How is it that it becomes obscured? Oh, well see, a laya is the source of the idea of an independent existence, okay, and then there is another transformation of consciousness which can think about, you know, and actually hold to that image of independent existence, and that happens, that's called manas. And then you could say manas is really the one that's obscuring the thoroughly established character, but manas is based on laya, so really the buck stops at laya. Manas is more like a laya's messenger.

[01:00]

Where do they come from, a laya and manas? Where do they come from? A laya is a resultant, and by the way, another piece of information is that resultants are generally speaking undefiled and karmically neutral. So a laya, that's another reason why a laya is karmically neutral, because it's a resultant. So for example, if you're cruel to someone and then people punish you for that, the punishment is a result, and the pain you feel is a result, but the pain is karmically neutral. So anyway, a laya is karmically neutral, it's a resultant, it's the result of past moments of karmic thought. Past moments of obscuring the other dependent character give rise to actions, and those

[02:10]

actions leave a residual impression or create a formation, which is the result, which we call a laya, when that result is connected to sense organs. So the connection of results of living beings, karma, when it connects to sense organs, creates a birth, and then a laya. So I didn't finish the story yet, so now you have a laya, which can produce this mind consciousness, this mind consciousness then gets connected to the mind organ, which brings with it the idea of self, it's projected on what the mind consciousness knows, the images of what it knows are coming from the laya, and the image of its independence comes from the laya, and now we have this sense of something happening, but with this self cast over it. That's the imputational character, which is cast over the other dependent character of whatever this phenomenon we're knowing is.

[03:11]

So when you see the imputational character, you're seeing the presence of the imputational character. So seeing the presence of the imputational character makes it hard to see the absence of the imputational character, which is the thoroughly established character. So it's hard to see the emptiness of things when we're looking at their surface. So their surface, which can be grasped, covers their profound nature, which is ungraspable. So we need to learn to gradually become more and more certain of, and more and more certain of until we actually get it, kind of like cognize that this image that's superimposed of independence on things is actually really not there. It's absent. Then we see the thoroughly established. But before that, the imputational character is covering all. The presence is covering the absence.

[04:15]

And the presence is also covering, the presence of the self is also covering interdependence. So Alai and Manas are given the rap for covering over the interdependent world, which is always immediately impacting us. And we cover it over so we can designate it and identify it. Does that make sense? Yes. However, it does not... What moment that separation begins? Where is the moment that duality steps out of non-duality? Is that at birth? In terms of birth? You're born with it. You're born with the... But if you take it back further, what happens before coming to that? What happens before karmic effects? It takes... you need duality to determine before and after.

[05:23]

So this before and after business, you can't come up with anything, there is no such thing like that unless you project duality upon the situation. So your question about where duality comes from is a dualistic question. If there is no duality, there is no before and after. But in terms of the arising of this projection of duality, it happens as soon as a living being sees something clearly, they see it is out there. When you don't clearly identify things, at that level of cognition, the seeds for projecting dualistic impressions upon the world aren't activated. But then also you don't really see anything, you don't identify anything clearly. That's the basis, right? But as soon as these things rise up and you know things clearly,

[06:25]

then you bring along this projection that they're out there. Even if you can't form any words yet, you first of all project the essence on them, and you can do that at birth, as soon as you have an active moment of cognition, over and above alaya, depending on the arising of mind consciousness and manas, and then a sense consciousness. When you have these clearly identified things, then they're out there. Any new people? Yes. In the example of holding up the flower, so there's this appearance, Buddha holds up a flower and shows everybody, so there's this appearance of some fuzzy event. So that, I don't know that what happened until something goes on in here that makes it less fuzzy.

[07:27]

So I've got a mind consciousness image of some formerly fuzzy thing that's gone, but this is less fuzzy. Now I'm relating to that, that's the organ, manas. Okay, yes. So the organ, the manas, and the mano-vijnana-dhatu, mind consciousness, are coming up together. Is the object, in order for there to be an object, mind object, can a sign be a mind object, or does it need to be a name or symbol? Can a sign be a mind object? Yes. Or does it have to actually become a verbal designation? A sign can be made into a mind object, and also you can use a sign without the sign being a mind object. Good. That's important, because

[08:30]

you usually use signs for your mind objects and also for sense objects. You usually do use the signs in order to perceive them. Okay? But do you know it? Usually people don't. So part of wisdom is to start to notice how you're using the signs, but when you start noticing how you're using the signs, then the signs are not going to become objects. But that's going to be part of the insight work, is to make what you don't usually notice you're using to have a perception, to actually become aware that you're using that. That's why I asked the question yesterday, can you see the signs you're using in your process of perception? You could, to some extent, but sometimes you go ahead and use them without noticing them. So then it's not really insight work, in that sense, because you're not noticing, you're not analyzing the process of perception, even though it's working on that basis. So I'm trying to open up the process of perception by noticing the signs that are connected to the names, and then that will help you notice the projection of essence.

[09:32]

You can actually catch yourself at projecting of essence, because you can see it all over the place. Because that's the way things look. They look like they're out there. You can see that. And that out-there-ness is connected. Part of the reason why we're so strongly inclined to do that is because that makes it possible to connect the sign to the name and name it, and talk to people, and get your lunch, and so on. However, when you use that example of the Buddha holding up the flower, I thought, he held up the flower and winked at Mahakasyapa, and Mahakasyapa smiled, because something happened there. Other than the mechanics, there was some insight into the process. So he smiled. He understood something. One person saw how funny it was that this thing happened. So you described the mechanics of what happens for most people. But what happened?

[10:33]

Tell the story of what happened to Mahakasyapa, according to the Yogacara school, that would make sense that he would smile. Please tell us. He just did. Stick around. It's not funny. I hope to tell you that story during session. Here we are, on Vulture Peak, near Rajagriha, the usual characters. Except today, where he's been just given a new flower ship. Mahakasyapa is ready. Anybody else who hasn't asked a question? Okay, so Mark, and Liz, and Linda, and Sylvia. Those are the first-time people, yes? Mark?

[11:36]

Earlier, you were talking about, in more highly realized people, that alaya isn't repressed, but diminishes, or something like that. You used some language kind of like that. But then later, you talked about transformation. And those seem different to me. You know, like, I had this idea about alaya transforming into this mirror-like wisdom, which doesn't seem like it diminishes it at all. It just seems like it transforms. So I'm wondering if there's a... I'm confused about this. Yes, so one translation is it's turned back. Another translation would be that it dissipates. Another translation would be it turns inside out. I don't know. Anyway. But the obscuring function of it,

[12:39]

it doesn't have an obscuring function anymore. So in that sense, it's not really alaya. Because alayasi, it's a point of attachment. So nothing can hold onto it anymore. It can't hold onto things anymore. The attachment stops. But I look more... I'm not sure if the word that they use at that point in the 30 verses is a shraya pravritti, which would just mean that alaya turns around. Or you could say flips from being the backside of the mirror to the frontside of the mirror. That it becomes illuminating from being obscuring. I'm not sure. I think it's important to understand what the tone is there. Yes, Liz? We were talking about complicated times earlier. I came out of an experience yesterday

[13:44]

where I noticed what I imputed as a psychological complex. Something happened, and my sign for the psychological complex, the afflictive complex, maybe a gut feeling, but maybe the speed with which other negative things all joined together, and my name for that was, oh, this is one of those times when I'm taking... where one experience of self is really quickly coalescing into this ball of affliction that I call psychological complex. But it wasn't so clear for me, actually, if I was observing a sign or how clear the perception was.

[14:45]

Some sense. Some sense in me that, oh, this is a thing that goes on. But it feels so easy to, in this study, to at first kind of believe more in self when you see what you think are the signs. Like, oh, that's me because I'm doing that. I think believing more in the self, in a sense, could be interpreted as you become more aware of how vivid and powerful your belief is. Like, a lot of people who seem to believe in self, as far as I can tell, they act like it, if you actually ask them, do you believe in a self, do you believe in an independent existence, they might not be able to say, oh, yes, I have a very clear sense that I believe that I'm independent of other people. They might not actually be able to answer that question. They might punch you in the nose before they even say anything. They might just be so afraid

[15:49]

that you're bringing this up that they don't even look to see. They might not actually be cognizing their self-view, their self-conceit, their self-love, and their self-delusion. They might not actually be able to see that. That's my experience. When you check with people, they don't necessarily all immediately see that. And without me asking them about it, it isn't like my grandson's walking around saying, well, I've got a self. And if I ask him about that, I don't think he'd be able to understand what I was saying, but I don't think it's that he kind of understands it without me talking to him about it either. He acts like he does, though. He seems to be really like, he wants to win every game we play, and he wants me to lose, and he wants to be best in the bathtub at whatever's going on. He looks like he's got a self, but I don't think he kind of sees it.

[16:50]

Yeah, I believe in an independent self. I don't think he can see that, as far as I can tell. So I think as we become more conscious of it, it seems like we believe it even more. I think it's just because we've become more aware of how powerfully we believe in it. It's kind of like, wow, you know, I didn't know it was this strong. And so it's made me feel quite embarrassed. Like that story I told one time about being concerned about whether I got croutons in my soup of Tarsahara, you know? And I was just really ashamed of it, that I would be so interested in how many croutons this person got. Like whether it was zero, or two, or nine. That was like an issue to me, and I had not actually come to see

[17:53]

how petty I was before that, as deeply. So that monastic training got me to see that I care so much about myself, as opposed to the other people who are getting the croutons, I feel so separate from them. These kinds of things become an issue. I wasn't that aware that I was that petty before. But that's part of what we get to learn, is that we are about as petty as anybody comes. Because we strongly believe in the self, and the self is connected to a very clear sense of the identity of things. And again, little kids, like my grandson, isn't aware of this, but he's very sharp about what's his and what isn't. The demarcation between him and others is very clear, but he's not aware of it, therefore he's not ready to analyze whether that's really there or not. So it'll be a while before we can discuss this. Although, you know,

[18:58]

there are little opportunities here and there. Like I told you that story about when we were playing this game and he was cheating so he could win. And I asked this, I said, well, what are you doing that for? How come when you get a card that says to take two steps, you should take eight? And I said, you know, when it has one green thing on that move, move to the next green one, right? And when it has two greens, it needs to move to two green ones, right? But you got one green one and you went eight green ones away. How come you did that? And he said, because I really want to win. So there's a little bit of awareness there. So we can tease it out to the point where he might finally be kind of embarrassed. Poor green daddy. You always lose, don't you? Have you ever considered why that's so?

[20:02]

We chant, however, all this is the perception because it is unconstructedness and stillness. It is immediate realization. I would be very appreciative of your commentary on that, the relationship to what we've been talking about, about perception is to grasp the sign or the image and direct the immediate. Yeah, that's very apropos of this discussion. Unconstructedness and stillness. Is that the transformation? Pardon? Is that the awareness once the ally has transformed into the mirror-like wisdom? Is that what you see unconstructedness? Anyway, I would like to concentrate. Yeah, well, I would like the kitchen to be here for that. Okay.

[21:13]

So I'll do it during sashimi. Please remind me. Okay. But I'll just briefly mention that a lie of being transformed is something that happens, according to school, by a gradual process. A lie of transformed means that you've actually gone in there and removed signs in a big way. But this thing, this unconstructedness and stillness can be realized the first time you see... the first time you see suchness, you're seeing unconstructedness. Because suchness is, you could say, the absence of the imputational character, but you can also say the absence of constructiveness in stillness. So in that absence of constructiveness, there can be direct realization or indirect realization, either one. But it's unconstructed realization, because you're seeing the absence of construction.

[22:17]

But there's many... We apply this suchness over and over for a long period of time, more and more deeply and more and more thoroughly, to reach the point where a lie is actually reversed. So for the bodhisattva, an eighth-level bodhisattva is really something, I mean, you know, we're talking like... Nagarjuna was a first-level bodhisattva. So it takes a long time before the whole... the ally is actually completely transformed. But what's described in there, I think, could be seen as a moment-by-moment vision of suchness. A moment-by-moment realization where it's not... you know, you're not at the level of recognition. There's a direct unconstructedness and stillness of this process. And opening to the unconstructedness opens you to this actual dependent co-arising. But I'll try to expand on that more

[23:21]

when the whole group's here. I think, let me say, however, all this is... Do you have a question? Yeah. I always think to myself, well, how is it that they can write it down? Well, it's unconstructed. All this does not appear within dualistic consciousness. It says later, because this state is not realized by the deluded mind, by dualistic mind. But there is a mind which is illuminated by this. The mind, consciousness, can't reach this state. But this state can illuminate consciousness. And the illuminated consciousness can talk and write. And it can talk and write. You know, it can use conventional designations without relying on habitual tendencies towards conventional designation. So this state can speak and write and express itself. Again, it says, although it's not fabricated,

[24:22]

or although it's not constructed, it's not without speech, it can talk. But it doesn't talk out of the need to get meaning for itself. It just speaks of this place, expresses this place of unconstructedness. So we feel maybe that Dogon is coming from that place, maybe. And Vasubandhu and whoever wrote this sutra are coming from that place. They say all this stuff, but they are coming from this ultimate position, which is the absence of constructiveness in the independently co-arising world. It doesn't say it's the absence of anything existing or not existing. It's not saying it's the absence of the world, it's the absence of constructions. It's an unconstructed presence in the world which can speak the very teaching of the unconstructed. Or that everything is just construction.

[25:26]

The realization that everything is construction is another way to put it. But the realization of everything being constructed is even more profound than the realization of a thoroughly established character. A thoroughly established character is, according to this sutra, is a way we can approach more easily the realization of this mind-only teaching. Any other new people? Sylvia, did you... I have a question. Yes. Two, maybe three, small and different ones. One was already brought forward, but this is in a different way. I had a hard time putting together the realization of the independently co-arising and what you mentioned in the beginning of today, of the experience that the sages have

[26:28]

of no taste, no smell, no sight. There is no perception. Yes. There is no perception. Well, yeah, there's no perception. There is perception, but it's not perception of these kinds of things. That is different than experiencing the independently co-arising. Yes. What they're experiencing is that all dependent co-arisings are empty of construction. So they're looking at... When the sages are looking at the absence of the invitation, they can't see any construction because they're looking at the absence of the construction process. And they truly, they truly just don't perceive. They truly don't see. No, they do perceive. No, they do perceive, but what they're perceiving is this emptiness. They still perceive. They still perceive, but they're perceiving the ultimate. They still smell, they still see.

[27:32]

No, they still smell and they still see, but while they're smelling, they perceive the ultimate. And while they're seeing, they perceive the ultimate. But the way they perceive the ultimate when they're smelling is they don't see any smell, and they don't smell any smell, because they're not... although they're smelling, or they're standing on the ground and balancing, so they're actually in touch with the earth, they're not in a yogic trance, necessarily, they're calm, but they're not in a trance where they don't even have a sense of their body, so they can actually stand up, but what they're focusing on at the time is on the absence, so like right now I could be standing here looking at you and seeing you, but I could be mostly concerned with my mother's death, or something like that, I could be mostly concerned with the absence of my mother while I'm looking at you, or I could be mostly concerned if I'm

[28:35]

looking at you, but I see, oh my God, there's no separateness about her, there's no out-there-ness about her, and the main thing I'm concerned about, I care about you, but I'm really focusing on the fact that you're not separate from me, that I'm seeing an absence of separateness, but I can still see you, and that's kind of like wonderful, because now I understand, I'm seeing you in a really different way, I'm not seeing you as separate anymore, I'm not seeing you as out-there, I'm seeing you in this new way, maybe for the first time, the real cognition of emptiness of something is the first time you get it, and I actually like suddenly see you not separate, so that's really what I'm looking at, it's the fact that, oh my God, she's not separate. So like, again, I've seen many Blue Jays, but one time I walked out of Tata Arizendo in the middle of winter, and I saw a Blue Jay, he was all puffed up, because it was really cold, he was puffed up to try to keep warm, and I was

[29:43]

too, I was all puffed up trying to keep warm, and I suddenly, for the first time, I didn't see the Blue Jays as separate, this was like, I was seeing the Blue Jays, but it was a new way of seeing the Blue Jays. My compassion and my understanding changed at that moment from previous ways of feeling about Blue Jays to a new way. So I was looking at the Blue Jays, but really what was most important was this new way of seeing the Blue Jays, and that's more important in some ways than all the Blue Jays you ever see, because the seeing of the Blue Jays as separate is not really the Blue Jays, they're not really separate. Seeing them in a true way is... but you would say, I didn't see the Blue Jays, I saw the absence of separateness, and in the absence of separateness I don't perceive Blue Jays, I'm perceiving the absence of the separateness of the Blue Jays, okay?

[30:50]

Just a smoothing, also in the Freudian literature they name it the presence of an absence. The presence of an absence. And in the Buddhist teaching too, as it's translated in the West, there's some debate about whether it's an absence or a presence of an absence. So is non-duality an absence of duality, or is it a presence of an absence of duality? So in some sense there's... but some people say, yes, there is a presence of an absence of duality, but before you can understand the presence of an absence of duality, you need to understand just plain old the absence of duality. The presence of an absence of duality could be called Buddha-nature. The absence of duality is emptiness. Emptiness purifies our vision of the Buddha-nature.

[32:01]

Did you have a question? Yeah, going back. The first one? Um, I think I asked a short one. You did? It didn't really count. Okay, we're now into the second round. Um, going back to Fu's question a little bit, I wasn't so clear about, for mental perception you definitely need the sign, but do you need, and this is not for direct sense perception, but for a mental perception, mental object, do you need the name connected to the sign? Sense perception, you need the sign too. Yeah, right, but for mental perception, do you need the name connected with the sign, or can you just have a sign? Nope, you don't need a name. For mental object? You don't need a name. Children who do not have names can have perceptions, but they need signs. But do they have something like a pre-verbal name, like a concept?

[33:05]

They have lots of pre-verbal names. Hmm. So, but that's different than we usually, with this name connected to the sign, it's different than when they learn the name. Most all our mental perceptions involve names connected with signs, would you say? But it's possible. It's definitely possible, even adults can have a sign without connecting it to the name. And that would be a mental object? It's a mental object, yeah. Or would it be an example of that? An example of that? You could, yeah, you could see the color, you have a sensory experience of color, and then you have a mental experience of it, but you don't name it. You don't say, it's blue, but you have, accompanying the sense perception of blue, you have a mental image of it too, without connecting it with the name.

[34:06]

And do you know it? Would you say you know it then? Yeah, this is a very subtle state where you don't get into grossing it up with names. Yes, it's possible. And you could have a memory of that experience? Yes. However, in order to connect it to the name, and say that it is that name, then you've got to bring in the infection of Manas. Now, if you don't name it, you still may have the infection of Manas. Just that it's out there. And that it's not something else, that it's got a boundary. It's not something else, or that it's not the things it depends on, it's other than you. So that it's other than, it's something else from the consciousness that knows it. It's out there, and it's this rather than those. All that stuff can be there, and you don't have to name.

[35:09]

In a subtle mind consciousness, you could be aware of that. And usually we do, always, before we get over this thing by training, we always do it whether we name it or not. So children do it, even though they can't really successfully put a name on it yet. They do it too. Like maybe, or did an example be like seeing something kind of hazy in the distance, and you see something outside yourself, but you can't yet see what it is? Yes. So you don't have a name for it yet? No, then you name it an unknown object. That could be an example of sense perception. But a mental, it's a more mental. Mental version too, yes. Where you don't clarify it yet with... But like Jane said, maybe you know it as a unknown. Oh, I can't identify that, but there's... But then you clarified it. Yeah, that's what I was saying. Then you put some kind of temporary name on it.

[36:11]

But there is... But the svalakshina of a visual impression is not as clear as the samanyalakshina. But the svalakshina is there. Each time you look at the hillside, it's a different pattern that's impressing you. So again, I was talking to somebody this morning about this. I like this example of you look at the hillside, and if you don't have... I don't know what... Even if you have... Almost nobody's vision can't be improved a little bit with glasses. But a lot of people put on glasses, and then they see the hillside sharper, more clearly, in a sense. But the sharp way you see it is less unique to the situation than the fuzziness was. But once you put on the glasses, you can't remember what it looked like when it was fuzzy. It's very hard.

[37:14]

And when you put on the fuzziness, of course, it's hard to remember what it looked like when it's glasses on, but easier than the other way around. For example, if you look and you see, oh, it's a leaf, and then you take the glasses off and you can't see it, you can remember it was a leaf. But when you see it's a leaf, it's very hard to remember what it looked like before you could see if it was a leaf. Also, the colors are more vivid with the glasses off. Colors are more vivid with the glasses off? Yeah. The world's more vivid with the glasses off. It's more vivid and unique and rich, but we're not clear about what it is. So, okay, forget that. The second time there is? So, indigenous people, I guess with all of this discussion that we've had in conversation, I kind of see Alaia as my experience storehouse.

[38:17]

So the more complex and, yeah, yeah, complex life or world that I lead, I have a complex Alaia. How about the indigenous people? Would they have a less complex? And that then goes to, do they have less of the imputations? I don't think they have less of the imputations, and I don't know if they have less rich Alaia than you or I do. But I don't think they have less imputations. Okay. Otherwise, I don't think they would be on the planet. Oh, I see. Okay. I think we have eliminated all the people who don't impute. I think we got rid of them all then. There probably were some, but we arranged them not to be able to reproduce. When I die, does my Alaia die?

[39:18]

Or does this Alaia die? It's not available anymore for a new... Yeah, but this is what the Sutra says. It shares your destiny of your body. Okay. So as long as I'm alive, then it's there with me. And then... Well, unless you do some major work. Okay. It lasts as long as you're alive, it lasts through your whole life and ends with your life. Okay. Unless you either become an Arhat or a very advanced Bodhisattva. In this life, in this... Yeah. And then, in which case, the monast gets turned off and Alaia gets reversed. And then from then on, you can still participate in conventional designation, but you do it just totally on the basis of imagination. Which you always were, but didn't think so. But now you understand that you're imagining things. And you do it in order to play with the other imaginers. It's what you're doing before, but now you understand.

[40:19]

So that's what the Sutra says. I know the Sutra says it ends, but it says... Other treatises says it goes your whole life with the exceptions of these people who have these attainments. And then it's foreshortened. The Sutra says it shares a destiny with the body. It shares the protection and the danger of the body. So a baby, just born, would have a clean slate of Alaia. There's no... A clean slate of Alaia? No. Well, yeah, because there's no experiences yet. Unless they predisposed and came with their baggage. They have a full-fledged Alaia. They do have, but they have had no experiences yet. Because it's Alaia's resultant. Resultant of the beings in the universe? Or it? It's the resultant of past action. Okay. Okay. As soon as Alaia first appears, it's a resultant. It's not the first Alaia. It's the result of past Alaia.

[41:22]

Okay. It's a big one. They got a big one. When they're born, they got a big one. However, it's like this. It's like really unidentified. They're swimming around the same place we're swimming around. It's just as complex as ours. But what do they have in that storehouse? Unless what I'm thinking is when I die, the Alaia still stays on until someone else is born and picks my Alaia. Alaia doesn't stay on. Alaia never stays on. Alaia is impermanent. It is impermanent? Alaia is impermanent. Body's impermanent. Body's impermanent. Okay. Manus is impermanent. Manu-Vijnana doctrine is impermanent. Chakra-Vijnana doctrine is impermanent. All these consciousnesses are impermanent. Okay. And Alaia dies with the body. Okay. So Manus can't arise because it rises with dependence on Alaia.

[42:26]

Manu-Vijnana can't arise. Sense consciousness can't arise. So all the consciousness collapses with the body. However, nothing is annihilated and there's a consequence of every life. One of the consequences of a life can be... Rebirth? Okay. The arising of Alaia with the body. Just like it's proposed that when you were born, the sutra says, when beings are born what happens is there's an apprehending consciousness of the sense organs and then you have birth. And then there's Alaia. The apprehending but also the bringing along the basis of all experience which is the result of past action. Okay. That's the story. Okay. So then somehow there's a choice. I think I'd like to give some other people a question because it's getting very close to lunch and I'd like to give them a chance.

[43:28]

I thank you very much. I appreciate your enthusiasm. I hope it lives permanently forever. Okay. Let's see. Walker hasn't asked a question yet. I'm wondering who are the eight drum players out there? Nagarjuna only got to the first round. This is really tough. This is really tough. I often think of this. One time he accidentally killed an ant when he was studying a scripture. He closed a scripture book on an ant. And because of that, he wasn't able to, in the life where he was the great sage, he was only able to get to the first stage. He was like, what do I do? Yeah. You've got to be careful around here. But who knows? He might have, you know, he might have evolved. Maybe he's, maybe he became a sangha. I don't know. A sangha. Really way up. But anyway, that's the story about Nagarjuna.

[44:31]

Is that, the story about Nagarjuna is, be careful. First time. First time, okay. Another first time. What's, this may not be easy to answer. I don't know, but what. This may be not easy to answer, yes. But how, in our interactions with each other, where our, each person's own karmic patterns are involved, you know, how, what's the role of alaya in the, in interacting with other people, or pulling in the patterns that, you know, go through over and over in our lives? How do they interact with each other? Yeah, is there some. What's the role of alaya in my interactions with you? Well, it's a little more than that. Like, how does relationship, or it doesn't even have to be a relationship, like, let's say I go out and get hit by a car, and we might say that's the result of past action.

[45:36]

I'm feeling like you're getting, your question is getting out of hand here. So maybe you could, if you can make the white cup come back to you, you can focus it, I think it's, it's not, at this point in time, it's too, it's too marvelous. I was wondering about the dynamic, or the functioning, when a sign could be multiple things. I think there could be, there can be a sign of multiple things. So, so I, I had a conversation with somebody yesterday, we both had a similar experience. You're out walking, and you take a, an unfamiliar trail, and you come to an obstruction, large. And so what you see as a sign is a large overgrowth. And that's what you see a lot, that's what you see. That's what I saw. Yeah, and maybe I see another sign. And it seemed like there was a mental process that went on, considering what that was. So one, one process was lost, scared.

[46:40]

Another process, another, another thing that happened was... But you're getting off, you're getting off track now. Yeah. You're getting away from the original sign of this thing, this physical object. Yeah. And now you're getting into this, now you're getting into looking at your feelings. It's a different experience. The feelings have signs too. So in that situation, I just name it as obstruction. The first thing, your example, your first example was that you had this experience. Wow. And there was a sign, and you connected the word obstruction to it. Yes. And you probably... And then you can connect it to a name. That's the next experience, and so on. Each one of those things, the same process repeats. Okay, so it's a sequence of experiences, and it's all alaya experiences? No. And with Manas? It's that every time something happens, you consult with alaya.

[47:42]

If you want, every time you have an experience, your basic experience is this rich, neutral, karmically neutral, feeling neutral, very rich, all-embracing, basis of whatever, it could be anything, kind of feeling about it. It's not identified, but something's impacted, the sense being. Alaya is like interacting with the sense organs of the person. Okay, that something's happening, but it's not clear. But part of alaya is to push. There's an inclination in alaya to push us to identify it. So then to identify it, you have to pick a sign up, make it external, and name it. So that happens every moment. Alaya is the basis of each of these experiences. So if I start to say, first, obstruction, and then I might put another name on it

[48:44]

after further consideration, I might continue to rename it if I want to. And each further consideration here are based on alaya. Okay, that's what I was asking. So it looks like we're going all the way to lunch today. If it says, there is no birth, no death. The Sutra, the Heart Sutra says that. Right, for example. It says in emptiness, there's no birth. Right, and that's probably where my question is going to. Is there no birth and no death? Because in that mind, there is no signs and no imputation. And therefore, there is something happening like birth and death. But you wouldn't call it birth and death like we talked before about.

[49:47]

There is no smell, no taste, no touch. There is, of course, perceiving of smell and taste. There is not perceiving of smell and taste. But it is happening, but you don't put imputation on it. And is it the same for birth and death? So the phenomena are arising and ceasing, but since you don't put an essence on it, there is no birth and no death. Well, the example you chose is a different kind of a poignant one, because that particular thing of birth and death arising and ceasing is one of the main things that doesn't happen in emptiness. In emptiness, things don't really happen. But things not happening doesn't mean that there isn't anything. Just that the way things really are is that they don't happen. They don't have own being, so they aren't produced and they don't cease.

[50:51]

They're quiescent from the start. So in emptiness, it's not that there's nothing there, it's just that everything is very quiet, very quiet. Unconstructedness and stillness is what you're looking at. It doesn't mean nothing's there. It's actually this great life called nirvana. But nirvana doesn't mean nothing's there. It just means that the arising and ceasing cannot be grasped. Because you can't have grasping of arising and ceasing when you don't have inherent existences. Because things that don't have an inherent existence, you can't find the arising and ceasing of them. However, things that don't arise, things that don't have an inherent existence in conjunction with minds, can appear to arise and cease. So there's something there. It's not to say there isn't a life or a world.

[51:53]

It's just that in order to make it appear as arising and ceasing, mind has to make the arising and ceasing. The thing is actually basically quiescent. Minds can create the illusion of arising and ceasing. Well, so minds can create the impression, the appearance of birth and death. But without construction, there is no birth and death. But that doesn't mean there's nothing there. It just means this is the way things are. Ultimately, if you look at it this way, that will purify your misconceptions about the way they are. And you can look at them even when they're appearing and disappearing without being misinformed about them. So again, I like the thing from the Sarangama Sutra, which is quoted, I think in case A of the Book of Serenity,

[52:56]

where it says, to say that things exist is slander by exaggeration. Is that okay? English? Slander? Slander means like to demean, to put down. So to say that things exist is slander by exaggeration. It's too much. To say that they don't exist is slander by underestimation. To say that they both exist and do not exist is slander by contradiction. And to say that they both exist and do not exist is slander by nonsense, or pure mental fabrication.

[53:57]

Things don't both exist and not exist. So all those categories don't really apply to our life. But mind projects these categories on life, and then we have the appearance of birth and death. So dependent co-arising is not the ultimate truth, but it's a conventional truth, and we love conventional truth, because conventional truth, our people are conventional truth. We're devoted to conventional truth. Our whole life is for the sake of conventional truths. We love them with our whole hearts, and that's all we care about, really, is conventional truth. But we need to see ultimate truth, where there is no arising and ceasing of conventionalities. If the absence, not so much of conventionalities, but of essence is projected on them, then our vision of conventional world is clarified, and then we can be better servant to all the conventionalities. But the conventionalities can never be found,

[54:59]

and they have no beginning or end. Really, they look like they do, because our mind makes them so. But that doesn't mean if you take away those things, that they're not there, they're not tampered with anymore by the segmentation process. Any other first-time people? Yes? If I'm not enlightened yet, I don't have to be. If you're not enlightened yet? If I'm not enlightened yet. But I awaken. When I die, I would like to rebirth. Agreed. But that time, I know the right time for rebirth, for looking for a place. But that time, I don't find a place I want.

[56:03]

I have to choose, because I have a level for... There's a deadline on your application. There's a deadline on where I stay, why I'm waiting for... I choose to play the right place, and I can go to the right place, because that was action, activity. Well, you know, fortunately, if you become awake, a little bit anyway, then you can use that awakeness so that whatever place you choose, you can choose with a very good intention. So even if you wind up in a tough neighborhood, you're born with a very good intention. So when you're born, you say, Ooh, this is a tough place, but I have a good attitude. I want to be helpful here, and I want to help my... I want to help these people.

[57:07]

So if you really concentrate on this point, you may be able to remember when you open your eyes in your new world, your intentions. So it's not... That's the most important thing. So some people are born in really tough situations, but they have a good attitude from early on. And so even though things are really difficult, they sometimes can keep remembering their good attitude and get through pretty well. So now we have to develop an attitude so that whatever situations we come into, I think we're really well-established in an attitude so that the power of the virtue of that attitude will carry through no matter where we go. And say, like, if they want to run the place they want, but that... If that's your attitude... No, no. If that's your attitude and that...

[58:10]

I cannot choose that, no. No, but if you have an attitude like that, that attitude will force you to be born in a bad place. That attitude will put you in a bad place. You have to change your attitude if you want to run up. Not in a good place. And that's why we have to... And it has no good... No one... No one... That's why we have to really focus on not wanting anything. That attitude will be very good. Whatever happens. You may not. Yes. The alaya of a newborn baby...

[59:12]

Alaya of a newborn baby, yes. Is a result. Yes. All alayas are first of all a result. And then, how does that connect with what it's saying, all beings have been your brothers and your sisters and cousins and so on. Is that symbolic or is that... It is symbolic. That's saying. That's saying, is it symbolic? Yes, it's symbolic. And it dependently co-arises out of the mouths of sages sometimes. And they can, you know... And it's a big encouragement to them. It makes them really respect everybody. And care for everybody. When they see that. When they have that symbol. It's a symbol of dependent co-arising. It's a symbol of everybody's, you know, my friend.

[60:13]

And I'm devoted to everybody. It's a symbol, you know. But it's not... It's not what? It's not factual, because there is... What do you mean by factual? Well, there is no... It's not ultimately true. ...continuation, right. It's not ultimately true. But in terms of conventional symbols, it's a really good one, I think. Especially if you don't infect it too much. Don't strongly adhere to it as having an essence. That'll be good. Are we done? Can I say something? Bozzy has a really bad tick. Yes. Which I just saw about 40, 50 minutes ago. So afterwards, if someone could help get it out and off. By bad, do you mean big? It's brutally big. The big ones are the good ones. Because the big ones are willing to let go. The little ones, they're looking forward to a life of blood sucking.

[61:17]

They don't want to let go, because they got a good, well-fed dog. But the big ones, they're kind of like, Okay, I'll go someplace. Let me go. I got enough blood to raise a whole family here. Precious Abbots? I just realized yesterday that conventional designations and the mix up around them is what humor is all about. How funny that I saw that it's all about that. And one that occurred to me, when we're talking about times, was Sarah, my daughter, when she was little, misunderstood the lyrics to the song I Left My Heart in San Francisco. And she thought it was, I'll let no reindeers wait outside your door. Reindeer is kind of waiting at San Francisco. Whenever I say reindeer, it's a sign for San Francisco. And then the other thing that occurred to me was a joke that somebody at Casa Harte

[62:22]

told last past period, somebody who's deaf and knows sign language. And we kept talking about these babies having their eye lit. The sign for milk is this. And often babies can hear that sign before they can say milk. And so this is milk. And then he said, this is the sign for pasteurized milk. Oh, sorry, I messed up the joke. What's the sign for pasteurized? Oh. Pasteurized. Pasture. Pasture. Pasteurized. Pasteurized. Legacy. Legacy. Legacy. Who had their hands hand-raised before?

[63:23]

Okay, Humboldt and Andres. In that order? Seniority? I'm not so old. Is that what you think? When we talk about eliminating signs, do we mean something other than not grasping signs? Do we mean something other than not grasping signs? Do we mean the disappearance of signs or just not grasping signs? They'll disappear by themselves. So, disappearance of signs is different than eliminating them. So, I think that's helpful, that we're not going to beat up on signs. We're just going to eliminate them. The way we eliminate them is to not grasp them, because they're going to go away at the next moment anyway.

[64:25]

But if we stop using them in the grasping way, it starts to transform the situation. Because to eliminate signs means we're going to start relating to the other dependent in a different way. We're going to start to undermine our projection system. So, really, the way we eliminate it is, you know, as it says in the Sutra, if you look on the page, like around page 185 of the Power Translation, it talks about how you actually eliminate signs. And it's really by the way you look at things, a new way, that's how you eliminate the signs. You open yourself to being okay with not perceiving things. So, you open yourself to letting go, holding on in such a way that you can perceive. So, I didn't really... Yeah, to drive them off. Andreas? I'm trying to understand the laya from a physiological perspective.

[65:29]

Yes. Like, when I try to perceive, when I perceive a chair in a way, I mean, there has to be something in my brain that... I mean, physiologically, it's just like the visual electromagnetic waves hitting my eyes. And it's actually a very complicated process before I can perceive a chair. Because the edges are perceived in a different part of the brain than the colors. And so everything has to be put together before I can perceive the chair. And that means, like, somewhere in my brain there has to be a concept of the chair that informs that these different parts of information belong together in a way. And is that the functioning of a laya? That it provides the information that all this... The sign or the concept of a chair, so that it's put together? I mean, it's not like...

[66:31]

You're sort of on the right track there, yes. That a laya... It isn't so much that a laya provides the information, but rather a laya, encountering the information which you described, offers conceptual versions of what it might be. A laya has the seeds for all the different possible ways of interpreting it. Recognition. Yeah, exactly. But in a laya itself, prior to the arising of these other transformations of consciousness, the identification doesn't occur. So in order to go from having the possible concepts of what's going on physiologically available, that's as far as a laya goes. The actual choosing and applying it to what's going on involves these other two transformations of consciousness. So all three are involved in, for example, sense perception. But I think that this is a good area to meditate on what you're doing.

[67:33]

Let's see who wants a second time. Jamie? So it's becoming more clear, but I might be too tired. It does happen, doesn't it? Sometimes in these classes, it's not that your questions aren't that good or that bad. I just have low blood sugar sometimes. So maybe you're in one of those slumps. Should I come back some other day? Okay. I'm going to stop pretty soon so we can have a break before the servers and the chanters have to start serving and chanting. So I'm trying to focus on this split that happens, this possibility of splitting the self and the object. And in a present moment experience, if there's a focusing on an object going on, does the self-sense actually no longer happening?

[68:37]

It's like you're just really in mid-air there. If you're focusing on an object that seems to be out there, the self-sense is there. It's there. It won't be out there if there isn't a self-sense projected. But is it actually there, or has it dropped away? I think the chair is still there, but you're actually standing there. The self-sense is nowhere. It's just totally imagined. It's not even there at all. The self-sense isn't there at all. It's just imagined. And we are perceiving that false image. We're believing it. So is what's actually happening is Mano Vijnana Dattu is holding two sensations simultaneously, one of an object and one of a self-sense, and it's really just this one thing that's being perceived in the present moment? Well, you can do it that way, or you can say it's perceiving the object and it's imposing upon the object an appearance, putting an appearance on top of an appearance.

[69:39]

So the mind presents representations of objects to itself, so you see the representation, and then on top of the representation you put another image, but this representation is out there on its own. So if you take away the representation, then the thing doesn't necessarily... If you take away that representation or the image of it being out there, this thing would still be impacting you, but you wouldn't know it. So Mano Vijnana doesn't know things without being affected by Manas, unless we train ourselves out of that Manas, so Manas doesn't... The affecting projection of self is actually terminated, otherwise it's going to be there all the time. So knowing an object comes with this overlay, that's why dependent co-arising is afflicted by this process of klishta Manas, afflicted Manas.

[70:45]

So when Manas is gone, then Mano Vijnana Dattu and the object... Would know the object without making the object out there. So the consciousness and the object would arise together, as they always have, without some sense of... This consciousness is over here, and the object is over there. Which it never was. Never had consciousness arising with the object, not happening there. Or the object arising without the consciousness. They always came up together. Now, that's the case, but there's not imagination, they're separate. What about Manas as the organ? Manas as the organ is still functioning that way. That part is still functioning. I think we should stop now, because it's ten to twelve, we need a break. The chairs need to go. The chairs need to go and put away. So I guess, what should we do? Should we just get to the Zen Dojo as soon as we can for service, and service to serving as soon as we can? And please just stand by your seats for service, don't just sit down. We may be a little late.

[71:46]

For some of our events. We thank you for putting up with these classes. We appreciate your attention and interest with the difficult topic. I think we need to go deeper into the cave. Thank you. In our intention, equally extend to every being and place, with the true narrative of the other's way. Beings are numberless. I know how to save them. Diligence are inexhaustible. I know how to end them. Dharma against are boundless. I know how to enter them.

[72:49]

Buddha's way is unsurpassable. I know how to become it.

[72:57]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ