establishment of your body and mind, or when they start feeling that they're being dislodged, in a sense, the dislodgement becomes a kind of onslaught. I just thought tonight, like if you fast, particularly if you do a fast in such a way as to promote the release of toxins, you're actually purifying your body, but then you have to deal with all these toxins which have been stored And when you start releasing stored kind of unwholesome stored patterns of mind, as they start getting released, they could be experienced as kind of like a poisonous or as an attack upon your experience.

[06:06]

and that was his experiences that when he decided to sit still he was attacked by what we call Mara. The deadening forces of habit were being released and then they kind of attacked him according to this mythological story and he met these attacks with concentration and loving-kindness and You can imagine if you were fasting and toxins were being released, if you drank pure water, as they were being released, they would just be washed out. But the water doesn't cause the toxins to be released. It's the fasting that causes them to be released. So by sitting still,

[07:09]

and practicing loving-kindness, these forces of mara, these deadening forces of previous aspects of his mind and body were released and attacked him, and he met them with loving-kindness and concentration, and they turned into flowers and were dispersed. So first there was fear. And he met that fear. First there was actually frightening and terrible toxins coming at him. And he met it with concentration and loving kindness and the fear dissipated. The next phase was doubt in the form of questioning. He had sufficient merit to accomplish the great task which he was now committing to And one aspect that I heard that that challenge was, who do you think you are that you could attain this great liberation by your own power and merit?

[08:22]

And Mara brought, there is some merit to the establishment of predisposition. There is some power there. So he called to witness his power, great great witnesses to his power power of the establishment you know we've been keeping this thing going all this time kind of thing who do you think you are and he touched the earth and called the earth to witness because he had no other witnesses other than the whole earth and the earth did witness and again Mara and Mara's witnesses were dispersed and then the final test was a test of delightful images. And so after he managed to survive fear, frightful and doubt-provoking, then the challenge of sensual desire and delight were offered to him.

[09:27]

And there, too, he met it with concentration and loving-kindness and remained unmoving. And then he entered into states of concentration as the night proceeded. And in this particular night he entered into the first, second, third and fourth levels of concentration. The fourth level is particularly characterized by equanimity with regard to pain and pleasure. actually moving through states of concentration that have really intense experience of bliss and then having no particular preference for that state of equanimity. And in these states of concentration, not just the Buddha but shamans throughout history and yogis

[10:34]

during his time, in these states of concentration, they sometimes attain five supernormal knowledges. Not supernatural, but supernormal. They have knowledges which do not come to people unless they're extremely concentrated. And these types of superknowledge or supernormal knowledge are knowledge of magical powers, clear audience, divine ear, knowledge of other people's minds, knowledge of previous lives, and Did I say knowledge of others' minds already?

[11:42]

And divine eye or clairvoyance. So these five were attained by him. And the story, this is a story which tells a story which apparently he told And it's a little bit, you know, if we hear this, and a modern person hears this, you may think this sounds a little nifty, because he says that there were three watches during the night, and watches, I think, are two hours long. I don't know if it's 9 to 11 and 11 to 1 and 1 to 3. That might be what it is. But it could also be 9 to 1, 1 to 3, and 3 to 5. Does anybody know? They were three watches. The watches are two hours long. They start at 9 or 11 megawatt per second. During the first watch, he attained his first cognition.

[12:45]

And his first cognition was the fourth superknowledge, which is knowledge of his past lives. And he saw direct perception. like we talked about in direct perception, he saw his past lives in order. He saw a continuity of persons and the order of them. In the second watch, he had the second cognition. And that cognition was the cognition called clairvoyance, where he actually could see everyone everywhere. And he could see the past lives of other people, and he could see their careers, their rise and falls, and particularly he could see their rise and falls in relationship to their karma.

[13:58]

So what he saw was the laws of karma as it applies to innumerable living beings. He saw how good deeds lead to happiness and good deeds lead to unhappiness. He saw he had a vision, a clear, unobstructed vision of the cosmic order of karmic causation. This view, however, is a view that is not considered to be yet super mundane. This is a view which has been attested to by shamans and yogis prior to the Buddha. This information had been seen by other people.

[15:05]

However, his information did add a little bit because he saw the pattern of people's careers in relationship to moral discipline. So there was some ethical transformation of the picture of the cosmic order in his case. But it was in the third watch. where he acquired a sixth super-knowledge or super-normal knowledge that had not been attained before by yogis and shamans, and that was the knowledge of the extinction of outflows. And one list of outflows is the outflow due to the need for sensual pleasure, greed for or desire for, not just greed, desire for sensual pleasure, sensual desire, desire, it wouldn't even be sensual pleasure, the sensual desire for becoming and desire and ignorance, those three

[16:25]

outflows, he realized the knowledge of their extinction. And the way I often talk to you about outflows is outflow is to see, is to have the view and concern of loss, which those three are actually about gaining loss. desire for some kind of sensation, to gain some kind of sensation, or to desire to lose some kind of sensation, desire to be, and ignorance, which is ignoring the fact that gain and loss ultimately cannot be found. He realized this, and when he realized this, he realized that what he saw in the previous two watches, his own personal order of his own history across many lives and the history of all beings in relationship to each other and their karma, that all this orderliness of the universe, it did have an order, but the order has no essence.

[17:39]

He realized that there was an orderliness to his succession of lives, But the person in the succession of life was a projection upon a set of causes and conditions. And when he saw that, he was transformed. And in that transformation, he was able to see the way things are. And he awoke. And all these visions were direct perceptions. They were not conceptual cognitions. And that's what I'd like to perhaps later have us imagine, use our minds to imagine is what that would have been like to have direct perception of these things.

[18:47]

And then later he would be able to talk about it. We can talk about how that could happen. So that's a short version of the story. But again I'd like to say that the story is a story about him seeing a world of cosmic order and then seeing that that world of cosmic order has no essence. To see the chain of causation and to see that that process has no essence cannot be grasped. But first he saw the process. Did somebody have their hand raised? Yes? Yeah. The projection upon various conditions which he saw. In each case, the person he saw was the person that was there depending on certain conditions, where he lived, what his name was, what he ate, who his parents were.

[20:03]

And he saw that the person which was continuous through these many lives was a projection that there really wasn't What do you mean by perception? A conceptual overlay upon direct perceptions. He actually had a direct perception, but he still saw a person. But later he had direct perception that there was no essence to this person. The person of a separate entity was a projection upon the actual data. But are you distinguishing that the person had no essence, but the condition, like who their parents were and what they ate and their history, and those had an essence?

[21:15]

No. No, no. But the whole thing was there, but... The whole thing's... Every element in the whole process is ungraspable. all the elements are originally or naturally in a state of nirvana. That language he didn't use in the early scriptures, that language is used later in the tradition. But some people would say he realized it every When he entered Nirvana himself, or when he entered Nirvana, he realized that all things are naturally in a state of Nirvana. In other words, things don't actually arise or cease.

[22:16]

But first he saw the arising and ceasing. of people. He saw the arising and ceasing of happiness and unhappiness. He saw the rising and ceasing of certain actions. He saw the rising and ceasing of relationships between them. And these are fairly stable and orderly relationships that he saw. He saw the twelvefold chain of causation. And then he saw all that in the first and second watchers, in the third watch, he saw that there was no essence to all these, to the order of the universe. Doesn't mean there's no order to the universe, it just means you can't get to the universe. But there does, an order of the universe did appear to the Buddha who then verified that there's no essence to it. It wasn't that he said there was no order and then saw that there was no essence to the no order. No order appears.

[23:22]

There's also no essence. No order. But that's not what he saw. Yes? When you say ungraspable, it's not that it's so complex that it can't be grasped with the mind. It's that it's not there at all. Yeah. Each individual thing can't be grasped. Each element can't be grasped. Each phenomena can't be grasped. And the phenomena of arising and ceasing can't be grasped. Those things cannot be grasped themselves at all. They can never be found. We don't have the ability to grasp them because we do have the ability to be certain that they can't be grasped. We have that ability. But we do not have the ability to grasp conceptually to have any idea which can grasp the way everything works together.

[24:24]

But we can, our mind does have the ability to both conceptually and in direct perception understand that you can't find certain things. You can't find anything. Go ahead. Can we be a mind that can grasp? Pardon? The mind that could... No. Well, there is a mind which thinks it can grasp. That's the ordinary mind of an unhappy person. But there's not a mind that can grasp because things actually, ultimately, are ungraspable. That's their actual nature, is that nothing can be found. And great minds find find that out. They verify it. I shouldn't say great minds exactly but trained minds or minds that go through training.

[25:30]

It takes a little bit of work to sometimes be absolutely sure that something can't be found. But you sometimes can be sure that something cannot be found. You can be absolutely sure of it. But you have to maybe get kind of organized to be sure. For example, lots of mathematical proofs, that's exactly what they're about. They're proving that certain things cannot be found. The famous recent proof that occurred of somebody proving Fermat's final equation, his final equation being the last equation that he offered that nobody could prove, and he said there was a proof. Many great mathematicians tried to solve it, and it was recently proved. But what was proved is that his theorem was proved, but his theorem was that certain things could not be found.

[26:56]

That the equation that he wrote, he said, when n gets larger than 2. And so it was very difficult for mathematicians to prove that this could not be found, but they finally proved that it could not be found, and they were absolutely certain of it. But it took a lot of work. And actually, you yourself could give some examples in this little equation and in the end of the equation, you yourself could put it at three or four, and you could yourself not find any. solutions that would work, but that doesn't mean somebody couldn't find them. You have to get kind of organized in a certain way to prove that you'd never be able to find a solution. Questions about this?

[28:01]

Yes? There are three outflows. Yeah, desire, sensual desire, and sensual desire could be any kind of, anything that you're trying to gain, basically, or lose around sensuality. Desire for becoming, desire to be, desire for existence. And the other is ignorance, which is basically ignoring that you can't really get anything. No, it's not a desire. It is ignorance. I guess it's possible that if you could eliminate that one and still have a desire to be. But anyway, he actually directly perceived the extinction of these things.

[29:05]

He actually could see they're gone. these desires, these outflows. And then that connected to his being able to see. Well, for example, the desire for existence would be for things to have an essence. And ignorance is ignoring that they don't have an essence. Yes? nature allows for this projection to be perceived and also for this organization? Is it Buddha nature that allows us to the projection as a produc- The projection is empty, but how is it that it comes about?

[30:09]

In a way, I guess I would say Buddha nature allows everything. Buddha nature allows us to be deluded. Because Buddha nature, I see Buddha nature as that Buddha nature is basically the way everything is supporting everything in a mutual way. Is that what he basically saw? Well, some people would say he basically saw that. First of all, he saw his orderliness, which is not really Buddha nature. It's just a picture of how the world works. It's a picture of how the world works in an orderly way. That's not Buddha nature. It's just a story about the universe. Then he saw there was no essence. That's not Buddha nature. That just relieves you from the projection of essence upon a process which doesn't have one.

[31:12]

But once you're relieved of that, then I think you woke up to Buddha nature. Once you're not blind to what's happening, when you take away the projection of essence, you see without that projection, your eyes are open to how things actually are and how they actually are as Buddha nature. how everything's supporting everything. You can see it. And that's what he saw. And that's peace. So he saw that everything's naturally in a state of nirvana, but he also saw that everything's working together. So first you have to see There's no essence. And then you can see how everything's cooperating.

[32:15]

Again, an essence upon how everything's cooperating. Which includes that the way things are cooperating is that we are being allowed to be deluded. People are supporting us to be deluded right now. If we're deluded, it's because people are allowing us and supporting us to be deluded. And our delusion is supporting them. Like, you know, certain deluded people are supporting their psychotherapists, and their psychotherapists are supporting them to be deluded. they're also trying to help them to not be so deluded. But until they're not deluded, they're being supported to be deluded by their psychotherapist, and they're paying their psychotherapist to support them to be deluded.

[33:24]

And then when they're not deluded, the psychotherapist supports them to not be deluded. And then they might start supporting their psychotherapy in a non-monetary way. But they will always support their psychotherapist, and we will too. You look like you didn't understand that. There were like six jokes there that you didn't laugh at. But those were true jokes. Yes? Pardon? Pardon? These weren't psychotherapist jokes, they were Buddhist jokes about psychotherapists and their clients. These were jokes about how the psychotherapists and the clients are helping each other. Whatever state of development they're in, they're supporting each other.

[34:31]

And they're supporting each other to become enlightened. But until they're enlightened, they're supporting each other in their delusion, not so much to be deluded, but to be deluded, but also they're supporting each other to suffer, you know, and move towards awakening. We're supporting, we are supported, all of us, to not be happy until we completely wake up so we won't loaf. Yes, Dorit, my patron. Dorit supports me to exercise in Berkeley. And the rest of you do, too. Thank you. Yes? Since we don't have an essence, I'm curious about... We don't have what, an essence?

[35:37]

Yeah, right. Yes. I'm curious about what the Buddhist definition of love is. What is their understanding of love? I guess I would define it as imperceptible mutual assistance. I would define it as the way we are supporting everyone and everybody supporting us. In other words, love is not just from me to you, it's also from you to me. It's not just, you know, it's mutual. That's love. One person towards another person, it's the fact that they're doing it together. That's what I would say love is. You actually could and you actually are caring for and loving people.

[36:40]

You are doing that right now. Some people probably, I don't know if anybody hates you, that knows they hate you, but a lot of people hate me. And I feel supported by those people who hate me. I could leave town, but I've chosen not to. I don't want to go someplace where I would have to, I wouldn't want to leave town and go someplace where I've sort of thought, well, nobody around here hates me. They don't even know me yet. but actually, no matter where I go, soon they find out very quickly and start hating me. But if I thought there was some place where I could go where nobody hated me, I'm moving into a cult. You know, a Reb cult. Like, everybody in this town loves me. And when I first arrive in some towns, everybody does love me, or almost everyone does, but not for long. So why move? To stay here. We already have a lot of people who don't. who hate you, but really they love you.

[37:43]

They just think they hate you and they just act like it. But they love you, they're supporting you, they're supporting you to realize that it's not just the people who look like they love you that love you, it's not just the way they love you that love you, And it's not just the people who say they hate you that love you. Everybody loves you. In other words, everybody's supporting you. And not only that, but all the people. It's not just the people that are nice to you that you're supporting. You're supporting all your enemies. So love your neighbor like yourself. Love your enemy as yourself. And also realize your enemy is loving you as themselves. You are them. They are nothing in themselves. They have no essence. That's the point. You have no essence. That's why you need everybody to love you in order to be. You're only here by the kindness of others. It's not just that you're only doing well by the kindness of others. You only exist by the kindness of others. And they only exist by your kindness and our kindness.

[38:46]

That's what I call love. And it's love and it's compassion when it's directed towards suffering of people. But we don't just love people in a compassion way. We also love people in just a straight-out love way of supporting them. So we both support people to suffer, and we also feel bad that they're suffering. And feeling bad that they're suffering and wanting them to be free is the compassion dimension of our love. But we also help people in other ways, support them in other ways. You know, every way that we do, everything that we do supports them. So what I call love, I would say, is basically the same as Buddha nature. And meditating on that, I say, is a true path of enlightenment. So thinking about it is part of meditating on it, but if you realize essencelessness, your eyes open to it and you actually can see it.

[39:55]

but not as an object out there, because it's not out there, because it's . Yes? . I didn't say that, but that's . I might have, but I have so much time saying it, I don't think I'd pull it off tonight. Essence lessness. Is it another way? It's not exactly an... Well, maybe it's a way to explain it. It's also just a synonym. It's a synonym for emptiness. Essence-less-ness is a synonym for emptiness. Self or self-less-ness. Those are synonyms. No. It just means that there's nothing to your idea of what's there. in what's there.

[40:58]

You do? I think you're right. However, seeing change, although it's extremely helpful, isn't all you have to see. You also have to see emptiness. It's very helpful and very true. But then there's this other dimension which is that how we're working together is part and parcel of how we don't have an essence. Because of... That's part... That's the same... That's a main... One of the main reasons for how I don't have an essence. Because I'm not supporting myself. I don't make myself happen. You make me happen. That's why I don't have an essence. Plus, any idea anybody has about what they've made of me But now I'd like to go back to our class, if we may.

[42:09]

May we? I'd like to do a kind of a difficult exercise, but you may get it much faster because of the hard work that I've done. I've had a hard time understanding what I'm about to mention to you tonight. But you may get it tonight. We'll see. So there's basically all different types of cognitions are exhausted by two types. And what are those two types? Sorry? Direct and indirect. Yeah, direct and indirect. Those are the two types. Direct perception and conceptual cognition. Perceptual cognition and conceptual cognition, those are the two types. Perceptual is indirect because it knows its objects indirectly through images.

[43:15]

Okay? Those are the two types, we've talked about them. And tonight I just want... Okay, so now conceptual cognitions are always what? Mistaken. Mistaken. They're always mistaken. And what's the reason why they're always mistaken? That they generalize. They generalize. That's right, but that's not exactly... That didn't tell me enough. They depend on the image. That's kind of the same as generalized. The image kind of... You take an image and put it on several different things. So you use the image to... Like, I have the image of a person... by which all you. Everybody in the class, I can just generalize you as a person. I have this image of a person. You're all satisfying it. So that image works to generalize you. But that's not exactly wrong. Yes? Well, they may have had projections.

[44:18]

We're projecting images on things. What's wrong? What's the problem there? What we think is there is not there, and what is there we don't see. Yeah, it's kind of like that. So the image is what we see, and the image isn't actually in the object. So my image of you, by which I indirectly cognize you conceptually, that image is not actually in your... Plus, I mix the... If I just saw the image, that's okay. But I mix the image with you, and I think that you are the image, and I get confused. So in that sense, the way you appear to me is false, because you appear to me as the image. So in that way all conceptions are mistaken.

[45:22]

But conceptions can also be, even though they're all mistaken, they can be still what we call true and false conceptions. So all conceptions are mistaken, but you can have two types of conception. true and false all mistaken but some are true and some are false so if I look at you and I think you're impermanent I mistaken you but I'm but it's a true conception because the conception is that you're impermanent and that's right the impermanent person actually is there But my image of you as an impertinent, permanent person is mistaken and false. So I could also see you as a permanent person. Then I would be misconceiving you, I would be mistaking you as my image of you, but also

[46:39]

something that's not there, namely a permanent person. So that would be a conception which is mistaken and false. So some conceptions are all mistaken, and some can be mistaken and true, and some can be mistaken and false. So conceptions can be false, true, and false, false. And the main problem in our life is the false, false ones, where not only do we mix the image of the thing, the image of things with the things, and so they appear to us wrong, but what actually, the thing we're actually looking at isn't even there. It doesn't even exist. And the main one is that we, the main ones are we think things that are impermanent are permanent, And we don't have a self, have a self.

[47:42]

So we imagine something is there which isn't there, a permanent thing, or we imagine something that's there, is there, that isn't there, namely a self. Also, we sometimes imagine that things that are there aren't there. Imagine, for example, that We imagine, for example, that karma has no consequences. So we imagine something that's not there, something that is there, isn't there. That's also a mistaken conception, which is wrong. So mistaken, wrong, wrong, wrong. Those are the things that are real, the main problem in our life. Now perceptions, perceptions They don't mix images with what's appearing to them. What appears to them is what's actually there, is the object that's actually there.

[48:46]

They don't mix the image with it. So perceptions can be true-true. be false-false. Because sometimes what appears to the perception is something that doesn't exist. But when what appears to them doesn't exist, what they're actually aware of, the actual object, also doesn't exist. So, for example, if you see like the easy example, if your eye had jaundice and you were looking at snow, you would see it as yellow. But it actually would be appearing as yellow, you know, on your retina. That actually wouldn't be the object that's appearing to you. And it wouldn't be mixed with the idea of yellow.

[49:50]

It would actually be yellow. And the object that you're dealing with is actually, you're actually dealing with the yellow object. So what's appearing to you is wrong, and the object which you're actually grasping is also wrong. It's non-existent. So the appearance is false, and the object is non-existent. So perceptions, when one's wrong, the other one's wrong. So if the appearance is wrong, the grasping is wrong. But if the appearance is right, the grasping is right. So perceptions are never wrong. wrong-right or right-wrong. They're always wrong-wrong or right-right. You can't have an appearance be wrong and the thing out there be right. And you can't have the appearance be right and the thing out there wrong. Or the thing not necessarily out there, but the thing you're actually grasping.

[50:52]

But as in conceptions, you're actually grasping like the person. I'm grasping Fred. I'm grasping Marilyn. There is a Marilyn, there is a Fred. If I look carefully, I won't be able to find them, but we're not getting to that right now. I'm just saying, the Fred I'm grasping, that's right, there is a Fred that exists here. That's what I'm grasping. So that's not wrong, it's not a misconception. But the way he appears to me is not the way he actually is. So that's a mistaken conception. But the way he is as indirect perception, is, you know, that he's got a plaid shirt on and he's balding a little bit in direct perception. So that's right-right. The way he appears to me is also the way my, my, my, I actually grasp, my, my, my sense is grasping that way and that's the way he appears.

[51:55]

So that's a true-true. Mostly, Our sense perceptions are true-true. But they're sometimes false-false, but they're never false-true or true-false. But conceptions can be false-true. Conceptions can be false-true or mistaken and true. If you perceive a person as impermanent, that's false true. Because the way the impermanence looks is not the way the impermanence is. The way the impermanence actually is is not mixed with your image of it. The way you people are impermanent is not actually my image. Where you're impermanent is how you're impermanent, which you're living all the time. And I have some image of that, but my image of your impermanence is not your impermanence, because if I go off to do something else, and I'm doing imaging of something else, like if I go off and meditate on somebody's permanence, then my impermanence is not operating on you anymore, but you're still impermanent.

[53:04]

And if I turn on you and look at you and suddenly I see impermanence, I'm right. I'm actually grasping something that's there. And then I'm coming up with the idea of impermanence. My idea of your impermanence is a falseness. It confuses my actual grasping of your impermanence. So it makes my sense of you mistaken. But I'm actually not wrong. You are impermanent. But do it the other way around. Then I would be mistaken because my image of your permanence would also not be your actual permanence, of course. But in that case, there is nothing out there that I'm grasping. You can't grasp a permanent thing. So saying that to you now seems pretty simple, but that's hard for me to get. Yeah? You could have a direct perception while I'm not sure. Yeah?

[54:07]

You would actually have that idea. No, you wouldn't. Direct perception, no idea. But, for example, if you brought the shirt in the room, look at it, and I could have a direct perception of it, and then you could bring another shirt, different shirt, and I could have a direct perception of that, and I could tell one shirt from another. Or I, you know, I can have a direct perception of Fred, And you bring somebody else in here that looks a little bit different, and I... Not that I say it's not read, but I know it's not read, even before I get into the conceptual version of it. That requires training to do that, but you can do it in direct perception. And the Buddha saw his past life with no conceptual mediation, in the instant. He saw instants instantaneous moments of direct perception of his past lives.

[55:12]

And that's part of what I said before, is that we... except in states of deep concentration like he was in, we do not actually experience those individual moments of direct perception. The object is appearing to us. That's the example of the one type of consciousness. The object is appearing to us, but we can't ascertain it. So you wouldn't be able to say, applied shirt, if you only had one moment, one flash, applied shirt. Could you say again how you have a false, false, direct perception? Pardon? Could you say again how you have a false, false, direct perception? A false, false conceptual cognition? I thought I heard you say... Indirect perception? False, false? Yeah. Blue mouth. Yeah, blue mouth. But if you don't have an idea in direct perception, how would you know?

[56:19]

Well, you don't say blue. You just see a color of blue where there isn't a blue. Yeah, something. Yeah, and later I can go into the different situations of false direct perceptions. But direct perception is not... If it is deceived, it's deceived in both ways, both in terms of what's appearing and what's being grasped. Well, when you mention a direct perception of past lives, you're differentiating that from a direct perception of a concept. You get a direct perception of an idea, right?

[57:19]

But we're not talking about that. No, that's right. And that's what I was thinking. I'm warming up to start looking at what that would be like to have a direct perception. Because again, you can have a direct perception of, like I say, of your spouse or your children. You see your child and the way that they appear to you is the same way you're grasping them. Same thing. The appearance and grasp of perception. But in direct perception, you can actually learn to tell the difference between your child and another child. And a child can learn the difference between its brothers and its sisters and other brothers and sisters. It can learn that in direct perception without conceptual training. Yeah?

[58:41]

That past life presence only, at that level, there's no time. You don't necessarily have to be instantaneous. You could be available . When I say instantaneous, I mean just one moment, an experience which happens in just one moment. So in a simple case of just looking at a color or listening to a sound, what I said to you before is that we do actually experience just a flash of a color. But we, you know, if you actually could experience one flash of a color and then you were asked, you know, did such and such a color happen? Now you're conceptually, you're being conceptually questioned about this, whether it happened. You would not be able to say, yes, there was that color. One of those types where you say the object appears but is not ascertained.

[59:44]

or inattentive perception. It's a direct perception, but you can't attend to it. It's too fast. It's only one moment. That's what you mean by instantaneous. The Buddha could see in an instant. In all those instants, he could see each one. Pardon? . I'm not getting what you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah, that's a hard thing because he's not back in the past life.

[60:47]

He's in this life having a direct experience of a past life, not back in the past life. So how could you have a direct experience? So he's got the power now to actually be in this life and have a power in this life, for example, in the night, and he's seeing in direct perception, not conceptual cognition, he's seeing in direct perception past lives. So how can that be? That's the kind of question. You can start imagining that, but you're imagining a cognition that's not using imagination.

[61:48]

There's no imagination being used in the cognition, but you can imagine that. Actually, we are doing that. We're imagining these direct perceptions. Yes? It seems like our perceptual pool, like our eyes, are making valid cognitions. What? Valid cognitions, for example, our eyes are colored white, as an example of snow. White. White is sort of a reference, in other words, our eyes see white, but isn't that a function of how our body works? Yes. But the eyes don't see the color, though.

[62:51]

Experience white. Right, but the eyes don't have experiences. Experiences of color happen through the support of the eye organ, which gets stimulated by a certain type of electromagnetic radiation. So when those get stimulated and there's a previous moment of cognition, then there's a rising of a cognition of the color. But the eyes don't see white. And the cognition doesn't see white, but there's a cognition of white, which arises depending on a kind of radiation, the organ, which is sensitive to it, and a previous moment of cognition. So with the support of this previous cognition and these two physical things, there arises a cognition of a color, a knowing of a color.

[64:00]

The color, however, is gone now. I'm just thinking about, like, light, [...] light I think that would be why, or the perception would be why, but I just want to get a sort of... Without any concepts. Without any concepts, yeah. Just so, what I'm trying to get at is... correctness that our perception is that we're working in a certain way.

[65:02]

I don't know. It can't be dependable on the nature of the object outside of your act. Yeah, and it's like it's white because it's where the eye works. You know, that's real true. Well, I think we know that the object's not actually white. I think we know that. There's no colors outside human minds. We don't say there's colors out there in the world. We're not saying that. Color is a definite, is a good example, because colors are just in our mind. They're not, there's something that, there's something that our mind knows, our mind knows color, right? It's just, it's just worth saying that in direct perception, the appearance of the color. And the thing that's being grasped, the appearance is white, and what's being grasped is white.

[66:04]

Without any concepts. I guess that's what I'm sort of getting at. It's white. It means that all the surgeries were done right in grasping, so why would we... Hmm? all the circuitries operating right before we had concepts? I get it, correct. Put it this way. All the circuitries operating right before we have a conceptual cognition of something that actually exists. So, some conceptual cognitions are about things that don't exist. So, for example, if you had a perceptual cognition of a color that wasn't there, then that would be a wrong, that would be an incorrect perception. It would both be wrong in terms of how it appears to the consciousness and how it's grasped.

[67:07]

For example, yellow snow. Okay? It would be a wrong, wrong perception. And that kind of perception would then lead to a conception which was wrong, wrong too. The first wrong would be different than the second wrong. The second wrong would be because that the perception was feeding the conception something that didn't exist. But the first wrong in conception would be that the conception was mixing an image with what was given to it. The whole idea of correctness is . Yeah, well, I guess you'd be saying, you'd be seeing that we're a different length than the wavelengths that are usually considered to be white.

[68:25]

But white isn't actually, isn't it a special thing where it's like the reflection of all the wavelengths? Yeah, yeah. So, but that's not what x-rays are. So if your eye saw x-rays and came up with white, then we would say that your perception was wrong-wrong. Because you would be saying, I'm perceiving this kind of phenomena, which isn't there. The x-rays are there, but the x-rays aren't visible radiation. Yeah, so like, for example, one of the things is that other people look at the snow and don't see it's yellow, or other people look at the x-ray and don't see white.

[69:30]

So the fact that a second observer wouldn't verify it shows you're wrong. It's the second one, just one more, not a majority. But you can get, if you got one more, you can get a second one, another one too. Usually once you get a second one, the third one also agrees. In this stuff. It can also be a second time of you looking too. But it's a defect. So it's, but you know, again, this problem is not a big problem. You know, the wrong, wrong of perceptual cognition is wrong, wrong. It's not a real big problem. Because usually, if a person sees the snow as yellow, you know, generally speaking, or blue, generally speaking, usually it's pretty easy to help them out. If a person sees x-rays as white, it's not a real big problem.

[70:38]

special glasses or something, you know, or just pat them on the back and say, come on, Jeff, let's go sit down and whatever. And, but usually it's true-true for perceptions. Direct perceptions are usually true-true. The vast majority are true-true and the vast majority we don't actually ascertain. However, When you have enough of them related to a particular object, they can be the basis for a conceptual cognition. And that's what we usually know. It's always mistaken and sometimes wrong. And sometimes it's wrong because of the rare case of the perceptual thing being wrong or not true. And sometimes they're wrong because the person has a misconception. a conception which is mistaken because they mix the image with what's happening, but they actually conceive of something that's not there.

[71:48]

And then they're wrong-wrong. And then we have done those are the real problems. And those are not so easy to and give them another pair of glasses. Those require quite a bit of training to refute and get over. So the next thing I'd like to bring up next week is what's called valid cognitions. So the next step is that some perceptions are true-true and some cognitions are mistaken-true. And among those types, there's a subset of them that are what we call valid conceptions and valid perceptions. And those are the perceptions that Shakyamuni Buddha was having of his past lives.

[72:54]

And those are the perceptions and conceptions for reliable knowledge. And so next week I'd like to talk about that. Okay? But I think you got that part about the thing. I had a real hard time getting that, but you seem to have gotten it. Huh? Yeah, once I knew it, it was easy for you to get it. It's interesting. But before I got it, it would have been terrible for you to listen to that. Well, once you got it, it was easy to get it. Yeah, thanks for supporting me. Actually, even before you got it, you were helping me. Thank you. Don't overlap with each other.

[73:58]

Side are characteristics of consciousness which apply to these seven types. And we don't usually have a chart like this in yoga room classes, but I thought tonight we could use it while we're discussing so you can learn how to use it. This is a template which you can use for contemplation. It's kind of like making a certain kind of a space in which you can study the mind. And down at the bottom are the seven pipes with their Sanskrit and some variations on translation. Does that make sense? The seven are listed at the bottom, which are across the top with on them.

[75:01]

And on the back of this is kind of a summary of particularly last week and a number of discussions, but kind of a summary on the back of this piece of paper. I have another summary which I made, which isn't the same as you have on there. I'll just say this to you and then maybe we'll refer to the chart as you listen to this. I have another summary which I made which isn't the same as you have on there, but I'll just say this to you. And then maybe we'll refer to the chart as you listen to this.

[76:02]

So for direct perception, the appearing object and the object of engagement are the same. Does that sound familiar? So like if you have the perception of a color, you have this actual electromagnetic radiation that's interacting with the sense organ and also interacting with the previous moment of consciousness. And these three main conditions come together, rise to the sensory perception of a color. The thing that's being engaged with is this electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength that's actually engaged with which gives rise to this this perception the object of appearance is the way that object appears to the consciousness and in perception the way that the electromagnetic radiation appears

[77:18]

engaged with are the same. So the mind is actually engaged with the radiation and the radiation appears to the mind. So the object of engagement and the object of appearance are the same in direct perception. Any questions about that? The way the mind grasps the physical data in reliance on the data itself, the organ, consciousness, the way the mind grasps that is the same way that that data appears to the mind in direct perception. In conceptual cognition, the appearing object and the object of engagement are not the same. So, for example, if there's a color or even let's just say there's a color, the mind is engaging with the color and there's a sense perception of it where the appearance of the color and the engagement with the color are the same.

[78:50]

But along with that sense perception, there can be a conceptual cognition also of that color, so the conceptual cognition is engaging with the color, but the way the color appears is mixed. The appearance is the mixture of an image with the actual object. So the way that the appearing object is not the same as the object of engagement. They're not the same. So that's one of the main differences between conceptual cognition. But another way to say that is that the conceptual cognition uses an image in the process of grasping the object. That is, that the grasping of the object and the way it appears are not the same. Any questions about that? For direct perception, if the object of engagement or the engaging object is true, then the appearing object is also true.

[80:15]

If the appearing object is true, then the object of engagement is also true. True basically means that it's in accord with reality. It exists. The object exists is basically it. That's what it means by true. It's that the object actually exists, like the color actually exists. There actually is a blue color, a loud sound. There actually is water, or there actually is a tree. There actually is a person. And the way the mind and the object engage each other is actually an existing phenomenon.

[81:25]

And the way it appears is the same. It appears in direct perception. engaging object is false, so will the appearing object be. So if the object that appears, for example, if it looks like water is out there, but there actually isn't any water, but that's what is an image, is not an image, but is with light and colors that look like water, but actually it's not water. It's, for example, could be a mirage, a thermal radiation, misconstrued as water. Then the mind actually is engaged with this thing which doesn't exist.

[82:26]

And the way it appears is the same. It doesn't exist. So again, Like I said last week, when perception is off in terms of the engaging object, it's off in terms of the appearing object and vice versa. And if it's correct in terms of the engaging object, it's also correct in terms of the appearing object. That's not always true for conception. Yes? Back in the first class, you said something like everything is fine here. Yeah. There is no phenomena independent of mind, but there are some, in some schools of Buddhism, there are phenomena which are not. but they depend on mind. So the phenomenon of color, the experience of color is a good example.

[83:29]

There are not colors out there. There's electromagnetic radiation sort of out there, but for it to be a phenomenon, it needs to be grasped. So again, I don't want to get into this too much, but this plays into quantum theory, is that phenomena are probability distributions until they're observed, and then they become phenomena. Phenomena are things that the senses deal with. There are no phenomena aside from the senses. But that's not to say there's nothing, it's just that things aren't existing in a phenomenal mode until they're engaged by senses, because phenomenon means something that's detected by senses. But when it is detected by senses or when the sense is stimulated, that's not quite enough for a being to have experience.

[84:31]

But that one more factor is that there's cognition somewhere nearby, like the previous moment. That previous moment of cognition together with the stimulated sense organ and this thing which is now a phenomena. It's a physical thing, and when it interacts with the sense organ, it becomes a phenomena. Before it interacts with the sense organ, it's not a phenomena. And it has lots of possibilities of what it can be. But once it connects with a particular physical body, living being, it starts to become, in some sense, turns into a phenomenon. And that's part of what is actually faulty in the whole basic process. Or not so much faulty, but there's a basic distortion of the perception because The way electromagnetic radiation is, aside from interacting with the sense organ, is not phenomenal. But when it interacts with the sense organ, it gets changed in a way into a phenomenon.

[85:36]

So in that sense, perception does in some sense in terms of the way it would be when it's not a phenomenon. I'm going to try to stop there now. Conceptual cognition... Did you want to ask something before I go on to this, Bira? Nope. When you talk about direct perception, you use the example of color. I don't know if you use... Color, sound, smell, taste, touch, those are direct sensory perception. And I told you about four kinds of direct perception. There's sensory perception, direct mental perception, and direct aperceptive cognition, and direct yogic cognition. There's four types of direct perception. In other words, and these four percent, and these, and direct sensory perception, perception can both be true or false.

[86:46]

They're direct. They're not mediated by conception, but they can be true or false. And I, I In just a minute, I think, I'll tell you some more examples about how direct sensory perception and direct mental perception can be false. But there's also aperceptive perception, and aperceptive perception, I think, if you look on this chart, It's the apperceptive cognition. Apperceptive cognition is not one of the seven types of cognition. Do you see that? It's on the vertical column. Do you see that? Apperceptive cognition. So if you go across now, you'll find it's listed under valid perception. Can you see that?

[87:50]

Yes. However, if you go one more thing, you see it's not listed under valid inference, which is valid cognition, conception. Can you see that? Yes. So apperceptive cognition is a type of direct perception. And not only that, but it's listed, it can be a valid perception. And that's another thing I want to tell you about tonight, about what a valid direct perception is. But you can see there, it's a valid, it's a perception. It's a direct perception. So I told you about that before, right? Apperceptive perception. It's kind of the way the mind knows itself without using an image to know itself. It knows itself directly without interposing an image between itself and itself. It's self-awareness not mediated by concepts. So it's direct perception. And it can be, we see, valid and valid Again, I'll tell you more about that in a little while.

[88:53]

Then to go over a little bit, you see it can also be subsequent cognition, which is... And if you go over further, you can also see that it can be imperceptible perception. And I can tell you that by going across here, you can see, I think, maybe that aperceptive cognition in all three cases is a direct perception. Hmm? Inattentive perception. Inattentive, yeah, direct, I told you before also, direct perception is mostly for us, unless we're in very deep states of concentration. Direct perception is mostly inattentive perception. Or, definition is, if you look down there, under number five, inattentive perception or awareness is to which the object appears but is not ascertained.

[89:56]

So this is like the back of our sensory cognitions and actually the vast majority of our cognitions are sensory cognitions. We have gazillions of them in a minute. However, almost none of them in their actual instantaneous arising and sinking Now, almost none of them are we actually aware of, unless we're in a very deep state of concentration. And if you just have one flash of an electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength that could be a color, if you had one flash of it and that was it, and you didn't get another one, unless you were very concentrated, you would not know, you would not be able to ascertain that you had the experience. at all. Now, if you had several moments of that same or similar type of magnetic radiation interacting with your sense organs and perceptions arose in each of those cases, you had a series of similar or same sense perceptions of that color, that series would be strong enough to then stimulate a mental consciousness of that

[91:19]

that whole pattern would stimulate a conceptual cognition. And that's where we usually know that we're seeing a color. But at that time, we're not directly perceiving the color. We're interposing the idea or the image of blue between cognition and the thing. But those are the colors we usually know about, and those are the colors we can name. and so on. But, so all those series there are direct perceptions which are imperceptible and inattentive or we're not able to ascertain. Yes? We can have simultaneous inattentive perceptions? And we can have simultaneous, yes. We could have five simultaneous inattentive perceptions, direct perceptions of the moment.

[92:21]

And then in common parlance, if we're talking about one-pointedness, then we're bringing awareness to one? Is that what would differentiate? Sometimes we see the one-pointedness, and it was my understanding that you could only be one-pointed with one thing. And so what I'm asking is, is that a way of saying that if we become one-pointed with something, then it's brought to awareness that it's no longer inattentive? I think that what I would say to you on this is that each one of these sense cognitions is one-pointed on its object. So you could have simultaneous one-pointed direct perceptions of five different types of sense media that could happen, or just one. There are some moments where it could be that there are some situations where there's no

[93:27]

sense cognitions, no sense direct perceptions arising, that the mind is totally focused on mental phenomena and there's no sense cognition. The organs still might be stimulated, but they're not giving rise to sense perceptions. But if there are sense perceptions, in some sense they're always one-pointed because the mind is, in a sense, focused on its object. Okay, now, just to finish this thing, is that for conceptual cognition, the appearing object, the appearing object or the object of appearance is always mistaken. If the engaging object is true, namely existent, then the conceptual cognition is true. But although it may be true because what it's engaged with exists, it's still mistaken in terms of how it appears.

[94:38]

If you have a cognition of impermanence, and you can only have a cognition of impermanence because impermanence cannot be known directly as a, you know, it's a concept. Cognition, conceptual cognition of impermanence, in fact, if it's an impermanent color or a sound or whatever, in fact, impermanent colors and sounds do exist. Or if you have a sound and you see it as impermanent, in fact, such a sound does exist. So the engaging object, an impermanent sound, does exist, but the way it appears is not true. But it's a true conceptual cognition because the engagement does exist. So having a conceptual cognition that a color or a sound is impermanent is a true

[95:51]

conception, even though it's mistaken that impermanence appears to it. Similarly, or on the other hand, a conceptual cognition that's engaging with an object that doesn't exist is a false cognition, a wrong cognition. So as I said in summary, conceptual cognitions can be half right and half wrong or all wrong. So when they're half right, however, when they're called half right and half wrong, usually we call them true because the half right is that they're actually engaging with something that exists. The half wrong is that the way it appears to them is false. They have a false view of something that really does exist, and that's called a true conceptual cognition.

[97:01]

If their object of engagement is true, then their object of appearance is true, so they're all right. And if their object of engagement is false, then they're all wrong, just like a conceptual cognition would be. Again, if you look at the chart, you can see that perception, go over to the far right, perception can be mistaken cognition. And conception can be mistaken cognition. Okay? They both can be mistaken. Most perceptual cognitions are not mistaken. And many, almost all perceptual cognitions for most people are not mistaken. And many other cognitions are also not mistaken cognitions.

[98:05]

So if you look under conception, you'll see, for example, you'll see four other examples which are not mistaken. So a valid inference is a conception. That's not, that is true. And subsequent cognitions are also true conceptions. And also, indecisive or doubting consciousness is also a true conception. Well, for example, if you... doubted whether something, you know, existed, that wouldn't be false, just your doubt of it. Like if you doubted that people had a self, that would be a true conception.

[99:12]

But also if you doubted that people didn't have a self, it really would be also okay Because you wouldn't be saying that they did have a self. Yeah. And it's conceptual. Therefore, it's not really false. Because you're not really engaging with something that doesn't exist. It's rather that you're questioning whether something exists or not. Whether self exists or whether or not self exists. You're not sure. It's related to correct belief. In that case, you would like correctly believe that and you would correctly believe that it was false, that things do have a self. But if you look on a chart, both of those are conceptions. And the horizontal line, there's no overlap.

[100:16]

So none of the first six are wrong cognitions. Only the last category is wrong. The previous ones are not wrong. So all the previous ones are either true perceptions or true conceptions. Now, the big thing that you haven't heard about yet, which I intend to introduce tonight, is the first two types of awareness. As you can see, one's a perception and one is a conception. Valid perception and valid inference is a conception.

[101:20]

Valid perception is a perception, of course, and valid inference is a conception. So can you see that these previous categories horizontally don't overlap with each other? They're exclusive. And only the last category is where all the wrong stuff goes. And in particular, I would draw your attention the last category mistaken cognition lining up with conception so mistaken cognitions can be the two types of mistaken cognition pardon Direct perception and conceptual cognition. Those are the two types of wrong cognition that there can be. So you can see, along the top two lines, perception can be a mistaken cognition, and conception can be a mistaken cognition.

[102:31]

Those are the two types. Okay? Conception and perception. However, if you go down one more line, you see sensory. also can be a wrong cognition. Do you see that? But that's already been included in what I said because it's a perception. You go down one more. Mental cognition. That's also included, but that's also a perception. Go down a little bit further. Non-aperceptive. You notice that non-aperceptive cognition, you notice it applies to every single one of the seven categories. Does that make sense to you? Linda's shaking her head yes. How does it make sense to you? Good question, yeah. Non-aperceptive cognition, all those seven types are non-aperceptive cognitions. Because aperceptive cognition, if you look at aperceptive cognition, it doesn't apply.

[103:40]

It isn't X'd out on all the different types of seven. All the different seven types are not or cannot be apperceptive cognitions. Only the what type can be apperceptive cognitions. Perceptual cognitions are the only type that can be it. But the non-apperceptive applies to all of them. Because each of those seven types is a non-aperceptive cognition. The basic cognition that we have, all the cognitions we have are basically non-aperceptive. However, every single non-aperceptive cognition has an aperceptive cognition with it. However, the aperceptive cognitions are only direct perceptions. So if you have, no matter what kind of, it's a non-aperceptive cognition.

[104:43]

So if you have a conceptual cognition, it's a non-aperceptive cognition. And if you have a conceptual, it's non-aperceptive. So all seven types of conceptual and non-conceptual and conceptual cognitions, all those are non-aperceptive. However, accompanying every non-aperceptive cognition is an aperceptive cognition. But the aperceptive cognitions are just of three types, the three types of direct perception. Conceptual or non-conceptual, cognition is accompanied by a non-conceptual cognition. Every direct or indirect perception, every direct or indirect perception is accompanied by a direct perception. And there's only direct and indirect cognitions, there's only direct and indirect ways of knowing.

[105:46]

So all the ways of knowing are accompanied by one of the ways of knowing, namely direct perception. So if you look at the chart, you can see that. And down at the bottom, you have false cognition. So that checks with mistaken cognition up at the top, the bottom line, and the 11th type and the 7th type. Can you see it down the corner? And then non-valid cognition, mistaken cognition. And there can be a non-perceptive mistaken cognition. So mistaken cognition can come in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven different categories. Yeah. Yeah. Would you sort of hold your face sort of erect because you're talking to the ground and my head's not down underneath you?

[106:57]

I thought that false cognition was not possible with doubting. I thought you said that doubting or It's not, it's doubting, or if you look at, if you look at, what is it, doubting consciousness or indecisive consciousness, it's a, see that? It's on the conception line. It's a type of conception. And also, if you go down, it's a mental cognition. Mental cognitions can be direct perceptions or, and of course conceptual cognitions are. It also is a non-aperceptive.

[108:04]

It also can be, it's also non-valid. It's also non-valid, which you will maybe understand in not too long. And it's also a true conception. True conception, therefore, is not a false cognition. And it's also... It can also be a false... Oh, excuse me. It can also be a false cognition. It can be true or false. And false cognition is a mistake in cognition. False cognition is a mistake in cognition, or false cognition.

[109:05]

So I guess I kind of got it wrong. So if I doubt something that's true, that's a false cognition, I guess. True. Is that false cognition? No. If I doubt something, that's true. I'm not clear about this right now. Sorry. I have to work on that one. I also tell you briefly just something to get this out of the way quickly if I can, and that is I just want to say something about mistaken... about this last category of mistaken cognition. And mistaken cognition can be, as you see from the chart, mistaken perception or mistaken conception.

[110:08]

So direct perception can be mistaken, and there's four types of mistaken direct perception. Actually, there's two main types of mistaken direct perception. The two types of mistaken direct perception. So you see, under perception, you see that it can be mistaken. Can you see that? Do you follow the top horizontal line? Perception can be mistaken. There's two basic types. of perception that can be mistaken. Sensory cognition can be mistaken and mental cognition can be mistaken. So in terms of perception, of direct perception, it can be mistaken in basically two types, sensory and mental. And sensory is of four types.

[111:14]

So four different types in which direct perception And I just like to briefly mention that. One way... Are you okay with this? Four ways that direct perception can be mistaken cognition. Okay, so you see on the chart that it can happen, right? In fact, it can be wrong. Four ways. One way is... Sensory perception in which the source of the deception exists in the object. So again, sensory perception, the three main conditions for sensory perception are

[112:17]

and what they are Bernard no remember now the three conditions for my mind is somewhere else I know but now you're here so now sensory perception direct perception three conditions what are they three main conditions dominant dominant okay there it is that's it so the third the dominant condition for sensory perception is what Bernard The organ. The organ. Okay. So the first type of error that the sense perception can have is that when the source of the error is in the dominant condition, the sense organ. That's the first type of error that sensory perception can have. So we mentioned before, if you have jaundice, the dominant condition is the source of the deception because things will look yellow. Okay. The second type of error is exists.

[113:19]

Got it wrong. What I just said was one of the types. I'll change the order. It's not wrong. So the second type is when the error exists in what are the other conditions for sensory perception? The object. The object conditions. So the other source of error is when the error is in the object. OK. How can the air be in the object? How can air be in the object? Yeah. What's an example of air being in the object? The mirage. Pardon? The mirage. Mirage? A mirage? No, because that depends on conception. What's an example where it's an object? Here's an example.

[114:22]

Maybe the mirage might work. Here's the example that they gave in the book was like if you take a stick of incense in the dark and move it in a circle rapidly, move it around rapidly, you see a circle. An ant. An ant. There actually isn't a circle. But by moving the, and you can also go up and down like this and see kind of a saw edge thing with the light on the end of the stick. There actually isn't that saw thing in the air and there isn't a circle. But because the object in a certain way, we see something that's not there. So in that case, that type of object presents itself as a circle rather than as a bunch of dots in motion. Have trouble with that? It is an error of perception.

[115:23]

It is an error of perception. I'm just saying. No, but it's how the eye isn't able to accommodate the movement. You say the eye isn't able to accommodate, but it's the eye with the organ, I mean with the object. Because the eye does seem to be able to accommodate in other cases, but certain types of objects the eye can't accommodate, so then we blame the object rather than the organ. The organ's got a problem. It has problems with all the stuff. But when the organ's operating properly, certain objects trick it and others don't. So it's not exactly the organ either. It's the perception. The perception isn't the organ or the object or the supporting consciousness. It is the actual thing that you think is happening.

[116:25]

That's the perception. And so we have these three conditions. So we're going to find out is that of the four sources of error in direct perception, we're just being taught that will be three of the sources. The cognition is arising, and it's not correct. So the error is in the organ, in the object, or in the state of consciousness that preceded it. Those are three of the four. which give rise to sense perception. So Donald's saying that he thinks, in the case of the circle of fire, he thinks that the source is the organ. So I'm saying, I can see that, but I'm saying that if the organ's operating properly, it can handle other organs but not this one. So when a generally properly operating organ can't handle an object, then we put the soil into the object.

[117:33]

But that object plus other objects can't be dealt with properly by soil. When that organ can't deal with anything properly, then we put it with the organ. Does that work any better for you? not quite no again this is to contemplate okay this is to contemplate think about it the third example is is the the third support for uh sense perception sense cognition is the previous moment of consciousness in other words you have a conscious you have consciousness happening in the previous moment and that sets up the possibility of consciousness in this moment now if the If I or you are in a state of strong emotion, like strong hatred, strong jealousy, strong lust, strong attachment, if the previous moment of consciousness is like that, that condition, which is one of the three conditions, colors then the sense perceptions.

[118:48]

So actually people say that you actually, this is being proposed, that when you're angry, actually your sense perception is affected by the anger. The color of things is affected. And there's also the example of if you get intoxicated, like the elves say, everybody's beautiful just before the bar closes. People get really good looking. The bar's about to close and you've been drinking all night and almost everybody's good looking. But another way to interpret that is because you're intoxicated, your mind opens up to unwholesome states of consciousness where you start finding everyone extremely attractive. So the state of consciousness which arises from intoxication tends to lust or hatred, actually. And when you actually are in this state of lust, things look much more attractive than they do when you sober up and the lust goes down.

[120:01]

So we can actually be in a state of lust, not towards necessarily a particular person, but just generally in a lusty mood. So like a lot of people look really attractive, and then when the lust goes down, and the anger goes up almost no one looks attractive everybody looks kind of like obnoxious so that putting the that they're not it's a misperception due to the distortion

[120:32]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_79.11