Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 46-minute talk, Ven Jampa Gendun opens with a guided inquiry — searching the body’s six sense consciousnesses for a findable “I” and coming up empty — then uses that fresh experience to introduce the Mind Only School’s account of consciousness. He explains the storehouse consciousness, a repository of karmic seeds that generates all experience, illustrating with chocolate cake why pleasure is rooted in one’s own karma rather than inherent in any object. The commentary then distinguishes three types of phenomena: imaginary natures (conceptual fabrications), dependent natures (things arising from causes and conditions), and thoroughly established natures (things empty of our conceptual overlay). A sustained example — two people in a field naming a tree — shows how a word or symbol becomes more vivid and real to us than the actual thing it represents. Part of a progressive series on the nature of mind and reality; earlier sessions in the sequence are assumed.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 10 HoM 1993 08 25.mp3
UUID: 5f68805b-2939-448a-9001-612ba2f71629
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1993-08-25
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.0 minutes
Words: ~6,153
The body consciousness that which experiences objects of touch. And finally, the mental consciousness, that which knows thoughts, knows mental images. You looked and you looked and searched. And there are only physical and mental events. It’s not there.
It generated a sense of I searched and I searched. I thought it was there, and I couldn’t find it. It’s not there. And bring your mind back to the breath. We assert your sense of identity or I.
I am sitting on a cushion. I am listening. I will listen to a talk. I am an Australian. I am a human being.
I exist. And slowly becoming aware of your body. Just gently, in your own good time, becoming aware of your surroundings. So are you all back? You know what?
I think I should perhaps it’s good to reemphasize the fact that throughout our analysis of the nature of the eye, we’re never refuting the existence of the eye. The eye exists. You can’t refute something that exists. Eye exists. But we the eye which is the object of our misconception, misconceived I doesn’t exist.
The I which is the the object of ignorance doesn’t exist. The I which is, ignorance of our wisdom and our consciousness exists. I exist. I’m an American. I’m a male.
There’s no problem. It’s a misconceived eye. And the miss the misconception of the misconceived I, which is problematic. That’s what we’re trying to work through. So we’re looking at the the second of the four stages in coming to in the development of a an awakening mind.
It’s trying to realize the ultimate nature of reality as a means of removing ignorance from which completely from our mind, is the root of all the afflicted emotions, therefore, the root of all our troubles and sufferings. We’re looking at the second of at least of the four stages, the mind only school, the mind only stage. And there hopefully will be be able to emphasize a few of the ideals that we want to bring out at this particular stage. So the mind only school asserts that each living being has what is called a mind basis of all, a mind basis of all. A it is a neutral consciousness which serves as a repository for karmic seeds.
Like, it’s actually called the storehouse consciousness. You know, all our actions, verbal actions, mental actions, physical actions, create a kind of a potency. Some, some, creative power which can bring, you know, just like a seed, an actual seed has has a certain potency. It has this ability to bring about, to generate a particular type of product, a sprout, a flower, whatever. Our actions implant potencies, which we’re calling seeds, upon the mind bases of all.
The mind bases of all there’s like the field in which all these seeds are planted. It’s a repository, a treasury of these seeds. When one of these seeds is activated, just like in the in the case of a flower seed, it simultaneously produces a perceiving subject and a perceived object. Simultaneous from one seed comes, for example, an eye consciousness and, let’s say, a book. Eye consciousness which sees book and the eye consciousness which is the object the book which is the object of that eye consciousness.
They arise simultaneously. Generally when we we think of seeing, the object exists prior to our seeing it. There’s the watch and that visual image comes, you know, the light comes light waves reflect off the visual image, off the watch. They come into our eye, into contact our retina, and they cause an image of the watch to appear in my mind. I generate an eye consciousness.
So there’s a cause and effect. The object, the watch, is the cause and the effect is an eye consciousness which perceives the watch. Here they’re saying that these two arise simultaneously, the watch and the eye consciousness perceiving the watch. They have they have they arise from a single karmic seed, a potency. The watch and the eye consciousness perceiving the watch are not substantially different.
That is to say, they are they come from the same substance, this one karmic seed. They’re both produced from the same cause. The same substance that is this this karmic seed. So, you know, we are continually experiencing the effects of the activation of these karmic seeds within our mind. So this here, we’re we’re introducing a, you know, we’re we’re introducing a few a few ideas at this at this stage.
We’ve we’ve introduced a few ideas at the Hīnayāna stage. The idea that just because something appears doesn’t mean it exists. That things can appear, but in fact, they don’t have any reference in reality. They don’t exist in reality. It’s a it’s a mere appearance.
That idea of falsity, we’ve sort of we’re getting familiar with that idea. Here, we’re going to begin to familiarize ourselves with more and more ideas. The idea of karma as these karmic seeds, having the ability to influence our experience, causing all of our experience. The things from the point of view of these karmic seeds, which are implanted on this mind basis of all this repository, bring about all our experiences, feelings, experiences, whatever whatever appears to our minds. It’s caused by these seeds.
So we’re introducing the idea that karma, our previous actions, that our minds are not blank slates, that they’re conditioned. And this conditioning affects what and how we experience. That it’s it’s just not like our mind is simply not a screen upon which images are sort of shown upon, But it it plays a great part in the process of what actually appears to our consciousness. Are we are conditioning all our past actions enter into the process of perception in terms of these karmic seeds. So the it’s it’s we’re introducing this idea of that the mind is a participate participating in our experience, that somehow our experiences aren’t forced upon us from the outside, from an objective independent world.
One idea. You know, we we are continually experiencing the the effects of the activation of these karmic seeds, and we are continually creating new seeds by our various actions and planting new seeds into this mind basis of all. So it is from in the mind only school. It is this mind basis of all which takes rebirth. It is, you know, you know, it is it carries our unique evolutionary history on it in terms of these karmic seeds, the various actions that we’ve created, the way that our consciousness is conditioned by our actions.
So this is what goes on to take rebirth. Everything that we experience is a product of the ripening of these seeds. We meet a particular object condition. And this you know, I’ve talked about the notion of two types of causes. One type of cause is substantial cause.
The other is called a cooperative condition. For example, we take a seed, a flower seed. That’s a substantial cause of the flower. We place it in earth and water moisture. That earth, water, moisture, sunlight is the cooperative condition.
So of an experience, no matter what it may be, a visual experience, a feeling experience, the substantial cause is our karma, these seeds within our own mind. But they are activated just like the flower seed is activated by a cooperative condition, earth, water. Without that earth and water, this seed is not activated. Likewise, without a particular objective condition, then this this karmic seed is not activated. So, you know, when you eat a piece of chocolate cake, we have the sense that the that the that the pleasurableness I always bring up chocolate cake, don’t I?
Anyway, the pleasurableness is somehow inherent in that piece of chocolate cake. But there’s something just good about chocolate cake. Right? I mean, everybody knows that. That there’s something there’s something in in the in the in the in the molecules of that chocolate cake which they’re pleasurable molecules.
It’s not coming from my side. It seems to be inherent in that. But what here we’re saying is that the experience of pleasure in its in association with that, that chocolate cake acts as a cooperative condition, which activates a karmic seed bringing about a feeling of pleasure. And the the substantial cause of that feeling of pleasure is one’s own karma, but it’s activated in in dependence upon that piece of chocolate cake. But we don’t but what we see is we we we we associate that feeling of pleasure with the piece of chocolate cake.
And therefore, we we we sense that that that pleasurableness in here is in that piece of chocolate cake. And therefore, we we we develop attachment for it. I want that. I wanna incorporate that piece of chocolate cake into my very being. Failing to realize it’s simply a cooperative condition.
It’s not the substantial cause of of the pleasurable feeling. If if it was inherently pleasurable, then we should it should no matter how many pieces of chocolate cake we ate, it should we should always derive pleasure from it. And then we could have you know, we can go in a cake shop and just sit there all day long eating chocolate cake, and it should be, you know, continual bliss. But they reached to the point where it’s not blissful anymore. It gets disgusting.
It gets you know, and it gets sick and you get sick. So it’s in there’s no pleasurable. There’s no pleasure inherent in that object that we believe it do. That’s we assume that. Therefore, out of that, we develop attachment.
The same works for for aversion. We’ve we we, the repulsive quality is also inherent in the object. And therefore, we want the object to get away from us. If we if we can remove that object from our field, then we can we we can, experience the lack of displeasurable feelings, at least neutral feelings. So the the this mind basis of all is the is the basis for all six types of sense consciousnesses.
Six types of sense consciousnesses. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mental sense consciousnesses. So now we’ve got seven sense seven consciousnesses so far. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mental sense consciousness, and the mind bases of all. The the the the mind bases of all is likened to an ocean, and out of this ocean waves arise.
And the waves are like the very sense consciousnesses arising along with their objects. But the waves are never separate from the ocean. They’re just different manifestations of water, of ocean water appearing in different forms, but the same substance as the ocean, that they arise out of the ocean. The mind basis of all, the mind only school asserts an eighth type of consciousness, which is called an afflictive mind, an afflictive mind. Maybe some of you have heard the Sanskrit term, is Alāyavijñāna.
Alaya Vijñāna is the mind basis of all. The afflictive consciousness, afflictive mind is the Kleshamanas (Manas). Kleśa?
Afflictive? Vijñāna. Afflictive consciousness. This is so this is the seventh conscious. The mind bases of all is eighth consciousness.
The afflictive mind equals ignorance. It so we’re talking about the afflictive consciousness. It is the ignorant moment of consciousness that instantaneously follows a sense consciousness, causing the outer perceived and inner perceived aspects to appear as separate entities. The first moment of sense consciousness is free from ignorance, but it is so swift one is not aware of it and all one’s conceptual notions follow on on the basis of following the following minute moment, the klesha mind, the afflicted mind. I’m going to try to bring out some important points as we go along because, you know, we’re trying to to familiarize ourselves with perhaps new ways of thinking about the mind and the nature of reality.
And this is we’re evolving ourselves in a process of familiarization with new ways of thinking. And each level, there’s certain new ideas which are being presented. And, you know, like, as I mentioned in walking up this ladder, each rung taking us a little bit higher. So, you know, at at the at the Hīnayāna stage, we learned that that not all appearances can be trusted. We just can’t go we cannot we can no longer be a naive realist, everything that appears to exist the way it appears.
Most of the world, and especially the external world, we accept. Things exist out there the way they appear, solid, concrete, independent of my mind. The one thing we did question was this unchanging, independent, unitary self. We called that into question. And we saw that that was a mere appearance.
It didn’t there was nothing which corresponded to it, in fact, because we searched just as we did in our meditation. It appears when we search, we can’t find it. We we get to a place where we’re no longer fooled. We’re no longer taken in. You can’t fool me anymore.
I know you don’t exist. You’re just a pick you’re just an appearance. I’m not gonna fall for it anymore. And therefore, not falling for it, not acceding to that appearance as being, in fact, real. The the, the attachments and the aversions which arise and depend upon grasping at that type of self as real no longer arise.
Though it appears, it it there is a point where it still appears, but we no longer fall for it. It’s merely an appearance. You know, it’s like, when you go to a movie. You know, in fact, in reality, there’s this light playing upon a screen, isn’t there, in different forms, different colors, shapes. But, you know, who wants to go to a movie and just watch light playing upon a screen?
You go there to be entertained. So you you forget, you suspend your analytic mind and you get absorbed in the movie. As in you know, you people get get killed and go through dramas and then they cry. It’s a very moving experience. You you believe there’s a sense there’s a there’s a there’s a sense that this is really happening before you.
And you’re you’re eavesdropping on these people’s lives. Yeah. And it’s a it’s a it’s a it’s a experience. But, so we can we can as we’re suspend, this analytic quality and allow ourselves to be absorbed in a fantasy temporarily. And likewise, with this appearance of the self, reason that we’re here, we’re trying to perhaps do the opposite, trying to break out of the fantasy that we’re normally absorbed in and trying to use our analytic mind to no longer accede to that appearance because it’s it’s it’s not in our self best interests.
At the mind only at the mind only stage, we question the truth or falsity of objects appearing as external to the mind. So we begin to examine with greater precision, distinguish them into three types. We’re going to begin to distinguish phenomena into three types. Imaginary and we call these are these are just names, and we’re going to explain. And they’re they’re quite important concepts to that we’re going to become familiar with.
Three types of phenomena, three ways, three types of objects that we can distinguish. There are, those objects which are merely fabrications of mind, inventions of the mind, creations of the mind. We call those imaginary natures, imaginary natures. They’re simply creations of the mind, fantasies within our own mind, imaginary natures. There are those which have relative existence, relative existence.
We call these dependent natures, dependent natures. And then finally, there are those which have ultimate existence, Ultimate existence. And we call these thoroughly established natures. Thoroughly established natures. So we’re you know, I’m going to talk about these and try to illustrate them, exemplify them.
So, you know, we were talking about imaginary natures. These are are conceptual in the sense that all our concepts about the world and the concepts and the concepts themselves. You know, we I I use the the idea about the map and the territory. The the map is like a symbol, a concept about something else. So the the concept itself is an imaginary nature.
It’s simply a fabrication of my own mind, a creation of my own mind, my ideal about something. Yeah. I can have a I we have and we’re continually filtering the world through our ideals about the world, through our concepts about the world. These concepts are beliefs about the world, our assumptions about the world. We’re continually looking at the world through the glasses of our beliefs about the world, our our conceptions about the world.
These conceptions, these beliefs, these ideas are the imaginary natures. They’re completely fabrications of mind. That is to say we’re we’re we’re making them up. They they exist only within our own mind as it were. That’s an existent imaginary nature.
An existent imaginary. Con these concepts exist. These ideas exist. These beliefs exist. The map exists.
But there’s another type of imaginary nature which doesn’t exist. That is to say, when we think of the territory as being the map, trying to conceive of, my idea about, When I confuse my idea about, say, about, being a mother, As my con my conception about being a mother as what a mother is really like. You see? That that imaginary nature doesn’t exist. When I conceive of the territory as actually be of the map as actually being the territory.
When I conceive of when I hold that my ideas about being a mother are the way a mother really is. I have a map, an idea about what it’s like to be a mother, but that’s only a fabrication of my mind. It’s not a real mother, is it? But when I begin to conceive of my ideas as being a reality, that’s a nonexistent imaginary nature. My ideas about being a mother are not in fact a mother, but I might hold them to be.
Thing this we’re gonna we’ll we’ll we’ll we’ll expand on this. Imaginary natures. The second is dependent natures. It’s it’s a relative nature. Literally, the term means other power.
That means it’s in a sense that it it has the quality of depending upon something other than itself. For example, this table. This is a dependent nature. It’s dependent upon causes and conditions. It’s dependent upon wood.
It’s dependent upon paint, upon a carpenter making it, building it, upon somebody painting it. This is a dependent nature. It’s other powered. It came into existence in dependence upon something other than itself. It is the conditioned real.
And the third nature is called thoroughly established nature. It has the quality of being complete and without relative reference. This is the idea that this is the absence of our ideas about the thing in the object. That this that that mother that I talked about, the absence about my ideas about what it is to be a mother in that mother is the thoroughly established nature. That things are devoid or are empty of our ideas about them.
Things the, you know, the thing in and of itself, the mother, is the is the dependent nature. The absence of my ideas about what it is to be a mother in that object, in that mother, is the thoroughly established nature. We’ll work on this. Alright? It’s it’s it’s quite meaningful because we take our ideas about these things to be the things themselves, and that’s what we relate with.
And and they’re but in fact, they’re empty of our ideas about them. We take the imaginary as the real. We take our ideas about something. You know, we talked about the fact that symbols that we use to representations that we use to think about the world can become much more vivid and real for us than the actual things themselves. So what can we begin to do and which governs almost all our thinking is that we relate with symbols and take them as being the reality.
I’ve used this example that you know, the the Croats aren’t shooting Muslims. They’re shooting their their ideas about Muslims. They’re they’re symbols of Muslims. They’re not shooting as it were human beings with who are fathers and mothers or children who who want to be happy, who don’t want to suffer, the reality of what it what it might mean to be a Muslim. They’re shooting the they’re symbols of Muslims, their ideas, with all the emotional associations which have been built up over history over time incorporated into symbols of very rich complexes of emotions and histories and ideas.
And the the the but we take those to be the reality of the person. And therefore, we relate with that person via our idea, our symbol of the person. And we don’t see the person. We see our symbol standing for that person. And we take this symbol to be the reality of who it is that we’re dealing with.
We don’t see who it, in fact, is. This oh, yeah. So, you know, the mind only school asserts that some phenomena truly exist and others do not. And the idea of truly existent is another important concept. Dependent natures and thoroughly established natures truly exist because their existence are not the mere fabrications of mind.
Here, what is meant by truly existent is something which doesn’t depend upon our mind for its existence. It exists that which exists independent of our mind, independent of the perceptual process, is truly existent. So they say this table truly exists. Why? Because it’s not dependent upon my eye consciousness which perceives that table.
It’s not dependent upon the mind which is my mind is not a fabrication of my mind. It truly exists. And the emptiness of that table, of my ideas about table, that truly exists because that’s its that’s its real nature. Its its real nature is is that it’s divorced. It it doesn’t have anything to do with my ideals about it.
It’s it it has there is there is a reality which stands apart from our ideals about reality. They are real in this and independent of our thinking about them, whatever we might think about them, though they don’t ex ex exist external to our minds. On the other hand, imaginary natures, some do exist and some don’t exist. You know, for example, space. Space is is is the mere absence of obstructive contact.
Yeah. There’s there’s nothing which obstructs my my movement in my hand. That’s space. But that space is merely, a construct of my mind. It’s a I’m I I have it’s something I have to it’s only exist in terms of my thinking about it, about the fact that there’s nothing nothing obstructing my hand.
That is purely a fabrication of my mind, the the notion of space. It is simply a notion. Therefore, it is an imagine imaginary nature, but it is an existent imaginary nature. It does exist. Space does exist, but it’s only a fabrication of my mind.
But there are other types of imaginary natures which don’t exist. In in mind only school, that would be external objects external to the mind, for example. For example, you know, the the the table which exists external to the mind eye consciousness perceiving the table. It doesn’t exist external to that mind. And if we, you know, we can fabricate the the example of where we fabricated a rope, whether we fabricated a snake where, in fact, there was only a rope.
That that appearance of snake is simply a fabrication of my mind. It doesn’t exist. That that that appearance of rope is a that rope that snake where there was only a rope is a nonexistent imaginary nature. So according to according to the mind only school, is this are you kind of following all this? Okay.
I think we’ll get some illustrations and it’ll become easier. I think it’s useful to think. I think the concepts which we’re getting at are useful, and they’re going to be the familiarity with them now will help later on. That’s why there’s this buildup working through it. But I I realize it’s a lot of new information.
And, it may not, in some ways, seem perhaps relevant, but I think it is useful. It it I think it is useful. So according to the Mind Only School, objects such as books, as tables, as people exist prior to our conceptualizing about them or thinking about them, before we give them a name. According to the mind only school, this table exists prior to my thinking about the table. There is the table and then I think about the table.
The table appears and then I begin to think about it. It’s a table. It’s a red table. It’s a good table. It’s a hard table.
It’s a short table, whatever I might think about it. But first the table exists and then I begin to think about it. So these are the things in themselves, things in themselves before I begin to think about them, before I begin to evolve some kind of scenario how to relate with them. These things in and of themselves are the dependent natures. Before I begin to think about this table, the table in itself is a dependent nature.
It truly exists. It arises in dependence upon causes and conditions. It’s not dependent upon my mind for its existence. Therefore, it truly exists. It exists in its own right from its own side.
It does not its existence is not dependent upon the perception process. We then go on to project upon this already existing table the name, our thought about the table. This is a table. We we project a label onto that object. The table exists in its own right, but then we go on to think about it.
We affix a name. We affix book. We affix glass. We affix table, people onto real books, onto real glasses, onto real, tables, onto real people. We affix our labels to them.
These labels are merely fabrications of mind, of the imagination. They they are imaginary natures. And thus, they do they do not they do not truly exist. Why? Because they’re simply fabrications of mind.
The names, the ideas that which we project upon these objects are merely fabrications in the mind. They do not truly exist. They don’t exist in their own right. They’re created by the mind. Now the the absence of the imaginary nature in the dependent nature is a thoroughly established nature.
Do you follow all that? The the absence about the absence of my conception about that glass. The glass is a dependent nature. I project upon that an imaginary nature. My thoughts about it, even the name glass.
I project upon that. The absence of all my imaginary fabrications upon that is the thoroughly established nature. The emptiness of that glass of having anything to do with how I conceive of it. First the glass exists, then I begin to think of it. I have ideas about it.
It’s a good glass. It’s a bad glass. It’s a cheap glass. It’s an expensive glass. Whatever.
Nice glass. The absence of all my conceptualization, my ideas about that glass is the thoroughly established nature. That is the glass in and of itself before I begin to think about it. There is a glass in and of itself before I begin to even color the glass. It’s the thoroughly established nature.
It is we begin to introduce the idea of emptiness, that things are empty of our ideals about them, our concepts about them. We don’t we we we this is quite useful. This emptiness, this absence of my of my ideas about the glass in the glass, this absence is truly exists because that’s its real nature of the glass. The real nature of the glass is that it’s empty of my ideas about it. It doesn’t depend upon my ideals for its existence.
That’s a thoroughly established nature. So here’s an example, which hopefully helps. Let’s look at three natures in relation to a particular situation. There are two human organisms sitting in a field. In the distance is a tree.
One says the other, I see a tree. The situation is itself is a product of cause and effect. The two humans arrive in the field as a result of the intercourse of their parents and their whole life history up to that moment. So, okay, let’s we have two people who are sitting in the field, and they see a tree off in the distance. And one person says, what does he say?
I see a tree. He’s a very brilliant fellow. I see a tree. Okay. So the these two people being in that field has arisen as a result of a product of cause and effect.
Their parents had sexual intercourse and gave birth to the to these two fellows, and they grew up and went through all the various experiences of life, and somehow they found themselves together in this field. It’s very profound. The tree there is there as a result of an entire web of prior and immediate causes. The tree grew from a seed and absorbed rain and soil and grew through the years into the tree, we now these two fellows see in the field. The ability of the organism to perceive and to use language is also a product of cause and effect, that they have a tongue, that they’ve learned language, that somewhere along in line someone told them that this is a tree, that we call this a tree.
So their ability to give the name, this is a tree, I see a tree, is also the product that cause an effect. All of this is relative, dependent nature. The people, the field, the tree, giving this name, is all dependent nature. All arose in dependence upon causes and conditions. But when one person says to the other tree, he is using a symbol, which applies not to just that particular tree in front of him, but to all trees.
And he is using this symbol to convey meaning to someone else. So he’s he’s, when he says, okay, we we have to, you you can’t see. Here, there’s there’s quotation marks around the word tree. So there’s tree, the thing which grows in a field, which has branches and leaves. And then there’s tree, the word tree, which is a symbol, a concept, a a product of language, which I applied to that thing out there.
So that that that word tree is not a tree. Like if you you know, if I if I invite you over for lunch and I I say, here’s a vegetable curry. And I and I I print the word vegetable curry on a piece of paper. And I it you won’t be too happy with me. There’s a big but that stands for you know, something which, you might wanna eat.
It stands for something of it. So it’s a symbol. Symbolizes something else, but the map is not the territory. The the symbol so we we begin we get a little bit confused around this. He’s using this symbol to convey meaning to somebody someone else.
Then the word tree begins to be taken as the real thing. I don’t know if you take my little printed word of vegetable curry as the real thing. It’s like trying to eat a photograph of a piece of chocolate cake. The the picture symbolizes something, but it doesn’t have quite have the flavor. Chocolate cake again.
It begins to take us a real thing. We lose touch. Okay. Then the word tree begins to be taken as the real thing. We lose touch with the connection of the actual tree to its environment.
We the symbol becomes more real than the actual thing in standing in that field. And what happens? A tree is is an the word tree, the symbol tree, is an abstraction. There’s there’s tall trees. There’s short trees.
There’s birch trees. There’s elm trees. There’s oak trees. There’s eucalyptus trees. This but we have a what what’s called this word, this concept, there’s it’s a mental image, a generic what’s called a generic image.
It’s able to be applied to any type of tree. So we’ve we use this we begin to see make use of this symbol understand, to grasp, to be able to, communicate. But the but the word becomes much more solid and real than the actual physical tree. And this will come out clear, I hope. Then the word begins to take be taken as the real thing.
Our thoughts about things begin to take the idea that they are, in fact, the thing themselves. Our ideals about Muslims, you know, the Croatian Croatian’s ideals about Muslims begin to take on more reality than the Muslims themselves, for example. We lose touch with the connections of the actual tree to its environment. Its roots go deep into the earth and draw sustenance from it. A branch that goes deep.
A branch is half dead and decaying where it touches the earth, blending imperceptibly with the earth. The leaves exchange gases with the atmosphere and receive sunlight from it. A seed, is a moment ago which a moment ago was a part of the tree, is now lying on the ground and already initiating the processes by which it will become a seedling. We begin to regard the tree as separate from everything, just as the word tree is separate and distinct from all other words. You know, our thinking is linear.
You know, one word comes after another, you know, you know, like, like being typed out by a computer. And we begin to to and these words are distinct one from another. The tree is planted in the earth. And we begin to that is we begin to conceive this we begin to conceive of things as units, as being separate one from another. We no longer see the interconnectors of things, the tree and the field.
The tree and the field sound like two separate things because that’s the way we think of them. Those are the symbols that we’re working with. Tree and the symbol tree, the word tree, the symbol field, the word field are two separate entities within our mind. And we we begin to think, in fact, that’s the way these objects actually exist. That there’s no that they don’t we’ll go on.
Just as the word tree is separate and distinct from all other words, we begin to associate with the tree all kinds of conscious or unconscious qualities coming not from the perception of the actual tree, but from our web of connotations of the word tree. All our connotations, all our associations, all our beliefs, all our experiences around trees become mixed up with our symbol of tree. All that we’ve associated with the word tree becomes plugged into that tree out in the field. We no longer see that particular tree with its particular branch, with its particular leaves, but we begin to see our our symbol with all of these connotations, with all of these associations. We’re no longer relating with that tree, that that particular very unique tree in the field, but our conception of a generality of tree with all its emotional connotations and ideas surrounding it.
Finally, the word I begin to take on finally, the word I I begin finally, the word I begins to take on real existence, even though it was used only momentarily in the field to refer to a specific fact that its organism was perceiving a tree. I said before, I see a tree. So, you know, we it was just a handy reference. So the tree, we no longer are relating with an actual tree, but our idea about the tree. We’re no longer relating with the actual eye, but our idea about the eye.
So the I’m going to quit in just a minute just to qualify this this this example. Just hang in there with me for a minute. Okay? So the tree standing in the field, free of all names, all conceptual fabrications. The tree standing in the field, free of all our ideals about trees, is the dependent nature.
The tree which possesses inherent qualities associated with the word tree, these qualities which