I think that this is our last class in the series, right? Yes. And welcome to all our visitors. It's nice to have you. But I'll warn you in the beginning that it's very difficult text we're studying and it's hard to understand and we ourselves don't really understand it very well, so how could we possibly explain it? So if it seems a little bit, the discussion seems a little bit odd, I apologize in advance. Actually today I was trying to, so I'll read the text, this is why I'm kind of lazy, you know, so I probably wouldn't read it if I didn't have to.

[01:06]

But I enjoy, like many things that are good for us and that we enjoy, we don't do them unless we're kind of forced into it. So I'm glad to be forced into having to read this Shurangama Sutra and I was doing that today and I really became mixed up and confused. Partly it was my state of mind but also the text is guilty in part as well. It's very hard to understand this sutra, especially the particular part that we're going to discuss tonight. I would like to, this evening, go through, we can't necessarily read every word but kind of go through the whole expanse of the sutra as it speaks of, we began it last time, as it speaks of the nature of the consciousness in terms of the five skandhas, the six sense

[02:09]

doors, the twelve locations or contact realms and the eighteen consciousnesses. So I'll try to cover that tonight and that will be a good ending point because we're going to take up this sutra again sometime in the future whenever it is that we have another round of classes. We'll resume the study of the sutra so that's kind of a good stopping point. So I got so confused that I was trying to think, you know, now what is this sutra about and what does it have to do with anything and why are we studying this and so on. It's always good to return to those kinds of questions. So I was asking myself this and I was reminding myself that, well, the main thing is, as always in Buddhism, but not only in Buddhism, but in the spiritual journey, suffering.

[03:14]

First there's suffering and the recognition of suffering and the ultimate sort of built-in dissatisfaction of existence itself, even when things go well. So that's that. And then so in early Buddhism there was the antithesis of this, which is peace. The cessation of suffering. Cessation, blowing out, letting go, the ending of suffering. So this is early, basically that's early Buddhism, right? Suffering and the end of suffering and cessation. And then the great Mahayana pundits came along and said, well, where do you suppose this cessation of suffering is? Where would you find it? Is it in another location? The suffering is located over here and the cessation of suffering is located over there.

[04:17]

The cessation of suffering is located prior, I mean, anterior in time and otherwise located in space from the suffering. And the great Mahayana pundits said, that makes no sense. They actually proved logically that this couldn't be so. That actually the suffering, the cessation of suffering must be in the middle of the suffering. That the nature of the suffering to begin with must already be the cessation of itself. Which sounds funny in a way, but psychologically and spiritually turns out to be true. So they said things like, all dharmas are empty, meaning that they're already cessation. And then they said things like, form is emptiness, emptiness is form. In other words, suffering is cessation of suffering and cessation of suffering is nothing but the suffering. It's not two different things at some distance apart in space and time.

[05:24]

It's one thing, except we don't recognize its nature. So we have to wake up. This is the meaning of the word Buddha, of course, as you know. Is to wake up to the nature of the suffering and the cessation of suffering. And then we find some life that is deeply true and satisfying to ourselves. So far, good, that makes sense. So this is a statement about the nature of reality, right? That reality is suffering and cessation of suffering simultaneously. That's a description of reality. But then somebody might say, well that's good, I agree with that. I agree with that, I like that very much, I'm all for that. But here I am. Suffering. And my experience of the world only arrives at a place that I can call an experience because of my consciousness.

[06:34]

Because I have consciousness. I receive whatever this reality is. I agree that it's the way you say it is, but I only receive this reality in terms of consciousness. So then, well, we have to discuss then, what is consciousness? What is the nature of consciousness? So while the Madhyamaka school, schools of Mahayana Buddhism, the emptiness teaching schools discuss the nature of reality, the Yogacara schools discuss the nature of mind. In recognition of the fact that in order to practice we have to work with mind. The descriptions of reality are, it's important to be straight about that, and to have that clear, but it also is necessary to understand the subject. In a way, this is not quite right, but you could say that the doctrine of emptiness describes the object, ourselves as an object, and the world as an object, how it is.

[07:36]

But the Yogacara schools speak of the subject. How the mind works, how the consciousness perceives, and so on. So, this is, the Asurangama Sutra that we're studying is a sutra of the Yogacara school of Buddhism, and it's a sutra that is concerned with a discussion of the nature of mind, the nature of consciousness. And it turns out that, you could say, early Buddhism said, in effect, form, the world of stuff, suffering, the physical and mental world, form and emptiness are two different things. We've got to go from form to emptiness, nirvana. The Mayana school said, form and emptiness are one and the same thing, two names for the same thing, we have to understand.

[08:37]

And the Yogacara school says, mind is not form, not emptiness. So, it's another step in the dialectic, so to speak. So, that's what we're finding as we study this sutra, that initially, Ananda, who does not understand the nature of consciousness, is always speaking to Buddha, and no matter what he's always... Buddha's constantly disabusing him of all the different ways in which he thinks of consciousness as a something. He thinks of consciousness as if it were something, as if it were a thing in this world, like everything else. And we do, we think of ourselves as things in this world, like everything else. But consciousness is not a thing in this world, like everything else. It isn't a thing at all. And so, the Buddha is constantly pointing this out to Ananda,

[09:40]

and Ananda is saying, oh yeah, I get it, then it must be like this. And the Buddha says, no. And then he says, it's not like that either. And he keeps taking away all the notions that Ananda has of consciousness. And then he even says, you can't even say that consciousness is or isn't, because we could say, well, it's not a thing, it's a process, or it's not a thing, it's a force, or we can use all kinds of words, but he says, no, to even say that it's anything at all, to say that it is, to say that it even exists, or doesn't exist, both of those propositions would be incorrect. To say that consciousness is independent of the mind, and the object of the mind, is wrong. To say that it's dependent on the mind, or the object of the mind, is also wrong. So basically, all assertions that we would make about consciousness

[10:44]

always end up to be assertions about something. In fact, that is what an assertion is. An assertion is an assertion always about something. Whether we call it a physical thing, or a process, or an idea, or whatever, it's always something. So actually, it turns out that no assertions can be made about consciousness at all. And then we notice how many assertions we have in our mind about consciousness. We have a very distinct, if unexamined, ideas about consciousness that we deeply believe. In other words, we have very distinct ideas about who we think we are, that we are convinced. As I say, they're usually quite unexamined, but we have them, very strongly nevertheless. And we're very convinced, of course, this is how it is. This is who I am, this is what the world is, this is what a person is. But this sutra is telling us that actually, not only are we wrong about all that,

[11:44]

but it's that very wrongness about exactly that, that causes us to be, in the words of the sutra, upside down in relation to our whole approach to life. So the sutra is trying to turn us right side up by showing us through a kind of, what we have found to be, a kind of bizarre and not too logical Chinese style of logic. The Indians do better, I think, with logic. The Chinese logic is very strange, we're finding. And we don't know how much of that comes from the fact that Chinese as a language is very ill-suited to the expression of logical propositions, and how much of that is due to the fact that we might have a faulty English translation. It's hard to tell, we don't know Chinese, so we're in the dark. But anyway, we're finding as we go along with these arguments, that they seem like, what?

[12:47]

And I'm saying that because it's even worse this week. If you even imagine, but it's worse this week. So I'm going to start, and it's going to be very easy, or not easy, but brief, and maybe not even brief. Because rather than, it's formulaic. In other words, the sutra dutifully goes through the five skandhas, the six sense gates, the twelve ayatanas, which is the sense gates and objects, and the eighteen dhatus or realms, which is the sense gate, object, and consciousness that goes along with it. It goes through each, so there's a whole discussion about one through six, one through twelve, and one through eighteen. But it's formulaic. Once you get the first one, then you know the rest of them. So I actually did, more or less, go through and read all that.

[13:51]

But I don't recommend it. It makes you a little crazy. And we don't have to do that tonight. We just have to go through the first one of each of the sections. Except with the skandhas, we'll take up where we left off last time. Last time we discussed the first skandha, the skandha of form. This time we'll start where we left off with the skandha of feelings. And then we'll jump to the first member of each section and see if we can get through that part of it. So the word skandha means heap, a pile. And it's sort of like when you're doing your laundry. You make a pile of whites and a pile of darks. You have this big hamper and you sort it out. Well, it's like the mind is a big hamper full of dirty clothes, which we call me.

[14:55]

And we say, that's me. A big pile of dirty clothes. That's how it is. It's this big... My hamper is green. It's called a green cloth hamper. So I say, I'm this green cloth hamper full of all this dirty clothes. I don't know what's in there, but I see the green shape. That's me. So the Buddha said, no, no, no, that's an unsuccessful way of looking at your life. Instead of that, you should take the stuff out of the hamper and sort it into piles. One for lights, one for darks, and one for the in-betweens. One for delicates and one for permanent press. Five skandhas. The five skandhas are, first of all, the skandha of form. That means physical matter. Only one of them has to do with physical matter. So, you know, our culture is very concerned with this one. But that's only 20% of the stuff that's in the hamper. Think about that. So then, one is form, the other one, the second one, is feeling or sensation.

[16:00]

And that is the primordial, largely unconscious reaction that we have. Whenever there's perception of anything. And there's basically three kinds of reactions the Buddha taught. One is, I really want this, I would like to have it forever. The second one is, I hate this and I'm out of here. And the third one is, I'm confused, I kind of feel both those things, or neither. So those are the three reactions that we have to anything that we perceive. Those are called feelings. And the third one is called perception. Sometimes it's called thinking or conceptualization. Because we put together, as we all know, a bunch of inchoate impressions. The mind gathers all this together and sort of ties it up neatly and says, Oh, that's so-and-so, or that's such-and-such. So perception is actually conception.

[17:02]

That's the third skandha. And the fourth skandha is the activity, the life-going-forward activity that comes out of our perception. We perceive a world and automatically we think, I've got to do something about that. And so all the energy of our life that says we've got to do something about it is the fourth skandha of impulses, or thought formations, or there are various translations for that skandha, which has to do with, you know, like, I've got to do something about it. And then the last fifth skandha is called consciousness, awareness, the field of awareness in which all this takes place. So that's one. We could take those same clothes out of that hamper and we could sort them in a variety of different ways. Like we could say, let's put all the cotton things over here and all the wool things over there. We decided not to do it that way. We put the colored things and the white things and so on. So you could see that with any hampers of clothing, there's many, many ways that you could sort it out. Let's take all the things that are for summer

[18:03]

and all the things that are for winter and so forth and so on. So the skandhas are not an absolute existence of something. They're just a way of sorting out what's inside the hamper. And the virtue of having various ways of sorting things in the hamper out is that we would then recognize that it was a bunch of stuff in a hamper instead of me. And it's the me idea that is so troublesome. Because if it's about me, then why aren't all these people doing what I want? Why is it that, for example, I feel like my body should get younger? Why is it getting older? I don't like that. Things like that. Big things that are serious. So it's better to sort things out and see more clearly what it is that's in there rather than have this fundamental kind of idea like that.

[19:04]

So anyway, that's just a little bit about the skandhas. I'm doing this for the benefit of the guests who might not know what the skandhas are, assuming that everybody else knows perfectly well what the skandhas are, but maybe not. So that's why I thought maybe it would be valuable anyway for the rest of you. Now we're on the second skandha. The skandha of feelings. Now, feelings has to do with, like I say, emotions of recoiling or desiring, but it also has to do with physical sensations. It's the same thing. Because when we have a physical sensation, we feel a sensation. Like now I feel a scraping on the palm of my hand. And that's an immediate kind of a feeling which is either pleasant to me or not pleasant to me. It's the same thing, whether it's a mental or a physical object. So now Buddha is going to discuss the nature of that skandha of feeling. What is that really like? What does it amount to? He's talking to Ananda. He says, Ananda, consider the example of a person whose hands and feet are relaxed and at ease

[20:10]

and whose entire body is in balance and harmony. He is unaware of his life processes because there is nothing agreeable or disagreeable in his nature. In other words, nothing is going on, so there's nothing to pay attention to. However, so this is a state of, like he says, balance, happiness and ease without anything that the mind would turn its attention to that's agitating it or pleasuring it or in any way giving it any reason to. Look, just a kind of a free-floating feeling of well-being without any particular object. However, for some unknown reason, and this is very important, for some unknown reason, and like out of the blue, the person rubs his two hands together in the middle of emptiness. So literally, he starts rubbing his hands together.

[21:14]

Actually, it's unpleasant to do that because it starts the friction, it causes heat and it's unpleasant. So then he does that and sensations of roughness, smoothness, cold and warmth seem to arise from nowhere between his palms. It's amazing when you think about it. Just take your palms together and there are a number of different sensations that arise. When you do that, where did that come from? Right? How could that be? Is that in your palm? Where did that come from? So that's what he's going to analyze. So that happens out of nowhere. So this is like, for no apparent reason, this happens. So this is a very simple thing about rubbing your palms together, but it's also about the initial arising of sensation in the world for no apparent reason. Where there is just a feeling of stasis and well-being, for no apparent reason, this happens. And sensation, where there was none ever before, suddenly arises.

[22:17]

So he says, you should know that it is the same with the skanda of feeling. This is an example of the skanda of feeling or sensation. Ananda, all this illusory contact, it's illusory, this contact. Even though we experience it, what is the nature of it? It's illusory contact. It does not come from emptiness. In other words, empty space. We're rubbing our hands together. We're all the time surrounded by empty space. If it weren't for empty space, there wouldn't be anything. It's thanks to space, which nobody knows what that is exactly, space. What is space? It isn't anything. Space is not anything. But because there is somehow space, forms can exist within space. And when we rub our hands together, we're doing that in the middle of space. But the feeling that we have when we rub our hands together doesn't come from the space. It also doesn't come from the hands.

[23:22]

The reason for this, Ananda, is that if it came from the space, then since the space could make contact with the palms of the hands, why wouldn't the space make contact with the rest of the body? It should not be that emptiness chooses what it comes in contact with. If you say that the sensation that we feel is due to the space, then why don't we feel the same sensation all the time in the rest of our body? Why is it only when we rub our palms together that we feel that particular sensation? So it's not because of the space. If it came from the palms, then why can't it be felt without rubbing the palms together? If I just have one palm, why don't I feel it? I only feel it when I do this. I don't feel it when I do that. If it was in the palms, why wouldn't I feel it anyway, without rubbing the palms together? What is more, if it were to come from the palms,

[24:27]

then the palms would know when they were joined. Somehow if the palms had this capacity to create this kind of sensation, then they themselves would know that they were doing it. When they are separated, the contact that they generated would return to the arms, the wrists, the bones, and the marrow, and you should also be aware of the course of its entry. So somehow, if it was in the hands, this capacity, then the sensation would flow somehow from the hands. He's saying throughout the body you'd feel it elsewhere, if it were there. You may not buy this, but this is what it says. It should also be perceived by the mind because it would behave like something coming in and going out of the body. In that case, what need would there be to put the two palms together to experience what is called contact? In other words, we know already that if we cut our heads off, even though we rubbed our palms together, we wouldn't have that sensation,

[25:29]

because it depends on us having the brain and the nervous system. It's not just in the palms or in space. It's also in the brain and the nervous system and in the consciousness. But if it came from the consciousness, so it's not in the palms, it's not in space, and it's not in consciousness either, because if it came from consciousness, then why would we have to rub the palms together to experience it? Why wouldn't we just be able to say, OK, now I'm going to experience the feeling of the rubbing of the palms together. Who needs the palms? But we can't do that, even though we're very smart people. We might have a memory of it, we could have a memory of it, but the memory of it, we would know very clearly, is not the same thing as this actual sensation. So, all these elements seem to be relevant, the space, the palms, the mind, but none of them, if you look for that sensation, you don't find it in any of those different places, right? Therefore you should know, the Buddha concludes now,

[26:30]

having said all that, therefore you should know that the skanda of feeling is empty and false, because it neither depends on causes and conditions for existence, nor is spontaneous in nature. So this is the formula that ends all of these little arguments. In other words, what does it come down to? It comes down to the fact that we have to admit that we have a sensation when we rub the palms together. But if we try to analyze how that comes to be, we actually don't know. The reality status of that sensation, of the palms rubbing together, is something that actually is a great big cipher. All we know is that we have some sort of experience, but we don't know where it comes from or what its measure is. That's consciousness. Consciousness is the experience,

[27:34]

what enables us to have that experience. So he's saying, it's not that consciousness is independent of those conditions. He's not saying that without all this we wouldn't feel the rubbing of the palms. He's just saying that this all has to come together, but the experience of the rubbing of the palms together does not explain by all those conditions. It's not apart from the conditions, but neither is it in the conditions. Somehow it arises out of nowhere and passes away into nothing. We really don't know how or why. And when we say, I feel that sensation, all the words in that sentence are subject to great doubt. I feel that sensation. All those words are, how shall we say, conventional expressions. If we were to analyze any one of them, we would not be able to find what those words actually refer to. So it's not a matter of depending on causes and conditions,

[28:37]

nor is it outside of the causes and conditions. It's the spontaneous arising in the neighborhood of these things. And then he's going to go on and say the same thing about perception and also consciousness. But I think that I'll read the one about consciousness because consciousness is somewhat different. So I'll read that one, and then we'll pause for a moment and see. Everybody looks stricken over there. Sorry, folks. I'm only reading the sutras. Don't blame it on me. This is just what it says in the book. Actually, it's pretty good. Are you feeling better now? Oh, good. There you go. So, let's see. Yes. So, Ananda, this is the one about consciousness.

[29:46]

Now I'm skipping over perception and activity. They're interesting too, but I'll skip those. Consciousness. This is the fifth skanda. Ananda. The formula is the same. An example, and then an analysis of the example, and then a conclusion, which is always the same. So, Ananda. Consider, for example, a person who picks up a Kalavinka pitcher and stops up its two holes. A Kalavinka is a kind of a bird, a mythical bird. So this is apparently, maybe they had in China or somewhere, pitchers, vessels that were in the shape of this kind of a bird, and somehow they had two holes in them. Maybe it was like a double-mouthed pitcher or something like that. Anyway, suppose you pick up such a pitcher and you stop up its two holes. The person lifts up the pitcher, which as you know is filled with emptiness,

[30:50]

which is to say it's empty, nothing in it. So it's filled with emptiness, right? And walks a thousand miles. And he takes the pitcher to another country and puts it down there. You should know that the skanda of consciousness is the same way. Thus, Ananda, the space does not come from one place, nor does it go to another place. So if you take a pitcher and stop it up, therefore enclosing the space inside of it so that it can't escape, and take the pitcher to Japan, get in an airplane with the pitcher and take it to Japan, did you then take space? Can you do that? Can you take a piece of space from here and move it over there? No. The space didn't move from one place to the other.

[31:51]

See, space is just like consciousness, actually. Space enables us in a physical manner to exist, just the same way consciousness enables us to have experience and the illusion that we're alive and everything. But what is it? What is space? When you think about it, you realize that it's ridiculous, the idea that you're going to... We move some air, maybe, to Japan. That's true. But space is not the same thing as air. Air is in space. It's included in space, right? The space is what enables the air to be held inside of it. Space isn't air. So air we can move to Japan in a pitcher. But space, it seems absurd, doesn't it? The idea that you take a piece of space, right, and move it from one place to another. So consciousness is just the same. The reason for this ananda, in case you've wondered, you want to know why, don't you? Well, the reason for this ananda is that if it were to come from another place,

[32:56]

then when the stored-up emptiness in the pitcher went elsewhere, or stored-up space in the pitcher went elsewhere, there would be less space in the place where the pitcher was originally. A black hole. Makes sense, yeah. But it doesn't happen, you know? I mean, who knows what happens in space there? But in this planet... So how can that be? You took the space and you flew it to Japan, but there's no less space over here where you started from. So therefore it shows that you didn't really move that space to Japan at all. If it were to enter this region, when the holes are unplugged and the pitcher was turned over, you would see the space come pouring out, but you don't see that. Right? Makes sense, right? Therefore... Just take a one-step too far, right? Therefore... Therefore you should know that the skanda of consciousness is empty and false,

[34:04]

since it neither depends upon causes and conditions for existence nor is spontaneous in nature. So, again, it's pointing out that our conceptualization of consciousness is fine as far as it goes, but when you really examine it, you can't really conceptualize consciousness. You can't really assert anything about it. You don't really know what it is, the same way we don't really know what space is. I mean, space sort of logically seems to exist because of mathematics and stuff like that, but we don't really know what it is. It's like a logical category somehow, which really seems to exist, but what it is or how it exists, no one knows. And consciousness is exactly the same way. So, next, he's going to discuss the six entrances, which is the six senses,

[35:04]

the six sense gates, six sense doors, which are the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body, which is to say the sensation, the quality of the skin and so forth that enables us to feel sensation. That's five. And the last of the sense organs, according to the Buddhist analysis of mind, is mind. Mind is a sense organ. Each organ has a particular kind of object that it relates to. For example, you can't see a sound, but you can hear a sound. And you can't taste something that you see unless you put it up to your tongue. So each, in other words, each is like six different, totally different categories of sensory experience. And the mind can experience thoughts or emotions.

[36:11]

So the mind has its own kind of object, non-physical object. And plus, the sixth sense organ also interacts with the other five to produce the experiences of the other five sense organs. So now he's going to analyze these five sensory functions. So I'll start with the first one. He begins, and this is interesting and very important, the way that each one of these six begins. Moreover, Ananda, why do I say that the six entrances have their origin in the wonderful nature of true suchness, the treasury of the thus-come-one? So this is the whole point of all this.

[37:24]

A moment ago we were discussing the, so to speak, negative aspect of the fact that we were noticing, the Buddha was helping us to notice, that all of our experiences are inexplicable and unknowable, which gives us an unsettled feeling, perhaps. But he's saying, now he's saying, that this is because all of our experiences are none other than the wondrous mind of enlightenment. So enlightenment is not like elsewhere, and something other than some colored lights flashing, or like some of the movies that you see nowadays, cosmic kind of visions, which we think enlightenment is some kind of cosmic. It's not like that. It actually inheres in the actual nature

[38:24]

of our ordinary, everyday sensory experience, which we, by virtue of our habitual conceptualization, which arises for no reason originally, have reduced our experience of the world to something very small and unsatisfactory. But if we really paid attention to what it is that our experience is, we would actually recognize, eventually, that it's the limitless mind of Buddha. Or, that's the way it would be said in a Buddha Sutra, or you could say that the whole world is nothing but the mind of God. Something like that, depending on how you, whatever kind of explanation. But you see what's being said here. The world is already, this little world, that is so oppressive to us sometimes, in which we don't know where we came from to get here.

[39:25]

Who knows how you got here? We all know, logically, there was a time when we weren't here. And we all also know, logically, there was a time when we won't be here. You know, a time when we won't be here. But where did we come from, and where are we going? Nobody really knows that, right? Nobody has the faintest idea. Even though there's very smart scientists, human beings are brilliant, you know, brilliant human beings. The things they can think and do, unbelievable, you know. But nobody knows, has a clue even, as to where we came from and where we're going. And so what Buddha is saying is, where we came from and where we're going is the wondrous mind of Buddha, about which no assertions can actually be made, other than to give some sort of description like that, that doesn't really mean too much. Like the wondrous mind of Buddha or God or something. And furthermore, not only that, but that that place that we're going to and from which we came is actually this place that we're in right now.

[40:27]

And it's totally there through all acts of consciousness, because it is consciousness. And this big consciousness only comes forth when we rub our hands together or open our eyes or ears or nose or smell or hear or whatever it is. It's not contained and limited by all that, but it only comes up when that comes up. And we've reduced it down to something very small. And as a result of that, we're suffering, we're fighting with one another, we're grabbing something from each other because we think that we don't have it. When all the time we're swimming in this limitless ocean of reality, which is everywhere shining forth. Some other place in the sutra I think we read that it's as if we were a little bubble on the ocean. And this bubble on the ocean is, of course, the ocean. It's not separate from the ocean, right? It's a manifestation for a moment that the ocean throws up, right?

[41:29]

This little bubble. It's as if this little bubble, we're saying, Oh, you know, I'm so depressed. I'm just this little bubble. Where am I going? I don't know what I'm doing. It's awful. Meantime, you're actually the whole ocean. While you're complaining and saying all that, it's the ocean talking. So this is the situation that we're in. So here he says, now he says, so I'm saying this. Why do I say that the six entrances have their origin in the wonderful nature of true suchness, the treasury of the Vaisakhamana? Why do I say that? Ananda, although the eyes staring causes fatigue, the eye and the fatigue originate in enlightenment. Staring eyes give rise to the characteristic of fatigue. Because a sense of seeing is stimulated in the midst of the two false

[42:30]

defiling objects of light and dark, defiling appearances are taken in. This is called the nature of seeing. Apart from the two defiling objects of light and dark, this seeing is ultimately without substance. Thus, Ananda, you should know, I'm going to go through this whole thing and then go back to the beginning and explain a little bit the best I can. Thus, Ananda, you should know that seeing does not come from light or dark, nor does it come forth from the sense organ, the eye, nor is it produced from emptiness, from space. Although all those things have to be present, it's not in anyone, just the same as the analogy with the rubbing the palms, right? Why? If it came from light, then it would be extinguished when it's dark and you would not see darkness. But even when it's dark, you see darkness.

[43:31]

If it came from darkness, then it would be extinguished when it is light and you would not see light. Suppose it came from the eye, which obviously has nothing to do itself with light or dark. A nature of seeing such as this would have no self nature. I think what it means here is that if it came from the eye, how could the eye ever have anything to do with light and darkness? Inside the eye, there's nothing in it that connects with light or darkness. If it were in the eye, how would you see light and darkness? There's no way to get in there. Suppose it came forth from emptiness. When it looks in front of you, it sees the shapes of the defiling dust. Turning around, it would see your sense organ. If it came from the space, then the space would be seeing. We would say space is seeing. Everywhere you look around, it's like paranoia, like I was saying before. Everything is looking at me. The birds in the trees, the leaves on every tree, the air itself is looking at me. It's creepy. Well, it's not so, because they don't have the capacity to see.

[44:35]

So seeing doesn't come from space. Therefore, you should know that the eye entrance is empty and false, since it neither depends upon causes and conditions for existence nor is spontaneous in nature. So, this part about fatigue and everything, this is very interesting. Again, in all these discussions, the Surangama Sutra, despite the fact that the Buddha said in an early sutra that I do not discuss the beginnings of things, here the Surangama Sutra is actually discussing how it is. Because the problem with the Surangama Sutra is that since everything, without exception, is none other than the light of Buddha's eye, so to speak, or shining reality itself, or God, how is it that everything is such a mess? How did all this happen? Why isn't the world just a beautiful pulsing glow? Without all the stuff in it, it bumps into itself.

[45:41]

You know, like skin abrasions and cuts and bruises, toothaches and wars and pain and suffering and misunderstanding. Why would all that have to exist if everything were truly that? So that's why the Surangama Sutra sort of assays a kind of explanation of all that. And it's very much like here. Earlier it said, the palms are rubbed together for no apparent reason. Here it says, the eye's staring causes fatigue. And the fatigue originates in enlightenment. And the staring and the fatigue cause there to be, kind of like the Bible, and let there be light. Let there be light. So that causes light. Because of the eyes and the staring and the fatigue, light comes to be.

[46:42]

Where once there was no light, there was a kind of primordial perfection. Now because of the eyes and the staring, light comes to be. And when there's light, there's darkness. And light and darkness, though, are just a product of this fatigue. And then we have sight, which he then proves doesn't come from the light and darkness, doesn't come from the eyes, doesn't come from the space, and yet doesn't exist apart from them, independent of them, neither comes from them, nor is independent of them. So, I was thinking about this today, and I think that the idea of fatigue is, what it really amounts to is, duration, right? Duration in time. As soon as there's duration in time, we end up with this world, us sitting in this room,

[47:43]

wearing clothes and having bodies that age, and so forth and so on. Because of this initial arising of time and duration, step by step by step, the whole world is created. Now, this is not a mistake. It's not that we're in exile from this perfection that we should have maintained, but didn't. It's that the enlightenment itself needed to unfold in this way. This is what it needed to do. This was its nature, was to unfold in this way, creating a world in which eventually there would be the kind of consciousness that we have, that would have the capacity to create a very small world of suffering,

[48:47]

and to turn that world around and open spiritually. So I personally, to me this sounds not so different from the story of the Bible, in which, very similarly, have you ever thought about the Bible? In the Bible, when it says, let there be light, it doesn't mean light, when it says that. Because it's only much later that the sun is created. Did you ever notice that? The creation of the sun comes much later than the light. So when it says, let there be light, it doesn't mean light. Physical light doesn't mean that. I don't know what it means exactly, but it means something like consciousness that's neither light nor dark. And then later on, there's the distinction between earth and sea and light and dark, and then out of that comes all these things. And then comes the necessary problem, which has within it the seeds of an opening.

[49:55]

So I think this is... the spiritual journey, you know, is a kind of a people thing, don't you think? You don't see... Occasionally we have mice in our house. I never heard about the mice discussing their spiritual journey. I don't think they have that issue in their lives. The mice don't worry about such things. It's not their destiny. But the human being has this destiny because of the kind of consciousness that we have. We have this destiny to be those who would go on this journey. And we're not doing this all by ourselves or only for our own benefit. Because we are part of this great big world and everybody has a job in the world. I mean, the mice's job is to eat little holes in your house and feed themselves and all that. That's their job, right? So you shouldn't complain if you have mice because that's their job, to be mice.

[50:56]

But our job is to go on this spiritual journey. Somehow, we don't really know how, it is that this journey influences the rest of the universe, but it definitely does, we know. And that's what I think, again, to return to the Genesis story, when it says that human beings have dominion, I think that's really not... That's a mistranslation. I think it means human beings have this job, a unique job of spiritual unfolding. It's a kind of a duty. And that's why when you don't participate in it, in whatever way that you're given to participate in it, and there are many ways, we all know, to participate in it, you feel funny. You know, like, it doesn't feel right. Either you feel funny or you feel nothing, which is another option. And a lot of people take that option.

[51:56]

You know, you can feel nothing by running around a lot. You can, like, click on various things on the Internet and zip all over the place and buy things. You can become addicted to something and so forth and so on, as many people are. So you can not feel... Or if you feel, you feel funny. You know, unless you engage in this journey to turn around the consciousness that you possess just by virtue of being human. You don't have to be smart. I mean, every human being, regardless of their intelligence or kindness or whatever it is, every human being, by virtue of having the light of consciousness in them, has this capacity and this obligation and necessity. And unless you take the journey, you feel funny. The journey is to turn it around,

[53:01]

to open up this small world. And when you open up this small world and open the doors wide, then you see only connection. And with connection, there's only this kind of compassion. Not compassion born of pity. Like, thank God that he's the suffering one, not me, so I better, like, give him a cent of a card. But the recognition that every single one is you. And therefore, naturally, your heart goes out, right? To everything and everyone, naturally. Because you turn the mind around and you saw that your mind is not something very small, but it's something very big. That's how consciousness is. So that's the journey. So that's the first of the six sense doors, which, and the other five go the same way.

[54:04]

They're seen to have no... to transcend their conditions and yet not be independent of them. Well, why don't I stop there and see? Maybe there's things to talk about before we launch into the 12 and the 18, which is only two. I'm curious as to what the case is for activity. Oh yeah? Okay. Let's see. There's a nice one. I like this one. It has to do with... Activity means, kind of like life force, or energy of life, which is always actually mixed up. Let's see. Fort Scanda. Ananda, consider, for example,

[55:12]

a swift rapids, whose waves follow upon one another in orderly succession. The ones behind, never overtaking the ones in front. Okay? So that's the example for activity. A swift rapids. Endless succession of waves, one after the other. You should know that it is the same with the Scanda of activity. Ananda, thus the nature of the flow does not arise because of emptiness, nor does it come into existence because of the water. It is not the water and yet, so it's not the space, and it's not the water, and yet it is not separate from either the emptiness, or space, or the water. The reason for this, Ananda,

[56:13]

is that if it arose because of emptiness, then the inexhaustible emptiness throughout the ten directions would become an inexhaustible flow and all the worlds would inevitably be drowned. So, if this flow of water were caused by the emptiness, then everywhere would be a flow of water, we'd all be swimming all the time and eventually getting tired and drowning. This is the kind of logic the sutra is based on. So, let's not look too closely, although it's amusing in a way, and in a certain way it sort of makes sense. You believe it in a certain way, but somehow it doesn't sound like the logic we're used to. It doesn't sound like the logic we're used to. So, it's not because of space. Now, let's talk about is it because of the water? If the swift rapids existed

[57:17]

because of the water, then their nature would differ from that of water and the location and characteristics of its existence would be apparent. If their nature were simply that of water, then when they became still and clear, they would no longer be made up of water. So, somehow, if they're water, if the waves of this swift current are caused by the water, if that explains it, then, I mean, there's all kinds of water, so they must be caused by the water but different from the water, right? Because they're not water. So, if they were different from the water, caused by the water, then there would have to be some differentiation between them and water and then that differentiation between them and the water would be apparent and you'd see the waves somewhere where there wasn't water.

[58:19]

But you never see that. You only see them where there's water. On the other hand, if they were just water, period, then when they became still and clear, they would no longer be water because... It's kind of a pretty subtle thing here, but a wave... What it's saying is a wave is sort of water. It's water, but it's not exactly water. You can't say it's water and you can't say it's not water. If you say it's water, then water doesn't always have waves. So, if the wave is caused by the water, there must be some waviness to the water that's different from the water, then why don't you see that waviness somewhere else outside the water? On the other hand, if it's the same thing as the water and there is no extra kind of waviness that makes it, then when the wave no longer was a wave but only water, it would disappear. Because nature is unitary, then it would have to be a wave

[59:21]

and if it wasn't a wave, it would disappear. So, it's actually a kind of sophisticated and subtle logic which is almost difficult to grasp, but it's a kind of... What would you call it? Well, it's very similar, actually, and many people have written about this. It's very similar to the literary... current literary technique called deconstruction, where you take any kind of a structure and you look at it closely enough until it disappears, until it proves itself to be self-contradictory, is basically what it is. And you can really do that with anything if you look closely enough. We can take a powerful microscope and we can deconstruct ourselves and we can look at our bodies and we can say, well, this is not a body. Actually, mostly what it is is empty space, which is true, right? Literally.

[60:22]

So, it's like that. You can deconstruct anything and that's the kind of logic it is. It's actually pretty ironclad. You can't really refute it. And it does point out the fact that most of the things that we think and believe are only conventional realities, that they can't really be examined. And if you examine them thoroughly, they don't hold up. I think that's true, personally. I actually believe that. So, that's the kind of logic that it is. So, he's saying it can't be this ongoing... So, our activity of our lives is like an ongoing rush of current. It's not caused by our life and it's not caused by something outside of our life. Suppose it were to separate from emptiness and water. There isn't anything outside of emptiness because everything is included in space.

[61:27]

And outside of water, there isn't any way. So, you can't separate it from emptiness and water. Nor can you say that it's reducible to emptiness and water. Therefore, you should know that the skanda of activity is empty and false since it neither depends upon causes and conditions for existence nor is spontaneous in nature. So, we all have life force, just like this current. This is actually in some of the texts of Abhidharma texts. They liken the ongoingness of our lives through a lifetime and even past into new lifetimes as being like a rushing stream going by. You can't take a stream and put it in a box and say, Here, I've got the stream here. If you were to get a siphon and try to put it in a pail,

[62:31]

you could get a pail of water out of it but you could never say that was the stream. So, what is the stream? It isn't anything. It's an ongoing process. But even to say a process, what is a process? It's just a word that we use to describe something. We don't really know what it is. The ongoing activity of our lives is like that. It's a stream. It's a kind of a flow of desire, devotion, forward moving. Even if somebody said, OK, that's it. I'm stopping right here. I'm not thinking. I'm not growing old. I'm not breathing. Nothing. You can't do it. Nobody can decide to do that because we're all in that flow and no matter what we decide. Of course, we could jump off a bridge or something and end our life. We could do that. But a Buddhist thought would say, Well, what you've done there is you've set up a tremendous...

[63:33]

It's like throwing a giant boulder into the stream. Kerplunk! It definitely makes a difference. But the stream goes on. The stream's still going on. Now there's a kind of a thing that has to flow around. So, yeah, there's a transformation there. But does the stream stop? No. It just keeps flowing. So, in this analogy, the causes and conditions is the stream or the water and each action is over the rapids? Well, the causes and conditions is the space and the water. That's the causes and conditions. And what it's saying is that the stream is neither explainable or contained in space or water nor is it something outside of the space or the water. It's neither one of those two possibilities. And what does that mean? The actual nature of the stream is the wondrous mind of Buddha. Consciousness itself, experience itself,

[64:36]

all the activity of our senses, all the activity of our skandhas, everything in our lives is nothing other than the beautiful reality of Buddha's mind, which we don't know. That's what it is, always what it is. It's just that we don't know that and we don't live that and we don't appreciate it and we're missing out on something really great. So, if you are inspired by these words of the sutra, then you think to yourself, well, now how am I going to get in on that? That sounds like a really good thing. How am I going to get in on it? And the answer to that question is you get in on it by devoting yourself to your spiritual practice. Becoming awakened in our practice is the recognition. And when we use terms like the wondrous mind of Buddha, it can make it seem very distant and highfalutin or something,

[65:37]

exotic. Maybe it's like we have to be Asian or something. But I don't think. I think that it's not that unusual or impossible to feel as if and maybe many people in this room have felt sometimes in a moment as if yes, it's perfect that I'm here at this moment and it's perfect that my life is what it has been and is what it is. How could it have been otherwise? I'm grateful, you could feel. I'm grateful for the gift of being alive right now, which is a completely gratuitous and unbelievable experience that I can see,

[66:40]

that I can hear, that I can smell, that I can communicate. Whoa! What a thing! And I'm worried about paying the rent. The rent will take care, don't worry about it. Just appreciate it. So this kind of thing, this is not a mystery, right? And I think that through spiritual endeavors more and more one can feel this kind of way about life. Not that one would feel it necessarily every moment, but I think one could also every moment not be too far out of touch with it. And in some moments feel it with a rush of emotion even. I think it's possible. So I think that's what the text is meaning to say. So that's what it says about activity. Anything else that we should look at in what has transpired so far?

[67:41]

I think it sometimes can be misleading to call it Buddha's Mind as if it existed only after Buddha. I mean, we all know that, but I think for some reason given here you get the sense that at some point Buddha was born and then there was Buddha's Mind. Right, Buddha as an historical figure. In the Mahayana Sutras, as we know, the word Buddha stands for something other than a person who taught. It stands for a kind of a principle of reality rather than a person or figure or even a particular concept. Well, okay, I think I will just read to you without too much of an explanation, just so that I can feel that I did my duty, and we can close this up. The first of the twelve ayatanas and the first of the eighteen

[68:46]

dhatus. Oh, I see. I can't remember the explanations. So I remember that there's the five skandhas and then the six sense doors, I explained, and then for some reason the style of Buddhist analysis is to say there's a list of six sense doors, and then there are twelve I think they call them kind of like locations, because the sense door is nothing in and of itself. If the world were full of a bunch of eyes and ears and tongues rolling around there wouldn't be too much experience going on, unless there was something that you could taste with the tongue and see with the eye and hear with the ear, right? So once the eye makes contact with something that can be seen then there's a location, it's called

[69:47]

maybe one translation we could use is a location. So there's six doors and twelve locations, and the twelve locations are simply the six doors, repeated again, plus the six appropriate objects. So there's an ear and a sound, an eye and a sight object, a tongue and a taste, and so forth. So the twelve, the first of the twelve. Moreover, Ananda, why do I say that the twelve places so here he uses the translation places why do I say that the twelve places are basically the wonderful nature of true suchness the treasury of the thus come one that's very much the same as you said in relation to the six doors. Why do I say that that's the nature of the twelve places? Ananda,

[70:48]

look again at the trees in the Jada Grove and the fountains and pools that's where they're sitting there as all this is going on they're sitting in this beautiful grove. Look at the trees in this grove Ananda, and the fountains and the pools. What do you think? Do these things come into being because the forms are produced and thus the eyes see or because the eyes produce the characteristics of form? So, you know, we see these things where do they come from? Do they come from the things or the eyes? Ananda, if the organ of sight were to produce the characteristics of form, then the nature of form would be obliterated when you see emptiness, which is not form. Once it was obliterated, everything that is manifest would disappear. Since the characteristics of form would then be absent, who would be able to understand the nature of emptiness? The same is true of emptiness. Then emptiness would be obliterated by form.

[71:51]

If, moreover, the defiling objects of form were to produce the eyes seeing then seeing would perish upon looking at emptiness which is not form. In other words, if the form if the something produced the seeing, then when there was nothing there seeing would disappear forever. But it doesn't. Even when there's nothing there the eyes see darkness, right? If you turn all the lights out or if you were somehow in space you'd see space. You'd see like darkness or whatever. There'd be an experience of consciousness of seeing something. So, it's not the object. Because then if there was no object, you wouldn't see anything. And you do. Okay? So, then it says if, moreover Yeah. So, therefore, you should know that neither seeing nor form nor emptiness has a location. And thus the two places of form

[72:56]

and seeing are empty and false. Their origin is not in causes and conditions, nor do their natures arise spontaneously. He doesn't seem to discuss Oh, yeah. First he says if the organ produced the characteristics, he disproves that by saying that when you saw emptiness it would destroy form. And then he says So, anyway. Using the same, exactly the same kind of logic in the same kind of way, he ends up to the same conclusion that neither seeing nor form has a location and their origin is not in causes and conditions, nor do their natures arise spontaneously. In other words, they're nothing other than the wondrous ineffable, unexplainable unlocatable, non-is, non-is-not nature of reality which is peaceful and blissful

[73:58]

all the time. So, then I think you get the picture. So we don't have to do this again, okay? I don't want to do it anymore. There's the 18 realms. I forgot there's also the 7 elements which is the same story here. So it's amazing. Can you imagine sitting there and reading this sutra? No wonder I'm such a wreck. I'm going away tomorrow. I have all these things to do, you know what I mean? It's impossible. And I'm sitting there reading this, you see. So, no wonder. Now I understand why. Okay, so. But now I'll read you the end of this section, which is very inspiring and different, wonderful. And then we'll call it quits. Okay. So after all, explaining all this

[75:01]

must have taken days, weeks maybe they're all sitting there listening to the Buddha explaining this. The Buddha says if this conscious mind does not come from anywhere you should know that the same is true of the mind, which makes distinctions and the seeing, hearing, awareness and knowing which are all complete and tranquil don't come from anywhere. Their nature is without an origin. They and emptiness, earth water, fire and wind, the 7 elements are together called the 7 elements their true natures are perfectly fused and all the treasury of the thus come one fundamentally devoid of production and extinction. That's the end of all his teaching. Then he says

[76:04]

And so you do not realize that the seeing and hearing are the treasury of the Buddha. And you do not discover that knowing is the same way. You should contemplate these 6 locations of consciousness. Are they the same or different? Are they empty or existent? Are they neither the same nor different? Are they neither empty nor existent? You basically do not know that in the treasury of the Buddha the nature of consciousness is bright and knowing. Enlightened brightness is the true consciousness. The wonderful enlightenment is tranquil and pervades the dharma realm. It encompasses the emptiness of the 10 directions and issues forth in it. How can it have a location? It is experienced to whatever extent

[77:06]

is dictated by the law of karma. Ignorant of this fact people in the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes which arise from the discrimination and reasoning processes of the conscious mind are nothing but the play of empty words which have no real meaning. This is for those of you who are familiar with my poetry. Now you understand. Laughter Right? See Peter, now you get how to read the poetry. The play of empty words that have no real meaning. This is the world we live in.

[78:09]

At that time Ananda and the Great Assembly filled with the subtle wonderful instruction of the Buddha were peaceful in body and mind and were without obstructions. According to the mythology of the sutras the Buddha has the power to I'm explaining this and you either appreciate it or not but then we go on with our lives but if I were the Buddha according to the mythology of the sutra then you would hear it and instantly everything would be transformed just like happens here. They become peaceful in body and mind and were without obstructions. Everyone in the Great Assembly because there were a lot of people there listening in became aware that his or her mind pervaded the ten directions. They felt that.

[79:10]

This is why we don't really have to be afraid of dying, right? Because we're not going anywhere. The mind pervades the ten directions beholding emptiness in the ten directions just as intimately as one might look at a leaf or an object held in one's hand. All the things that exist in the world were the wonderfully bright inherent mind of enlightenment. That's how they saw everything. The essence of the mind was completely pervading and contained the ten directions meaning infinitely in all directions was contained in the mind. They bowed to the Buddha and placed their palms together having obtained what they never had

[80:16]

attained before. Then, facing the Buddha, Ananda spoke verses in praise of the Buddha. And Ananda said the wonderfully deep Dharani which is like a spell a teaching spell that the Buddha was weaving these explanations the wonderfully deep Dharani the unmoving honored one the foremost surangama king is seldom found in the world it melts away my upside down thoughts gathered in a million kalpas a kalpa is a very long time so I needn't endure asamkhaya eons to obtain the Dharma body in other words, my mind creating this very small suffering world had been habituated to doing that for many many millions and gazillions of years of this stream flowing of habit

[81:18]

I had been looking at the world in that way but now, hearing the Buddha speak these magical spells of teaching I don't have to go through that many years of retraining my mind just now I get it I wish now to achieve the result and become an honored king like in other words, a Buddha who then returns to save as many beings as there are sand grains in the Ganges I offer this deep thought to those who are as countless as the moats of dust of the Buddha lands to repay the kindness shown by me the Buddha in obedience or obeisance, in reverence I ask the Buddha to certify my vow to enter the five turbid evil realms if there is even one being

[82:19]

who hasn't become a Buddha at death I will not reach for nirvana may the exalted hero's awesome strength his kindness and compassion search out and dispel even the most subtle of my doubts causing me to quickly attain supreme enlightenment and sit in the bodhi mandala of the worlds of the ten directions should even the shunyata nature emptiness nature entirely melt away this vajra mind will never waver that's the end so that's a kind of wonderful ending Ananda receives this explanation at the end of it he says perfect, I understand now my whole bad way of thinking

[83:23]

is reversed and I'm so happy and grateful recognizing the gift that it is to be alive in the world, knowing what the world really is that I hereby say for sure that I'm going to devote myself from here on out only to benefiting beings and if there's one being anywhere and I'm even going to go to the nasty rotten places where they are, wherever they are whatever their condition, I will go to that place and I will be in that condition for their benefit shirking no responsibility and not thinking that any place there could be would be too hard a place to go, I'll go there and until every single one of the infinite number of sentient beings is made glad and happy by this activity of mine until then I will not seek peace, but I'll effortless I'll constantly make tireless effort

[84:23]

on behalf of these beings forever and ever until they're all saved and peaceful then I'll take a break, and I promise and even if emptiness itself were to blow away this vow of mine which comes out of appreciation of this powerful teaching of Srimad-Bhagavatam will never end he says and that's the end of this third volume in Master Hua's translation so thanks to everybody for attending this series of classes I always get more out of it than you do no doubt, and I always enjoy it much more I'm sure than you do and I hope that we all should live long enough that we can have another series of classes on the Shurangama Sutra and then finish the reading of it thank you thank you so much for eliminating this text

[85:28]

I, and many of us I think would never read this and I really appreciate it so much thank you well the Mahayana Sutras we have to say are unreadable we have to read them in this way together especially nowadays when our reading habits have been greatly reduced because of the modern way of reading and speed and all that when I was teaching high school I was shocked to realize that very intelligent high school students could not read Charles Dickens because the sentences were too complicated and too many clauses, dependent clauses lengthy sentences so nobody can read this kind of thing anymore so we have to do it together once I had a three year class on the Avatamsaka Sutra which is something like

[86:32]

two thousand pages long and I'm working, I keep mentioning it because I'm working my way up to doing it again that was a really good class yeah, so ok, thanks everybody focus

[86:47]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ