Buddhist Psychology; Mind and Mental Process (23 June 2006, 3)

0:00 ...difference between a correct assumption that sound is impermanent and an inferential cognizer that sound is impermanent. Report an error in the passage at 0:00 Highlight the passage at 0:00

0:10 Well, this is mainly a result, the answer, of looking ahead at the next slide. That's right, the answer is on the next slide. Oh, the answer is on the next slide. Very clever. But inferential cognizer would be... Incontrovertible and correctly assuming consciousness would be controvertible. Exactly. Could be changed by a good argument. Right. Exactly. Exactly. Good. Right. Inferential cognizer is incontrovertible. Report an error in the passage at 0:10 Highlight the passage at 0:10

0:49 It's a stable. It's a realization. Right. It's Report an error in the passage at 0:49 Highlight the passage at 0:49

0:58 removed. True. Report an error in the passage at 0:58 Highlight the passage at 0:58

1:08 Yeah, true I think is too vague. And true, the word true is used with different meanings in different contexts, right? Because we say nothing is truly existent. But incontrovertible means it's kind of unshakable. It's a realizing consciousness. And when you realize something, you've removed... Report an error in the passage at 1:08 Highlight the passage at 1:08

1:37 A superimposition, which is kind of a cool word. Superimposition. So you've removed the superimposition or the misconception that sound is permanent. So in your mind, there's no part of your mind that ever believes that sound is permanent once you've realized that sound is impermanent. Report an error in the passage at 1:37 Highlight the passage at 1:37

2:02 Whereas a correct assumption can... It can lead to doubt because it's not unshakable. You've heard a teaching, maybe you've thought about it, maybe you've done the reasoning, but it's not unshakable. And particularly if you encounter a very convincing teaching to the contrary, then we could change our minds. Report an error in the passage at 2:02 Highlight the passage at 2:02

2:36 Which is why in this path it's... It's so much emphasized that we need to develop realizations and not be satisfied with correct assumptions. Report an error in the passage at 2:36 Highlight the passage at 2:36

3:01 What was my question? What was my thing? About realization, exactly if I realize something, what's happening? Okay. Report an error in the passage at 3:01 Highlight the passage at 3:01

3:16 Well, Report an error in the passage at 3:16 Highlight the passage at 3:16

3:23 I mean, when you've realized something, your mind becomes very certain. It's, um... Report an error in the passage at 3:23 Highlight the passage at 3:23

3:29 About the object. Certain about what you've realized. It's certain, it's stable, it's unshakable. So, you Report an error in the passage at 3:29 Highlight the passage at 3:29

3:47 know, and I no longer believe the opposite. I no longer have doubt. So for most of us, you know, when we get teachings, we get a lot of teachings. Report an error in the passage at 3:47 Highlight the passage at 3:47

4:03 And we accept some of them and some of them, you know, maybe we need to think about more. But for the ones that we accept, that's a correct assumption. Report an error in the passage at 4:03 Highlight the passage at 4:03

4:15 But to actually realize it means that you've thought about it again and again and again and you've thought about it from different angles and you come to a very strong conclusion, right? You come to a very strong conclusion that, oh, it must be this way. It's very decisive. There's no more doubt when you've realized something. And it's stable so that you can listen to all kinds of teachings. Report an error in the passage at 4:15 Highlight the passage at 4:15

4:49 You can listen to teachings from other traditions and not become confused and not generate doubt. So Report an error in the passage at 4:49 Highlight the passage at 4:49

5:01 it becomes very firm and stable and unshakable when it becomes a realization. You have a confused look. Can you realize something like karma yet still go out and commit evil acts? My belief is that if you've really realized karma, then you would never create any negativity. Now, why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't I? Because you know that you're going to suffer. It's like I would never... Report an error in the passage at 5:01 Highlight the passage at 5:01

5:42 Stick my hand in a fire because I know that I'm going to get hurt. I know that my hand is going to burn. So if you believed in karma, I mean if you realized karma, it's like knowing that your hand is going to burn when you stick it in fire. Knowing that if I say something negative about this person, I'm going to get a negative karmic result. I'm definitely going to suffer. Report an error in the passage at 5:42 Highlight the passage at 5:42

6:11 If I say this negative thing. But for most of us, we haven't gotten to that point yet, right? There's still some doubt. Yeah, but if I accepted, if I realized karma, couldn't I just accept the consequences of my actions? Report an error in the passage at 6:11 Highlight the passage at 6:11

6:26 Wait, Janet, we have to take responsibility. Report an error in the passage at 6:26 Highlight the passage at 6:26

6:33 What about the force of habituation? Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's true as well. my responsibility. Report an error in the passage at 6:33 Highlight the passage at 6:33

6:42 So that's why I'm saying it's my opinion. But I think, but if you know, like Geshe Michael Roach used to say, you know, if immediately when you did something wrong, you know, your leg started to break, you wouldn't do it, right? We wouldn't do it. The problem is that the result comes later, right? But if you've realized that the result will definitely come. Report an error in the passage at 6:42 Highlight the passage at 6:42

7:11 You probably wouldn't do it. Report an error in the passage at 7:11 Highlight the passage at 7:11

7:21 Yeah, that's true, too. Realizing karma, I think, is a pretty advanced realization. But, Report an error in the passage at 7:21 Highlight the passage at 7:21

7:33 you know, if it's something simpler, like realizing that you're going to die. It's the difference between those of us that kind of intellectually know that we're going to die and someone who's been diagnosed to have one month to live. Their orientation is different than ours, right? Because I still think that I'm going to live for a long time, right? Report an error in the passage at 7:33 Highlight the passage at 7:33

8:04 And so I haven't realized that death could come at any moment, right? And if I had realized that, then I would live my life a lot differently, unfortunately, than I do now. Report an error in the passage at 8:04 Highlight the passage at 8:04

8:27 If we go to the doctor and the doctor says, you only have one month to live, and if we're surprised, then that means that we haven't realized that we could die at any moment, right? Report an error in the passage at 8:27 Highlight the passage at 8:27

8:41 Yeah, Anna. Report an error in the passage at 8:41 Highlight the passage at 8:41

8:45 It seems like realization is a personal truth. And in terms of Betty's example, I was just thinking of people who end up in prison because of a crime. Report an error in the passage at 8:45 Highlight the passage at 8:45

9:01 There's the before and after in that once they're in jail and they are suffering the consequences, that's when they realize. Report an error in the passage at 9:01 Highlight the passage at 9:01

9:14 Well, you see interviews oftentimes with prisoners and they're crying and, you know, gosh, if I had known, I would never have done it. But that's when the consequences have finally, you know, landed on them. Then they realize. So I'm not sure if it's always you have to realize the consequences of your actions or exactly how that realization comes to some people and doesn't come to others. Report an error in the passage at 9:14 Highlight the passage at 9:14

9:51 Yeah, I think probably a lot of us are still in denial. But if you actually realize that you will suffer if you do a particular negative action, our actions would change. Report an error in the passage at 9:51 Highlight the passage at 9:51

10:13 Or if we really realized that we could die tomorrow, our actions would probably change. You Report an error in the passage at 10:13 Highlight the passage at 10:13

10:37 know, I'm going to skip through the rest of this review since we're Report an error in the passage at 10:37 Highlight the passage at 10:37

10:46 running out of time. But people can maybe read that on their own. Report an error in the passage at 10:46 Highlight the passage at 10:46

11:00 Yeah, so I skipped forward a bunch of pages to two divisions of awareness. Report an error in the passage at 11:00 Highlight the passage at 11:00

11:11 So we just finished valid cognizers. And so we're going to start on non-valid cognizers, right? So, awarenesses can be divided in many different ways, and one way is into valid cognizers versus non-valid cognizers, or Report an error in the passage at 11:11 Highlight the passage at 11:11

11:39 non-valid consciousnesses, but we could say cognizers as well. So there are five types of non-valid consciousnesses, subsequent cognizers, correctly Report an error in the passage at 11:39 Highlight the passage at 11:39

12:00 assuming consciousnesses, Awareness is to which an object appears but is not ascertained. Doubting consciousness is a wrong consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 12:00 Highlight the passage at 12:00

12:16 So we'll get into each of those in a lot of detail. Report an error in the passage at 12:16 Highlight the passage at 12:16

12:25 So the definition of a non-valid consciousness is a knower that is not newly incontrovertible. So a valid cognizer was a new incontrovertible knower. Report an error in the passage at 12:25 Highlight the passage at 12:25

12:39 So a non-valid consciousness is basically anything that's not new. anything that's not incontrovertible. Report an error in the passage at 12:39 Highlight the passage at 12:39

12:52 if it's not a fresh, new consciousness, then it's non-valid. according to the school. And if it's not incontrovertible, it's also non-valid. Report an error in the passage at 12:52 Highlight the passage at 12:52

13:03 It just needs to be one, of those two. Report an error in the passage at 13:03 Highlight the passage at 13:03

13:09 Subsequent cognizers are incontrovertible. They're just not new. Report an error in the passage at 13:09 Highlight the passage at 13:09

13:21 A wrong consciousness could be new. So could a doubting consciousness. Consciousness and a, right. Report an error in the passage at 13:21 Highlight the passage at 13:21

13:31 So it needs to be, for it to be non-valid, it could be either not new or not incontrovertible. Report an error in the passage at 13:31 Highlight the passage at 13:31

13:48 So we haven't seen this list for a while, but these are the seven types of consciousness, seven types of awareness, direct perceivers, inferential cognizers, subsequent cognizers, correctly assuming consciousnesses, etc. So three through seven, those are the non-valid consciousnesses. Report an error in the passage at 13:48 Highlight the passage at 13:48

14:12 The first two, some of them are valid cognizers and some of them aren't. Direct perceivers, the first, well, some direct perceivers are valid cognizers. Report an error in the passage at 14:12 Highlight the passage at 14:12

14:26 And inferential cognizers, actually all of those are valid cognizers according to Puberjoke. Report an error in the passage at 14:26 Highlight the passage at 14:26

14:38 So which of those seven are incontrovertible? Report an error in the passage at 14:38 Highlight the passage at 14:38

15:02 Incontrovertible, realizing consciousnesses? Okay, well let's take the first one, direct perceivers. Are direct perceivers? Report an error in the passage at 15:02 Highlight the passage at 15:02

15:12 Incontrovertible? Report an error in the passage at 15:12 Highlight the passage at 15:12

15:19 Yeah, I was not specific enough. So the first one, direct perceiver, are those incontrovertible? Report an error in the passage at 15:19 Highlight the passage at 15:19

15:36 Some of them are. Some of them are. The direct valid cognizers are incontrovertible. Report an error in the passage at 15:36 Highlight the passage at 15:36

15:45 So some of them are. They're not necessarily though, because if it's an awareness to which an object appears but is not ascertained, it could be a direct perceiver, but it's not incontrovertible. Some direct perceivers are incontrovertible. What about inferential cognizers? Report an error in the passage at 15:45 Highlight the passage at 15:45

16:08 Inferential cognizers are necessarily incontrovertible according to the author of our text. What Report an error in the passage at 16:08 Highlight the passage at 16:08

16:19 about subsequent cognizers? Report an error in the passage at 16:19 Highlight the passage at 16:19

16:27 Actually, subsequent cognizers are incontrovertible. Report an error in the passage at 16:27 Highlight the passage at 16:27

16:37 and actually we're going to go into subsequent cognizers after this. Report an error in the passage at 16:37 Highlight the passage at 16:37

16:43 you use subsequent cognizer only in referring to a moment after an inferential cognizer? I thought a subsequent cognizer could be after. Report an error in the passage at 16:43 Highlight the passage at 16:43

16:57 anything after the first moment of anything and it's not but we'll go into that we'll go into that Report an error in the passage at 16:57 Highlight the passage at 16:57

17:08 Subsequent cognizers are necessarily incontrovertible. We'll go into subsequent cognizers in a few minutes. What about correctly assuming consciousness? Report an error in the passage at 17:08 Highlight the passage at 17:08

17:21 Those are not, those are necessarily not incontrovertible. Number five, awarenesses to which an object appears but is not ascertained. Report an error in the passage at 17:21 Highlight the passage at 17:21

17:34 Those are also not. Doubting consciousnesses? No. And wrong consciousnesses? No. Good, exactly. So some of number one and all of number two and three are incontrovertible. Report an error in the passage at 17:34 Highlight the passage at 17:34

· · · silence, 1 minute

18:24 Subsequent cognizers. So the definition of a subsequent cognizer is a knower that realizes what has already been realized. Report an error in the passage at 18:24 Highlight the passage at 18:24

18:36 So it realizes, it's a realizing consciousness. It realizes what has already been realized. So the second moment of a correct assumption wouldn't be a subsequent cognizer because a correctly assuming consciousness doesn't realize its object. So subsequent cognizers realize what has already been realized. Report an error in the passage at 18:36 Highlight the passage at 18:36

19:16 That's the only difference. It's not new. It's the subsequent moments. Report an error in the passage at 19:16 Highlight the passage at 19:16

19:27 So for your eye consciousness perceiving the red table, the first moment is a direct valid cognizer. And the second moment onward, as long as you continue to look at that red table, those would be subsequent cognizers. Report an error in the passage at 19:27 Highlight the passage at 19:27

19:47 And then if you look away and you look back, then the first moment is once again a valid cognizer. The second moment would be a subsequent cognizer. So that would be for direct perception. For inference, we'll talk about it. Report an error in the passage at 19:47 Highlight the passage at 19:47

20:11 Well, it's because the first, right, so the question was, is that because of time, when you look away and you look back. No, I mean, it becomes new because Your eye consciousness, when it looks away and it looks back at the table, the eye consciousness is newly realizing the table again. It's not realizing the table through the force of having realized it before. Whereas the second moment of looking at the table is realizing that table through the force of having realized it in that previous moment. Report an error in the passage at 20:11 Highlight the passage at 20:11

21:06 Subsequent cognizers are induced by a valid cognizer. We have one moment of valid cognition and then we have subsequent cognizers. Report an error in the passage at 21:06 Highlight the passage at 21:06

21:26 Subsequent cognizers realize their objects through the power of the valid cognizer. The valid cognizer first realizes the object and then the subsequent cognizer follows on and realizes the object through the force or the power of having realized it. An example Report an error in the passage at 21:26 Highlight the passage at 21:26

21:59 that I read in one of the books, I think maybe the Lati Rinpoche book, is it's similar to one car towing another one. The car in front is towing, let's say, a car that's broken down. So both of the cars are going along the same road and they're going in the same direction. They're riding on their own wheels. But the first car, It's like the valid cognizer. It's moving from its own power. Whereas the second car is still moving in the same direction, but it's through the power of the first car. Report an error in the passage at 21:59 Highlight the passage at 21:59

22:47 It's kind of a loose example, but maybe it's helpful. So Report an error in the passage at 22:47 Highlight the passage at 22:47

23:08 mainly, subsequent cognizers have two divisions, and this third division is really for debate purposes, and we can talk briefly about that. But mainly subsequent cognizers are the two types, directly perceiving subsequent cognizers and conceptual subsequent cognizers. So Report an error in the passage at 23:08 Highlight the passage at 23:08

23:38 the directly perceiving subsequent cognizers. There are five types and these are very familiar to us. Those that are sense direct perceivers, those that are mental direct perceivers. Those that are self-knowing direct perceivers and those that are yogic direct perceivers. And the last one, those that are neither of the four, that's also for debate purposes and we can talk about that briefly. Report an error in the passage at 23:38 Highlight the passage at 23:38

24:10 But mainly there are these four divisions. Report an error in the passage at 24:10 Highlight the passage at 24:10

24:20 So subsequent cognizers are those moments following on from the sense. Direct valid cognizers and the self-knowing direct valid cognizers, the mental direct valid cognizers, etc. So I think we're pretty familiar with those. Report an error in the passage at 24:20 Highlight the passage at 24:20

24:42 So for example, a directly perceiving subsequent cognizer that is a sense direct perceiver would be the second moment of a sense direct perceiver apprehending blue. Report an error in the passage at 24:42 Highlight the passage at 24:42

24:55 So the second moment of an eye consciousness apprehending blue. Report an error in the passage at 24:55 Highlight the passage at 24:55

25:06 Those that are mental direct perceivers would be, for example, the second moment of a clairvoyance. Report an error in the passage at 25:06 Highlight the passage at 25:06

25:21 Those that are self-knowing direct perceivers is the second moment of a self-knowing direct perceiver experiencing an eye consciousness, etc. Report an error in the passage at 25:21 Highlight the passage at 25:21

25:38 So I think these are pretty self-explanatory. And let me know if they're not, if you want more explanation. But I think we went through these when we covered direct perceivers and direct valid cognizers. Report an error in the passage at 25:38 Highlight the passage at 25:38

25:54 I'll just briefly say something about the The none of the four, number five. So this is really only for debate purposes to eliminate kind of a fault in debate. But if we talk about direct perceiver, the second moment of a direct perceiver as a generality, right? There are generalities in instances, like a generality would be, let's say, tables. Report an error in the passage at 25:54 Highlight the passage at 25:54

26:35 An instance would be this table. An instance is an actual. So here they're talking about the second moment of the generality of direct perceiver is not any of the previous four. The generality of a direct perceiver is not a sense direct perceiver. It's not a mental direct perceiver. It's not a yogic direct perceiver and it's not a self-knowing direct perceiver. The generality. Report an error in the passage at 26:35 Highlight the passage at 26:35

27:13 And I don't want to spend a lot of time on this because it's really just for the monks that are debating. Report an error in the passage at 27:13 Highlight the passage at 27:13

27:26 But I thought it was important to put it up there because it's in the text. But in some texts they don't even mention this last division. Report an error in the passage at 27:26 Highlight the passage at 27:26

27:36 Like in Lati Rinpoche's book he doesn't mention the last division. Also I think in Kishi Raptan's book. division Report an error in the passage at 27:36 Highlight the passage at 27:36

27:53 And then there are conceptual subsequent cognizers, which Report an error in the passage at 27:53 Highlight the passage at 27:53

28:01 are of two types, those that are induced by direct perceivers and those that are induced by inferential cognizers. Report an error in the passage at 28:01 Highlight the passage at 28:01

28:11 Am I moving too fast? So conceptual subsequent cognizers are two types, those that are induced by direct perceivers and those that are induced by inferential cognizers. Report an error in the passage at 28:11 Highlight the passage at 28:11

28:26 So those that are induced by direct perceivers, I'll read this and then I'll explain it. For example, a factually concordant ascertaining consciousness ascertaining blue that is induced by a sense direct perceiver apprehending blue. Report an error in the passage at 28:26 Highlight the passage at 28:26

28:43 So for an eye consciousness perceiving blue, the conceptual consciousness that thinks, oh that was blue, that labels blue, that would be a conceptual subsequent cognizer that's induced by a direct perception. Report an error in the passage at 28:43 Highlight the passage at 28:43

29:10 It's conceptual because it's a mind that's labeling blue, but it's Report an error in the passage at 29:10 Highlight the passage at 29:10

29:20 induced by having the direct perception of blue. Report an error in the passage at 29:20 Highlight the passage at 29:20

29:29 So seeing the red table, the eye consciousness that sees the red table would be direct perception. And then the conceptual subsequent cognizer would be the moments after where you think, oh, that was a red table. Right. do I still have Report an error in the passage at 29:29 Highlight the passage at 29:29

29:51 Right. You don't have... Right. Report an error in the passage at 29:51 Highlight the passage at 29:51

29:57 Yeah. I don't know if it's necessarily a memory, but yeah, it's a result. Yeah, it's a result of having seen it. Report an error in the passage at 29:57 Highlight the passage at 29:57

30:17 But yeah, I mean, also if you go home and you think about the red table, that's also, you know, that's a memory, right? And that would also, I think, be a conceptual subsequent cognizer that was induced by a direct perceiver. Report an error in the passage at 30:17 Highlight the passage at 30:17

30:41 I mean, if you start... Developing stories around it. Oh, well, that was a beautiful table, and ooh, I want that table. You know, those are no longer subsequent cognizers, right? But just remembering the table and labeling the table. These would be conceptual. Subsequent cognizers, right, that were induced by a direct perception. Report an error in the passage at 30:41 Highlight the passage at 30:41

31:06 And then a conceptual subsequent cognizer that is induced by an inferential cognizer is straightforward. It's the second moment of an inferential cognizer. that realizes, for example, sound to be impermanent. So Report an error in the passage at 31:06 Highlight the passage at 31:06

31:29 let's say that through a lot of practice and a lot of analysis, I actually realize that sound is impermanent, inferentially. Report an error in the passage at 31:29 Highlight the passage at 31:29

31:41 Subsequent to that, when I continue to meditate on sound being impermanent, tomorrow or the next day or a month from now, those are still all subsequent cognizers. Report an error in the passage at 31:41 Highlight the passage at 31:41

31:57 Because you're basically remembering or then you're realizing sound to be impermanent through the force of having realized it before. So that would be with a conceptual consciousness or inferential valid consciousness, cognizer. But then, let's say you keep meditating on that and then you actually have a direct perception, a direct realization of sound to be impermanent. Report an error in the passage at 31:57 Highlight the passage at 31:57

32:28 Then at that point, the first moment becomes a valid cognizer again. Report an error in the passage at 32:28 Highlight the passage at 32:28

32:36 The first moment of the direct realization would then become a valid cognizer again. Report an error in the passage at 32:36 Highlight the passage at 32:36

32:45 But prior to that, those moments would be subsequent cognizers. Report an error in the passage at 32:45 Highlight the passage at 32:45

33:04 So Buddhas don't have subsequent cognizers. We sentient beings, we have subsequent cognizers. But Buddhas, every moment of omniscient consciousness is necessarily a valid cognizer. Report an error in the passage at 33:04 Highlight the passage at 33:04

33:19 So Buddhas are realizing everything freshly in every moment. So they don't have subsequent cognizers. It makes Report an error in the passage at 33:19 Highlight the passage at 33:19

33:45 me realize I have nothing valid to say. Report an error in the passage at 33:45 Highlight the passage at 33:45

33:51 That's an inferential realization. Are Report an error in the passage at 33:51 Highlight the passage at 33:51

34:09 you sure? Okay. Report an error in the passage at 34:09 Highlight the passage at 34:09

34:18 So I just wanted to talk a little bit about subsequent cognizers in practice. it. That's it. Report an error in the passage at 34:18 Highlight the passage at 34:18

33:56 an inferential realization. Report an error in the passage at 33:56 Highlight the passage at 33:56

34:25 So I think the thing to take from this subject in our practice is that we need to familiarize ourselves with these Dharma subjects again and again. It's not sufficient to just listen to a teaching and not review it again and again. Because we forget. So in order to maintain and increase all of our Dharma knowledge, experience and realizations, we need to keep thinking about these things, keep going to teachings, keep doing our homework. Report an error in the passage at 34:25 Highlight the passage at 34:25

35:04 My little plug. So technically subsequent cognizers are realizing consciousnesses, but I think we can apply them. Report an error in the passage at 35:04 Highlight the passage at 35:04

35:19 concept of cognizers to all of our daily lives. Report an error in the passage at 35:19 Highlight the passage at 35:19

35:33 Because as we said earlier, you know, we can understand anything. The path is so much about familiarization. So, Report an error in the passage at 35:33 Highlight the passage at 35:33

35:54 actually, Sue Ann isn't here today, but she wanted to start kind of a review discussion groups after class. class right exactly yeah well she talked to Rubina this past week who really encouraged it so Report an error in the passage at 35:54 Highlight the passage at 35:54

36:16 There are two Report an error in the passage at 36:16 Highlight the passage at 36:16

36:46 different homeworks for this week. One of them It just never Betty and I Report an error in the passage at 36:46 Highlight the passage at 36:46

36:42 exactly. And the homework for this week, there are two. Report an error in the passage at 36:42 Highlight the passage at 36:42

36:50 is really to encourage you to discuss these things. I took the lamrim topics and wanted you to map what kind of valid cognizer would actually realize those different topics. And that is very conducive to discussing with others. And then the other homework is our more traditional homework with very clear answers. Report an error in the passage at 36:50 Highlight the passage at 36:50

37:22 I didn't email that to you, but Choki has it here, but I will email that to you. Report an error in the passage at 37:22 Highlight the passage at 37:22

37:30 So if anybody wants to stay after class and discuss this, I would encourage it. I'll Report an error in the passage at 37:30 Highlight the passage at 37:30

37:50 just skip that exercise. We'll go through this one, though. So which of the following in this list are subsequent cognizers? Report an error in the passage at 37:50 Highlight the passage at 37:50

38:01 So the first moment of eye consciousness apprehending red? Excellent. The second moment of eye consciousness apprehending red? Yes. The first moment of a conceptual consciousness labeling red? And that one is a yes. That's a trick question, right? Report an error in the passage at 38:01 Highlight the passage at 38:01

38:28 Well, because, I mean, because it's, right, it's a... It Report an error in the passage at 38:28 Highlight the passage at 38:28

38:44 doesn't label it under its own power. Right, so it's having the direct perception of red, then we label it red. So this is actually a subsequent cognizer. It's a conceptual subsequent cognizer that is induced by a direct perception. Report an error in the passage at 38:44 Highlight the passage at 38:44

39:06 So that was a trick question because I put first moment. Report an error in the passage at 39:06 Highlight the passage at 39:06

39:13 What about the first moment of remembering that sound is impermanent after having realized it? You already got it right. So that's a yes. moment. Report an error in the passage at 39:13 Highlight the passage at 39:13

39:23 How about the first moment of remembering that sound is impermanent after having a correct assumption about it? Report an error in the passage at 39:23 Highlight the passage at 39:23

39:39 Well, it's the first moment of remembering that sound is impermanent after having a correct assumption about it. So that's not a subsequent cognizer because it's not a realization, right? I mean, it's not new. It's not new, but it's not incontrovertible. Because a subsequent cognizer needs to be incontrovertible. Report an error in the passage at 39:39 Highlight the passage at 39:39

40:12 It needs to be realizing something. Report an error in the passage at 40:12 Highlight the passage at 40:12

40:36 Which we do, don't we? Report an error in the passage at 40:36 Highlight the passage at 40:36

40:43 Right. So good. So Report an error in the passage at 40:43 Highlight the passage at 40:43

40:49 why don't we pass out the homework? Report an error in the passage at 40:49 Highlight the passage at 40:49

41:15 Sure. do some examples of that exercise on it. Report an error in the passage at 41:15 Highlight the passage at 41:15

41:23 So what's an example of a directly perceiving subsequent cognizer? Report an error in the passage at 41:23 Highlight the passage at 41:23

41:37 Good. Report an error in the passage at 41:37 Highlight the passage at 41:37

41:42 So an example of that would be the second moment of an eye consciousness apprehending blue. Perfect. What about an example of a conceptual subsequent cognizer that is induced by a direct perceiver? second moment of... Report an error in the passage at 41:42 Highlight the passage at 41:42

41:38 but my consciousness is upper than your blue. Report an error in the passage at 41:38 Highlight the passage at 41:38

42:05 This conceptual subsequent cognizer that is induced by direct perceiver? I Report an error in the passage at 42:05 Highlight the passage at 42:05

42:31 think it would be... It would be labeling I saw blue based on the direct perception of blue. Good, good, good, excellent. Okay, what about a conceptual subsequent cognizer that is induced by inferential cognizer? Anybody? Report an error in the passage at 42:31 Highlight the passage at 42:31

43:16 It would be the second moment of somebody realizing that there's a fire on the mountaintop because they see smoke rising. Report an error in the passage at 43:16 Highlight the passage at 43:16

43:30 Good. Excellent. Report an error in the passage at 43:30 Highlight the passage at 43:30

43:43 Well, why don't we dedicate? And then if people want to stay and go through more examples, we can. And if people want to do discussion groups after class and want me to stay, For that, I'm happy to stay for that. Report an error in the passage at 43:43 Highlight the passage at 43:43

44:05 Well, I don't know about exciting, but if it helps people to stay, then I'm happy to do that. Report an error in the passage at 44:05 Highlight the passage at 44:05

44:24 It could just be half an hour or 15 minutes or 10 minutes or whatever. Report an error in the passage at 44:24 Highlight the passage at 44:24

· · · silence, 1 minute

45:25 nyavame. Report an error in the passage at 45:25 Highlight the passage at 45:25

45:36 Reed, all the way, Corway, shink, kum, dee. Satsang with Report an error in the passage at 45:36 Highlight the passage at 45:36

45:46 Mooji Report an error in the passage at 45:46 Highlight the passage at 45:46