Linus, this practice period. Because usually during session we don't have classes. And I thought it might be good just to rather than me presenting new material, which has some advantage in terms of focusing the conversation, that I just might open it up at the beginning for you to ask questions about anything. I thought I might open it up at the beginning for questions, but then I kept thinking of things I wanted to But there's never an end to that unless I just become anesthetized or something. So I just have to stop at some point and say, is there anything you'd like to talk about?

[01:01]

Any questions you want to have at this point? Could someone stand or sit or jump up and down over here and watch the people's hands, sort of keep track of who raises their hand? Would someone do that? Or over there, would someone do it? Would you do it? Huh? So who raised their hand? So Kosho. Who else? Mike. Mike. Jared. Who else? Cedar. Cedar. Those four, for starters. So you can track them, okay? You just call on them. Go ahead, Joan. Call on them. Oh, okay.

[02:04]

My question is about my alliance with Janna or the funeral awareness with the request. Thank you. Like, if I say something, it's an attack. Feel free to correct me. Your question is a mistake. I have two impressions of it. You have two impressions of what? Of the nature of Kauai Vishnaya. You have two impressions of the nature of alaya-vijnana? Yes. One impression is that it's impermanent. And to me, usually impermanent means, you know, it's pop, [...] you know, it's coming. And the other, there's some kind of continuity about it. Would you like to apply this at all? So the impression that, I think, my understanding also is that alaya-vijnana is impermanent.

[03:07]

It's an impermanent phenomenon. And that there's continuity? Yes, there's continuity. For example, the mind that arises right now depends on the mind that just ceased. And this mind is now the basis for the next mind. Same for other phenomena? That there's continuity? Yeah, except that it isn't so much that the present rock depends on the last rock. It's different for rocks. But consciousnesses do depend on previous consciousnesses, so there are continuities. When they use the expression continuum, They mean conscious continuums, in the sense that there's a causal continuum among consciousnesses, and alaya is a particularly important kind of continuum, because it's the aspect of mind that registers past thoughts and past actions based on past thoughts.

[04:25]

Does alaya depend only on the past consciousness, or does it also depend upon everything else? A laya depends on the evolving consciousnesses. The evolving consciousnesses arise from a laya. In dependence on a laya, the evolving consciousness, like the sense consciousnesses arise, and the thought consciousnesses arise from a laya. And then the effects of those thoughts go back into a laya. And a laya is impermanent. Each moment it arises and then it wanes. and the evolving consciousnesses arise depending on that alaya, the effects of them are put back into the next, are carried by the next alaya that arises. So alaya is impermanent. So what's the difference between dependence, deterioration, and dependent co-arising?

[05:31]

Synonyms. Yeah. I would translate paticca-samutpada as dependent co-arising or what? Depending origination, origination, yeah. Origination and arising synonyms. Samutpada can be translated as arising, production, origination. Okay? So I've been trying to do this meditation on invitation, and I keep stumbling over this non-external thing, and I was wondering if things aren't external, then where are they? If things aren't external, where are they?

[06:31]

Well, Part of what the Buddhist, part of what part of Buddha Dharma teaches is that locations are not, things don't, like locks don't have little addresses on them. Okay, so their location is not written sort of underneath or deep inside. Locations of things are imputations of consciousnesses. Okay? So where they are, is a dependent co-horizon. Location is a dependent co-horizon. Location isn't something that inherently exists in things. Which you can easily see, you know, like, is the rock at Tassajara, or is it in California, or is it on Earth? And if you're in New York, California is a different meaning than it does in Seattle. So when you think of Tassajara from one direction, it's a different place.

[07:36]

You know, plus some people don't think that the rocks in Tassajara, some people think the rocks in the suburbs of their city. Like the fish don't think the rocks at Tassajara. The birds don't think the rocks at Tassajara. And so location is a mind, is a mind, is a thing that dependently co-arises with anything. So where things are, is a dependent co-arising. It's not that things don't have a dependently co-arisen location. But this teaching about mere consciousness is that the idea that the rock, or whatever you're talking about, is external to the thing that's aware of it, that there's no evidence for externality in that case. That's a total fabrication. That's the part I don't understand.

[08:40]

That's the part you don't understand. Yeah, that's something to work on, that the sense that things are out there, again, things don't actually have a nature to be external to the thing that knows them. Things don't have externality because that would be like Like me walking around thinking that I'm carrying all the externalities that each of you feel about me. I'm not just external to one of you, I'm external to all your minds. I'm just carrying all these externalities around all the time. Those externalities are really a characteristic of me, that I'm outside all of your minds. Whereas actually, what I am for each of you, your experience of me is a dependently co-arisen Consciousness, you have a perception of me, all of you. And that dependently co-arises depending on me.

[09:42]

If I wasn't here, you wouldn't imagine me the way you would when I am here. So your sense of me, your perception of me is not totally subjective and it's not objective. It's interdependent, okay? Therefore, when you feel like it's external, you're overlooking the fact that your mind has created it. But your mind has created it by interacting with me. I'm part of your world that you live in. I'm talking to you, right? There's a world out here. However, you interact with the world. And the world makes you, and you make the world. And part of the way you interact with the world is you develop perceptions of it. But you wouldn't be developing a perception of the world if there wasn't a world. So there is a world, it's just that it doesn't have locations aside from you imputing them. It doesn't have identities aside from you projecting them.

[10:44]

But it does have locations and it does have identities when you do impute. And you can use those identities and locations to negotiate with the world. Right? Would you please move over? Would you change your name? Etc. But the externality, there's no basis of, that's totally imaginary. Because that's basically saying that things aren't interdependent, that they happen, that they're totally objective. Do you make more sense now? Okay, meditate on them. There you go. Leanne? Leanne? No, I'm not saying there's no color. I'm saying that color is not out there in the flower. Roses are red is true. They are red. But they're only red for us.

[11:58]

They're not red for fish. They're not red for Martians. They're not red for rocks. They're red for us. And they're red for us because of our body. We have cones. We have, what do you call it? Rods. No, cones. We have rods, too. Excuse me. But it's the cones that detect short wavelength that give rise to the experience of color. Color is an experience. It's an experience that artists have. But the red is not in the rose. The red's not in the rose. It's not out there in the rose. There's not red out in the world. Red is like love. Love's not in the rock. Love's not in the rose. Love's in you when you see the rose.

[13:00]

And color's in you. Your mind creates color by interacting with roses. And it happens because you've got these cones. It happens because the cones are connected to neural equipment. It happens because of light. It happens because of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength being reflected from the rose, and it happens because of lighting conditions. Depending on those things, you have a dependent core rising of color, but the color is totally a dependent core rising. It's not entirely in you, and it's not in the rose. It's that dependent co-arisings are not located except by dependent co-arisen locations which have no objective independent existence.

[14:02]

Does that make more sense about the colors? So roses are red. That's true. But the red is not out there in the rose. Oops. He was first. He was first. Okay, Mike. What problem? Actually, if you need that to do, you can proceed for An object is not in its object. Any attribute you can conceive of an object is not in the object. Correct. But you can say in the microphone, not slate gray, not cylindrical.

[15:06]

No, no, because then you might think that the not slate gray is in the microphone. Well, no. I'd be like, what? I don't say it. You promise? You promise you won't? Oh, is it? Okay. But, I mean, if the type of meaning isn't in the colonel, then... I think when you say not black, though, even though you didn't mean it, If people hear you, you sound like you're making an attribution of a characteristic. If you say no black, it's different. It's better to say no black.

[16:07]

Rather than not black. Because not black sounds like you might think that there's a characteristic out there on the microphone. But there's no black in the microphone. But the microphone is black. or something like that. If you take your concepts like that, that you put on anything, a tree, a bowl, if you take them, you work on them like that, then, I mean, I thought I saw something that's kind of beautiful. Then what emerges is that the thoroughly established character is the absence of anything that you can do with. Right. Right. For now, I'm not going to argue with the venerable caller. Whatever she says, I'm going to go with.

[17:12]

Can you just tell me who's next? back more towards what Jared was asking about working with your imputations of a human being and like feeling them be almost that how you can almost see that your idea of a person might not be the person, that there's still energy there. It's still upsetting to you that they're out there other than you, or that there's something that they're doing, say, in study hall. Your life, you feel it being impacted by somebody else. And you want, in the context of Sangha,

[18:16]

I guess, do you have any suggestions on at what point it's helpful to express that to the community or to each other? It seems like you could train for many years just silently, not silently, but not really talking about your incutations. Not everything is incutation. Everything has its invitational character. But things also have other dependent character. And the other dependent character is not pure imagination. So the way I experience you is not just imagination. The concept I have of you is not just totally a figment of my imagination. It's based on... the way I am. And the way I am is I have rods and cones and neural equipment and history.

[19:21]

And based on that, and also on you, you, part of the world, you interact with my body and mind and my body and mind interacting with you. Give rise to an image of you. That's not an imputation. That's the other dependent character. That's a dependent core arising. I didn't make it happen. You didn't make it happen. We made it happen. Okay? And so you appear that way. That's not said to be the way... That image is not the way you are. That image is what is my perception of you. But my perception is created in this nice, lawful, interdependent way. And you do exist that way for me. And the fact that you exist that way for me impacts you. The part that's an imputation is that that image is out there separate from the dependently co-arisen process, that there's an essence to this perception.

[20:26]

And in particular, the Thirty Verses is emphasizing that the essence can be translated as the thing that externally exists, independent of the knower. That is an imputation, and that doesn't exist. And that's the part that we can stop believing. Now, how to proceed in practice with people? Should you express yourself to them? Huh? Was that what you were asking? Or should you just become enlightened first and then express yourself? Wait until you're enlightened and then express yourself. Like that one Zen master didn't talk until he was sixteen or something. Then he started talking and people said, why did you say anything before? And he said, I had nothing good to say. But now I have a few things to say. So were you leading up to the question of how to live with that teaching before you perfectly understand it?

[21:30]

To a certain extent, because it seems like if one's intention is to not hold other beings as external, as just your identity of them? Not hold them as external. Well, again, the imputational is constantly operating. There is the constant production of what doesn't come to exist. Your mind is constantly creating something that doesn't exist. So it's not that you actually stop that, it's rather that you stop believing it. You develop a different understanding of this appearance of things being out there. And then when you develop that different understanding, can you stop grasping it? And then you start evolving in accordance with this more enlightened understanding, and you start to become... And then the dependent core arising starts to change.

[22:37]

because your past experiences become past experiences of meditation. But anyway, for starters, you listen to the teaching and you try to apply it until you actually understand it. You start to be convinced that this externality is a non-existent thing that is appearing. It's a non-existent thing that you do see. namely the appearance of externality or separation of the things you know and your awareness. And you just meditate on that and train yourself with that teaching until you're grounded in that. And then grounded in that understanding. First of all grounded in the teaching, next grounded in the understanding of the teaching. And then you watch and see how things change. But again, before you do that meditation, along with that meditation, you're also meditating on the other dependent character, which is also always going on, and that is to remind yourself that things are impermanent, unstable, and so on, so that you develop a virtuous relationship with everything.

[23:55]

And then, grounded in that virtuous relationship, you start practicing this meditation on mere concept. If you don't meditate on dependent core arising, it's hard for you to apply this teaching because you're so unvirtuous. So you have to do meditation on dependent core arising together with meditation on the imputation process. So do you have some question? Is that clear? My question, it just seems all so muddy. It is muddy, very complex. Because you might think you have an idea of what the other, like when you say, meditate on the other dependent characters.

[24:59]

Yes. sitting, thinking about what's happening, or... Yes? It seems like you're... Say you have an idea about somebody you love, and you see... So you're sitting, and suddenly an idea of someone who you love, a loving thought about somebody arises in your mind while you're sitting? And then on top of that is... Well, before we get on top of that, let's just deal with that, shall we? Or do you want to go right to on top of it before we look at what it's on top of? Yeah, so then if you're mindful of the teaching of the pinnacle of rising, you realize that this thought of this person is at the pinnacle of rising. And you may say, I don't want to think that. I want to indulge in the thought of this person. This is somebody I love. I want to go like, hmm.

[26:00]

But no, you remember the teaching that you're thinking of a dependent core arising. Now, this is a dependent core arising, someone that you're devoted to, and you're totally dedicated to the welfare of this person. But still, this person is a dependent core arising. And they're impermanent, unstable, not worthy of competence. So then you're not going to be so likely to start wallowing in the images of this person. But anyway, now you want to go on top of? You're mad. You know, you won't get mad at them in an unwholesome way if you're meditating on the pinnacle of rising, for starters. Now, if you have a wimpy meditation on dependent colorizing, then you can slip into getting angry. But if you're meditating on somebody with dependent colorizing, the only way you get angry at them is a wholesome anger, which won't disturb you. It concentrates you. You know, you get angry like, I don't care what that person does.

[27:06]

I'm going to, like, always be devoted to their welfare. I'm going to, like, pay attention to them with the greatest mindfulness and the deepest compassion. I'm just going to love them to... That kind of anger is okay. But, you know, anything like not wanting their welfare or wishing them unhappiness or anything like that won't arise from meditating on dependable rising. Because you realize everybody's just, you know, interdependent. Their body and mind are making them the way they are, and their body and mind making them the way they are is the way their body and mind responds to circumstances. It's all, you know, it's not their fault. It's not their blame. It's their responsibility, but it's also your responsibility because they're in your world and you're perceiving them. If you meditate on independent co-arising, that supports the bodhisattva vow to help people

[28:11]

You don't get mad at them in an unwholesome way. You get mad at them in a virtuous way if you ever get mad at them. That's the basic meditation. But you still could be suffering yourself at that same time that you're devoted to beings And understanding that they're not dependable, not reliable, they aren't the source of your happiness, that kind of stuff, because they're dependent core horizons. The source of your happiness is dharma, about people, which helps you be happily devoted to them through all the changes they go through. But you still could be suffering from the belief in the appearance that this person is externals. And as long as you think that, you're going to keep this two-fold grasping, and two-fold grasping is going to lead you into suffering. So you still have to move on to deeper meditations. But that's a basic one. And it's, in one sense, it's difficult because everything's changing so much. In another sense, it's simple. You can make a simple version of it just to remember and apply it all the time.

[29:16]

In meditation, sitting, nice simple situation, you've got physical and mental phenomena arising. Every one of those things, the dependent core arising, just be mindful that they are. And notice how that goes. It's not easy to keep doing that because a lot of times when something intense happens, like intense pain, rather than think of dependent core arising, you think of, you know, it's a real thing and I'm going to do something about it. it hurts, I'm going to do something, rather than it hurts to the pinnacle of rising, and then some virtuous response comes. You've got to insert the dharma between your perception of something and the next perception. So the perception arises, bring the dharma in there before the next perception, because if you wait to the next perception, you might wait to the next perception, to the next perception. Be mindful means remember the Dharma on the spot, and then it will start transforming your responses to your experiences.

[30:25]

Is that enough for you? You brought back to the original question, you have... The intention, like it's painful to see people as external and that you're getting fixed on your education level, but you're thinking they're really the way you think they are. And then you try to, then I want to do something to end that. I really want to do something to break down my ideas. Excuse me. In a sense, they really are the way you think they are. And they really are the way you think they are means your perceptions of them really are your perceptions of them. That's really true. My perception of you is the way you are for me. It's just that that's not an external thing. That's not the way you are over there. That's the way you are in my own perceptions.

[31:29]

The way they are really is the imputation. That or that way, aside from my ideas, is the imputation. But the way you are, the way people are, is all you've got to work with is your perception of them. So that really is the way they are from you. But that's not an eternal thing. It's okay to work with the way things appear, as long as you know that's just your perception. It's okay to work with appearances, but not the way they appear to be out there. That's the part that we have to give up. Stop that life. Stop believing in the past. I think it was last class where you said that consciousness, yes, is objects.

[32:32]

A little bit mind if you tell me. In last class, I Consciousness, she said, consciousness manifests as objects. Consciousness appears as objects. Yeah, I think so. So in thinking about that, and I have a couple of questions about it. One is, It seems like the mind or consciousness is like the arena of a room, and everything inside of it is just objects, manifestations of consciousness. That's the experience. Oh, this is my brain, my mind. This is consciousness. And I'm wondering two things. One, is this pre-imputation? And two, when I'm there, it seems like there's nothing else. In this case, the calling consciousness an object is an imputation.

[33:38]

Yeah. Or I guess if it appeared that way and you didn't believe it, then... So I guess it's believing the appearance that consciousness is an object. Believing, grasping, believing it and grasping it, that's the imputation. But I guess the fact that it just appears that way is not imputation. It does appear that way. However, the way it appears is not the way it exists. But the way it appears is non-existent. A non-existent appearance arises out of it. Every experience you have comes with this non-existent, constructed quality that is out there. So that's in a sense that appearance is computed upon the way it is as another dependent thing. As another dependent thing, of course, it wouldn't be out there on its own because it's dependent on your mind. So it's not.

[34:42]

But consciousness appears. Consciousness says, consider me outside. Look, I'm outside. So they use the example of a mirror. You look in a mirror. When you see, like, your own face is a little bit difficult, actually, because you feel like the face is outside the mirror. But anyway, your face is outside the mirror, but the image of your face in the mirror is not outside the mirror. It looks like it's back where your face is. But it's not. It's in the mirror. And if you go for that, of course, a child might do that. They might reach for the face in the mirror, right? I think they could get it. But they can't. Can they be in here, not outside? Are you finished? Actually, I have two questions and one makes me feel embarrassed.

[35:55]

He's speaking up today. Maybe I should ask the one that makes me feel embarrassed, which is about this mind that has no location. So I think there's no coming and going. So is there anything that can be said about where human beings go when they die? I think where we go is we become totally harmonized with the universe, if we're enlightened. And if we're not, we become, we continue to be, what do you call it? Pardon? We become harmonized with our ideas.

[36:57]

Well, we kind of continue to be kind of like not appreciating the harmony. Yeah? Is that a wish you have for all sentient beings, or is that a conviction? Is that a wish or a conviction? Conviction. It's a conviction. Not terribly strong, but... What do you call it? There's pauses in the mindfulness. And also, touching on Jared's question before about the knots that are open, why are they?

[38:05]

When you were answering Leanne's question about we refer to electromagnetic radiation . Right. And I'm just thinking it seems like, hierarchically, those are more real than something like the intersection of red, or that when you refer to those things, like, red, like, that's kind of more real than redness. It's more exact. And, you know, in terms of... It seems that way to you. Mm-hmm. And one of the things about that is that there's this seeming... of reality. It's something that, pure fabrication through dreams, we have a dream, and then there's the event that occurred while it was depicted. And then description, physical description, measurements of the world that are seen as more objective.

[39:13]

And there's this thing like a spectrum between more objective and more subjective. I suppose. But in your examples, to be with your example, so I was basically saying that color is, there's not color in electromagnetic radiation. Nobody can find any color in electromagnetic radiation. But human beings, when they interact with electromagnetic radiation, and with other kind of electromagnetic radiation helping with that electromagnetic radiation, human beings can have an experience of color. But there's no color in the neurons. There's no color in the cones. There's no color in the brain. There's no color in the lighting. There's no color in the substance that's reflecting the lighting. There's no color in any of those places. The combination of all that creates the color. But if you turn to the electromagnetic radiation and think that's more real than color, how would you come up with that?

[40:23]

Well, I guess you'd look at it, how would that be more real than color? We'd have an experience, there's no electromagnetic radiation, there's no electromagnetic radiation out there separate from human beings either. There's no anything out there separate from us. The world doesn't come with little packages of electromagnetic radiation separated from humans. It doesn't have that, the partitioning doesn't occur. It doesn't seem like that. To me, it doesn't seem like that. It seems like even if you don't know, like for example, if there were something like... Even if you don't know... Radium or something under the floorboard. Right. You wouldn't know about it. Right, so realism is the doctrine that things exist independent of perception.

[41:27]

That's realism. Okay? And Buddhism is not exactly not realism. It's just saying that it's a realism which takes into account dependent core rising. So it doesn't say that there's things that exist independent of perception. We don't say that things exist independent of mental grasping. And to think that there are radium deposits or rocks or people that actually exist independent of minds which categorize, that is a belief in something that doesn't exist, which is believing something exists independent of mind. In other words, believing that radium inherently exists.

[42:33]

And here you are, wonderful example, someone who's been studying Buddhism very sincerely for a while, and she still believes that things exist inherently under the floorboards. She woes that if we would put it up on the table, it wouldn't exist inherently, because we'd apply our Buddhist study to it. But if it's under the floorboard, couldn't it be quietly just waiting for it to go in there? Sure it could. That's realism. That's saying that things exist out there independent of mind. And Buddhism for a long time is saying, uh-uh. However, early Buddhism kind of went along with that. That's part of the complication is early Buddhism kind of says, kind of did say that early Buddhism was somewhat realistic.

[43:35]

And then Mahayana came and sort of like gradually liberated us from realism. I think the early version, I wouldn't say the early teaching exactly, but the early version of the teaching was that things did have their own characteristics, like they had the characteristics in them. So that's what people needed to hear at first. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't have been able to practice ethics. But now, after a nice strong foundation of ethical practice has been established in the Buddhist tradition, at least for the moment, it may deteriorate and we need to stop this project, but now that we have some ethical basis, we can consider the teaching that says things don't exist out there on their own independent of mind. So would you say it's okay to be a realist as long as you realize it's just an imputation?

[44:36]

Yeah. Right. Just like being a non-realist would be okay, too, as long as you realize it's an imputation. As long as you remember that being a realist is something that doesn't exist outside of mind, then you have a non-realist understanding of being a realist. It's fine. you should also apply that to being a non-realist, or being an idealist, or be a critical realist. You should apply the same thing, that you being a critical realist is not something that exists outside mental imputation. Then you can be whatever you want. Yeah. She said, here I am. That goes with, that's the counterpart to the objective belief in I. Thank you for coming to the realm of duality to see the talk shows.

[45:38]

Keeping on the duality, it seems to me that I could recognize in this practice period at least the three topics you are teaching from you. You're teaching about the Sutta. And then I remember, I think it was the first lecture, maybe, or it was end of, Do you mean the topic of the practice of gassho, what Dogen was emphasizing with Gikai and the teachings of the sutra? Yes. Yes, the connection is that what Dogen was emphasizing for Gikai was that he should take care of the forms of practice the way someone would take care of their only child, and that there was not some other Buddhism besides that.

[46:42]

And Kikai thought there was. He was an excellent practitioner, but in his mind he didn't really believe Dobi's teaching, that the forms of the practice, the rituals and ceremonies of the practice, totally engaged the Buddhadharma. And that relates to the teaching of the sutra. How? It's saying, whatever you're working on, have some form and be totally devoted to it. And in the process of being totally devoted to it, you can understand, for example, that you think it's outside yourself. That you think the forms are something other than you. and that actually they're not. That's an illusion. And you can find the absence of, for example, any inherent existence or inherent nature in the forms while you're taking care of them.

[47:48]

But you have to take care of them wholeheartedly in order for you to really verify that there is absolutely no imputational character in these dependently co-arisen forms. So these forms that we practice, our dependent core horizons, they're unstable, impermanent, not worthy of confidence. And if we practice them with that teaching, we will practice them really skillfully. However, in order to understand the profound quality of them, we must also understand that we are still attributing some externality, some division between practitioner and practice, between practitioner or practice and realization, between awareness and the mokugyo or the gassho. So when we use the gassho, as a way to focus on that issue of duality and verify that there is no duality in the actual event.

[48:54]

The dependently co-arisen event of gassho, there is no duality, actually. But we have to be totally devoted to that to realize it. If we think there's some other Buddhism, we'll get distracted from the basic Buddhism, which is our daily life. So that's why I thought. And also the other thing I brought up at the beginning was how we don't practice by ourselves. So that together with what Dogen was emphasizing and our forms, that's the ground upon which this sutra gives us clarification about where we get stuck. Gives us some details about where we get stuck. Like we think that color is something out there in the rose. Or we think goodness is something out there in the gassho. something like that. Whereas actually we have an experience of goodness of the gassho, which is not in the gassho, but it's actually our experience. And the eternality doesn't exist.

[49:58]

That's why, that's how these, in my mind, I'm working with these. And the Zen stories also, I think, are about how the Zen teachers use daily life experiences like twisting noses that follow him there to help the monk understand is he does he understand the non-externality of that pain and the non-externality of the teacher and the non-externality of grandmother mind. So that's a little bit about how I see them working together and why I don't want to just... So in a college class you might teach the sutra but here we have the ground to focus on to apply the sutra. And we have to really be wholehearted about that application and not think that there's some other alternative Buddhism to applying it to our daily life. So Gikai actually didn't teach much about sutras after that.

[51:00]

Dogen did, but Gikai didn't. He just emphasized form. So he was more like the nose-twisting type of teacher, probably, without any sutras to elucidate the subtleties he elucidated just in daily life. Your way to... One way to do gassho was to promote this kind of devotion. Yeah, and also to promote concentration. So if you have all kinds of different kinds of gasshos, it's harder for other people to help you with your concentration. If your mind wanders, Like somebody was doing some unusual things with Orioki and I said to the person, you know, about, you know, how do you do that part of the Orioki and they told me and the way they told me was not the way they were doing it and I said, but you're not doing it that way and they said, I'm not? I said, no. And then they showed me the way to do it, you know.

[52:01]

They knew how to do it but they were doing it some other way. And then So we totally agree how to do it. If we didn't agree how to do it, then I couldn't say the next day, you did it again. I did? Rather than, yeah, I know I did. That's the way I do it. But because we agreed on the way to do it, when the person did it another way, I could point out to them that they were not there. And then they could see, yeah, I guess I was kind of rushing just before that. And then when you're rushing, sometimes you do things you don't even know you're doing. So if you don't know what you're doing, it's kind of hard to concentrate on the dependent core rising and the imputational and the thoroughly established. But if you're right there all the time, you have a chance to say, you're grounded, right? There it is. Now it's a dependent core rising. So we have to have some agreement in order to help each other, because otherwise, sometimes people are not present. And then it's just a question of when will they become present again?

[53:05]

By their own by their own surveillance. Someday, maybe. But we can help each other. Because some of the things we do repetitively, so we can miss certain points over and over and over, but if someone's there and looking at us, we stop missing it, and we continue to stop missing it for years. Because the person, like, you agreed with them, and then we never forget. At that point, every time we do it, we remember. Like I say, I remember Kadagiri Roshi's gassho because there was a person there, and we agreed, and there it is. So mostly I remember that. But if we didn't agree on some way, it's hard to be present. And then we can convey that to the next generation. But it's not that that's the way to do it because some other sage grows like this. It's fine. But then with their apprentices, with their students, then that's the way they do it.

[54:07]

And when the guy's doing it like this or like this, they say, what do you mean? And then the person says something, you know. Or they say, I didn't do that. They say, yes, you did. And then the next time they do it, the teacher says, there, you did it. The person goes, oh. So that's the advantage of having some agreement, right? You're welcome. You can return to non-duality now. That's what you think. Thank you for all the questions. I learn a lot even though I don't ask questions. But I am confused about memory. I get caught up in thinking that going back to it must have been some sort of solid thing. Is that just another seed in the Allayah? Yeah. It's a seed in the Allayah.

[55:09]

In modern day, it's a seed in your neurology. It's in your body and your brain. We have an ongoing thing that what we remember happened. You think that. We think that continuity. We have these thoughts. These are thoughts. They are not out there in the world. But we think that. And we need to think that. And then people disagree with us. And we adjust things. But then we go right back to this sense of this is what happened. Well, concepts, in a sense, although they're not really identical, at the moment that they happen, they are presented as general.

[56:21]

So general things, in a sense, general categories, for example, are are about how to make, how to group different things under one heading. So when you're dealing with concepts, in fact, by your grouping process, you're saying that they're the same even though they're different. So part of our nature is that we live in a world which is even more complex than us, in some senses, in terms of inputs. So we get inputs and we consolidate them into upwards, which are a lot smaller number than inputs. Even our eyes, you know, the color thing area, the eyes, I've heard there's about 100 million color-sensing cells in the retina.

[57:26]

But there's not a hundred million fibers coming out of the retina into the optic nerve. There's only a million. So that means that various different impulses, there are various different pieces of information that are going to be categorized in about a one to a hundred ratio. So our body converts what's happening into in the categorization. physical categories. They get shunted. Lots of things that are the same get shunted in the same passageway. So basically, that fiber says, all these things coming down here are the same. Even though they came from a hundred different sources, or could have come from a hundred different sources. That's part of our nature. That's part of the dependable horizon of categories and concepts. That's why concepts are not totally meaningless. They're related to our body.

[58:27]

Then it goes on from there. Well, then the next thing that happens is when that impulse gets to a kind of a ganglion or a center where that fiber meets fibers from other parts of the body. And the fibers from other parts of the body are not coming from optic areas. They're coming from other homeostatic centers, which are going to make sure that this information is coordinated with other programs. So the messenger, which is bringing a message, which is the same message from 100 different possible pieces of information, this messenger will give the same message. And then when it gets there, it says, here's my message. There's a whole bunch of other people in the message there who say, yeah, well, we have something to say, too. We're taking into account what you say. And that will influence what they say, but mostly they're going to say what they would have said if the person, if information hadn't even arrived. Because they've got higher priority than seeing them.

[59:35]

They want to keep body temperature and blood sugar levels appropriate. So we're not going to lower our body temperature too much by some kind of cult. We don't want to do that. Sometimes it happens, but it's not good for our health. So anyway, we make, our body makes something out of everything that happens to us. What happens to us does have input, but that input gets categorized, conceptualized, and integrated to other concepts, and we come up with our own homegrown version of what's out there, but what we wouldn't have made and we couldn't have made without that input. And part of what the homoestatic thing is, I've got a memory, I've got a history, you know, and we're not going to let this thing be disturbed too much by anything that happened. So it's like I've got a history rather than there really is a history out there.

[60:39]

I've got a memory rather than this is a memory about something that actually happened out there. Even though my memories do arise in relationship to the world, they're not just the world. They're not out there in the world. But I always have one. I always have a whole huge ocean of them. And I use them to make up a story about what's happening. Those are the scenes that I use to interpret what's happening. But then I say, huh? Based on past, and some of the things I say are past. But they're not really past. They're my categories and concepts of past. Or I have a seed for what I come up with as categories and concepts of path. You told me a couple of things, but I feel like I can't quite get it.

[61:57]

I want to repeat something that's already come up a few times. It's that the incutational character of phenomena is that which is imputed as a name or symbol in terms of the own being or attributes of phenomena. It's not clear to me that taking this mug, so I call this a mug, whether the mug, calling it a mug, is the incantational character or my belief that it's a mug. Well, it might be good to start, since you talked about color, just to say that you say the mug is silver, okay? So you use the word silver to convey your sense that there actually is soberness in the mug.

[63:02]

So, the mug is sober, but the soberness is not in the mug. And if you think the soberness is in the mug, then you use the word silver to express your belief that the attribute of silver is actually out there in the mug. Now, if you wanted to talk about the mug itself, then you use the word mug, we've established that there's no silver out there in the world. Right? We grew up thinking there was silver out in the world, and there was gold out in the world, and there was red out in the world. We're being taught now that it isn't out there, that only human beings on this planet pretty much are into that. Raji doesn't see colors. But you can just imagine what she smells. She's in worlds of smell that we just have no access to because she's got a body that makes up a whole universe of smells.

[64:08]

But we have color sensors that she doesn't have, so we see colors that aren't out there in the world for us, really, or for her. That's the imputation. So we say silver. Now, if you say silver and don't believe it's eternal, then there's no imputation. You can also look at the silver mug and say the mug is silver and see the absence of the imputation of externally existing silver in the mug. It's the same for mug. You can use the word mug, but the point is that you are using the word mug, you're expressing your belief that the mug's out there on its own, independent of you. but there's something about the mug that is the reference. There's something about the mug which is the reference to the word mug. The mug is the reference to the word mug, but we think there's something about the mug that's the reference to the word mug. We think the mug has its own characteristics out there on its own.

[65:10]

And then we say mug, okay, and we say silver mug, but those are words we use which actually are code for independently existing mug. So if you don't actually believe that the mug inherently exists, you can still say silver mug and you're using the same words that someone who does believe it, but in that case you wouldn't be using those words as terms by which you express the imputational. But when you do, when you do impute inherent existence, then you can use that imputation to make the words. Now, actually, I just said something which I'm going to sort of revise. And that is, it's actually... Maybe not possible to do what I just said you could do, namely say the mug is silver or there is a silver mug.

[66:18]

It actually may not be possible to do that without imputing duality to the mug, because without imputing duality, how would the words reach the mug? So it may be possible to understand non-duality, but in a sense you have to flip back into duality in order to be able to say, there is a silver mug. Because the imputation, as the sutra very skillfully points out, which you do not find in earlier Buddhist teachings, that this projection of the unreal is necessary in order to make conventional designations. So you project the unreal upon things that are real, like the other dependent is real. In other words, it really does exist the way it's said to exist, is that it exists other dependently.

[67:19]

It does exist that way. It is really the other dependent. Then you project independent existence upon it, but then you can talk about it. Without putting independent existence on it, it's hard to actually have words reach it. Because where would the words reach dependent co-arising without some kind of imputation of out-there-ness? So without that projection of duality, we have trouble talking. So in fact, although the Buddha can be enlightened to non-duality, when the Buddha talks, the Buddha may have to tentatively project inherent existence onto things. while simultaneously seeing your absence in order to talk to people. And for bodhisattvas who have realized suchness, it may be that they switch back and forth. They use imputation in order to make designations and talk to people, but then they also meditate and give that up for a while, and then they can't talk about what's happening.

[68:24]

But, because, you know, the conscious doesn't reach, doesn't reach the way things, the actual dharma of things. But once they enter that space, their consciousness is illuminated. So when they return to use duality, it's different, because they've had experience of disabuse of that belief. So they can still use the grasping in order to talk, but they start to get over the impulse or the inclination towards that grasping. That's why I think... It's nice when it says, as long as the mind does not terminate the mere concept, the impulse or the inclination towards grasping doesn't cease. So it's possible to use the two-fold grasping in order to speak, but have no inclination to do so other than to speak to people. Does that make sense? But you sort of have to get over believing in externality before the impulse stops. It doesn't say that the two-fold graphing, the dispositions towards the two-fold graphing, so that that way bodhisattva can be reborn into illusion voluntarily, not impulsively.

[69:38]

Whereas most people are born into duality impulsively by the power of their dispositions rather than by the power of compassion. So that was a kind of long answer to your question, but now you understand perfectly, right? It seems like each time you explain this process, you've done wording in different ways. There's something which is negated and something affirms something else, like in the fact that the color you said, the bread does not exist in the thing, in the bread. But each time you're very careful to say that there is the thing, I mean, there is this world, except that our ideas are in it. And I guess I sort of, I wonder about this, because it seems like in order to, we're appealing to some reality in these dependently abridged things in order to explain our delusion, i.e.

[70:42]

the things that don't exist, right? But I guess, what is it about dependent arrogant that sort of makes it safe? at something to say that is really different. Often when I come to a conversation dependent on writing, I end up not being like God. Like you ask people, where do things come from? They go, dependent on writing. It serves the same function sometimes in people's discourse to ask something like that. What do you think about it? In what way can it be true? In what way is it true? I have always troubled me. Yeah. We talked a little bit fast. So can you say your question slowly so she can hear? That would be great. Can you speak the tongue? No. Maybe you would be further than I said. I will rephrase what he said by saying, what is true about the other dependent character?

[71:43]

In what way is it true? In some sense, can you have to say, in what way isn't it just mental fabrication? It's true, first of all, because it exists by its own character. It exists by way of its own character. And so does a thoroughly established. A thoroughly established exists by way of its own character, and the other dependent exists by way of its own character. The other dependent exists by way of its character, which is other dependence. That's how it exists. In that way, it truly exists, because it exists dependently and in that character. But because it exists dependently, that's why it's not God. And that's one of the main reasons why it doesn't actually, it isn't reached by any concept of it.

[72:48]

Whereas the computational doesn't exist by its own nature. Its nature is that it's independent, and nothing exists by independence. The other one, its nature is interdependent, and things do exist by independence. And meaningfully, you can say dependent, like in that relationship you were giving about, you know, light and eye and all those things, but I can't conceive of that happening in any other way than relationships between two separately existing things, which is, you know, which is not... That was what sort of Mako did. She wanted to make the electromagnetic radiation more real than the dependent color. But electromagnetic radiation is also a dependent colorizing and no dependent colorizing is more real than another dependent colorizing. They're all real as dependent existence. But they're not.

[73:52]

But they're not the but they're not the object of purification of obstacles to enlightenment. But they are real. They are true to a certain extent. In meditating on them, we make tremendous progress spiritually. And also meditating on what doesn't exist also makes progress, but that meditation should be based on the other one. Go ahead. So is that what we have to remember, what you just said about not being the object of observation ? Is that what we have to remember so as not to sort of fall back on them as being, oh, well, my thought doesn't exist, but the thing really doesn't exist. That being the thing, you just fall back and make .. I think that would help you. But also, the object of interpretation should not be made into God either. that the object of purification, well, yeah, the object of purification should not be made into God either.

[75:03]

And even the Prajnaparamita, which is meditating on the object of purification, should not be made into God either. This is all just medicine to free us from making things substantially existent, making God substantially existent. Which Other traditions that have God, they're somewhat savvy to the idea that we shouldn't take God as our idea of God, but take God as something existing. But it is important to remember that the Pentecostal idea of basic meditation in the Buddha way And as we meditate on it, we start to open to this emptiness of any kind of invitation of essence or subject-object split in the process of being aware of it. And we also remember that it's not the final meditation. We have to go deeper. But it's our home base because it's really how things are happening.

[76:10]

And it supports ethical practice. Which, again, without that, we won't be able to continue the very practice that supports ethical practice. And we won't be able to do the other meditations. And we will slip into believing that God exists. One step forward. Are you following this now? No? I'm just talking to him? No. Just the last talk about the Bible. Oh. We don't want to project inherent existence onto God. I think I'm missing something about the kind of meditation that the other dependent... The meditation of the other dependent is the basic meditation. And then when you're well established in that, you can go on to meditate on how the projection of externality is non-existent. But if you meditate on that without being based on the other dependent, you might not be very successful.

[77:17]

You might be somewhat successful, but certain things might be not taken care of. Some people maybe are just, they don't think they're meditating on the other dependent character, but they're very careful about their ethical behavior. And when you are that way, actually you're meditating on the other dependent. So then they sometimes can go to meditate on the on mere concept or on non-existent external thing successfully. But most of us need to be grounded in the meditation of dependent core arising. I think we have to, though, because the other, the implication is based on the other dependent. The other dependent is the first meditation. The next meditation is to meditate on on the absence of non-existence of externality of subject-object split. And then the final realization is that it's not there.

[78:21]

It is not. You realize it's not. And then you test it on how you work with dependent coalescence. You don't have to say more than yes or no, but would you say that the difference between the Madhyamaka and the Yom Kippur is that the other dependent does not exist by nature? Would they? Yeah. That being the difference. He's saying the difference between the Madhyamaka and the Yom Kippur is that the Madhyamaka would not agree that the other dependent exists by way of its own nature. They would say that doesn't even exist by way of its omnidiction. Yes?

[79:27]

Sure, yeah, it's okay. Go ahead. Did you say Joanne? No, Joanne. I won't push forward after you learned a thing in an earlier class. Maybe you didn't want to be afraid of it. Okay, so could I make that a... Wait, just a second. Baron asked me if it was a conviction or what was the other alternative? It's a wish? Huh? It's not a wish, but I do want. I want you not to leave me. That's great. And I... I also want you to not be afraid of me. No, no, you should be afraid of me. Thinking about . Right. So I guess I just wanted to say that because I feel like you give out so much material to practice theory, and I feel like that's what I'm walking away with now at the end.

[80:58]

It feels like totally enough for me, but I don't know if that's really kind of a disappointment to you. Well, when you said that, I thought, well, that bears right on the issue, because the hindrances, we're talking about the hindrances to understand it, to enlighten it. And the hindrances are belief in the self of the person and belief in the self of things. And belief in the self of things is to think that they exist out there on your own. So meditating in this way directly bears on those two hindrances. So that's a fine little place to focus on how to apply these teachings is right there. That's why I don't have any problems with using the Heart Sutra as a focal point to think about these teachings. I think they're perfectly compatible, the Heart Sutra and the Sutra.

[82:01]

The Sutra elucidates the Heart Sutra. I noticed that I had something different, but I felt my effect was kind of like, hey, you're an intellectual. But I actually, I feel like the challenge for me was to just be as real as possible to it. And small groups really helped, and the classes really helped. And I feel like, actually, if I could, you really would see that wish or that wanting that you have for us to just not be afraid of each other. if I didn't have all of this support and an influential friend. So, thank you. Thank you very much. My question is a kind of broad question, and it relates to something you just said about this practice promotes ethical practice. And I wonder how this study can help us be more community-minded and

[83:02]

Can I move away from acting from self-interest, which is, I think, my tendency, I think it's a tendency we all have. One thing you said was how to be more community-minded. That's one way to put it. The way I would put it is I don't particularly I'm not so much concerned about the mental community. I'm more concerned about if you are trying to serve beings, help beings, all the beings who are in relationship, if you wish to serve them and benefit them, then this teaching will help alleviate any obstruction to effective service and effective So it isn't exactly that it makes you more community-minded.

[84:15]

It's more like it removes the obstacles of your community mind. And it does that by letting go of the things that we hold on to, which cause disturbance in relationships, which make it so we can't face each other, we can't listen to each other, we can't remember that our stories about people are our stories about people. But if we remember that our stories about people are our stories about people, and not really out there then we can exhale and we can breathe and we can relate in a way that can be beneficial. We're not so attached to our views of other people or colors or architecture or gardening.

[85:30]

All these things in our environment We don't adhere to our views about them. We care for all these things. But sometimes because we cling to our views about these things, there's a lot of disturbance in our caring. We're in a turbulent relationship with things because we hold to our views about them. So all this is about is giving up our view about things in the process of relating to things. It's not like divorcing ourselves from things. It's about the practice of working together, giving up the views of what that working together means. And that includes noticing that we do have, we do project, on the thing, that the way we see them that's out there is not just our idea.

[86:37]

We do that. We think this person really is good and this person really is unstoppable, right? And that unstoppable is actually out there rather than it's our perception, rather than it's our story. So a big part of the practice is confessing that we're caught by our perception of people as being something more than our perception. And get used to that because it's constantly happening, that projection of externality is constantly happening. The creation and projection of things that don't exist is constantly arising. There's a constant arising of what doesn't exist. There's a constant arising of the imagination of what doesn't exist. It's constantly happening. So we are constantly challenged to let go of that. and letting go of it frees us up to serve beings, if we wish to.

[87:43]

So for those who wish to serve beings, this practice is necessary. You can serve beings somewhat without this practice, but you'd be hobbled, more or less. Okay? Yes. I wanted to go back to the radium under the photo. The radium under the photo. They relate to . The radium's under the floorboard because we don't know about it. That was the situation that Dr. Lewis proposed to me. Is it really rare if we don't know about it? Right, right. So we have no conscious knowledge, conscious awareness of many things that we don't have the tendency to arrive in a relationship with. Say anything? There are many things we have the tendency to arrive in a relationship with that we may not have conscious knowledge of.

[88:50]

The radium could be under the floorboard, and our bodies are dependently relating to the radium, even though we have no knowledge of it. We have no conscious knowledge of it. But our bodies have the knowledge of it. But the existence of the radium, the way it is, is actually producing the body. various kinds of information which are being categorized and conceptualized, which we don't know about. But before that, whatever it is that's interacting with our bodies, it's not radiating. It's not radiant until we identify it as radiant. Right. So something that's not, quote, radiant.

[89:54]

What is it? It's a kind of a co-arising phenomenon, by the way, with reacting with our body. Yeah, right. And with the floor and all that. It's happening. But if it's affecting our bodies, it's already being... It's already creating... I mean, we're already being creative with it. Right. But the idea is that it's something... before it's interacting with us. There's an idea still that before it starts interacting with us unconsciously, that something is there, right? That it's pulsing before it touches a human. It's down there pulsing before it touches a human. But again, pulsing is something that we put on. What could it possibly be that we don't project onto it that it is? We think it's something, but what would it be? Policies are not going to work. What would it be? Before any human being or any being projects anything onto it, what would it be?

[90:57]

It could be pretty much anything. Well, there is no before beings are in relationship. And beings would always be. Well, some people are saying that there could be something there before beings are in relationship to it. We think that. Not just about rolling around in the store bars, we think that about regular people that we're talking to. So if we can't do it with people, we just back off and try to find something that's really remote. Where can we go to get away from people? Like, away from where people know anything. Now, then we've got something there, right? Before it's even like, it's so far away there's no relationship. We think that there's something there that has no relationship to us or anything else. That's what we think. But we think that about people and ourselves. But that's not going to work. So we back off that one.

[92:00]

Where can we find something that was like that? That would let us imagine In the dropping of our stories that we recognize in our own incutational creation or watching with creation, there's also a situation where many stories simply become a story about a person or a situation. Yeah. And that story, that collective or communal or conventional story, we tend to think of it as more real or more true because it's verified by people around us. But it doesn't have any greater validity than my story in isolation.

[93:11]

I don't think it has more truth, but it has more consequence. It has more consequence. It's a different kind of core rising. Because you have several people with the same stories, you have a different kind of core rising now. But if all the people who shared the view, you know, all actually... or enlightened, then that would be a different dependent core, I assume. And if they all believe, each one of them believe, that what they thought about the person was something that actually was out there in the person. But if they all knew that that was non-existence, then their agreement or disagreement would not be harmful to the person. Either way. But if they adhere to that, then they're in an afflicted situation, and that person could be in trouble one way or another. They might agree the person's wonderful, and then they're going to kind of like promote this person to go along with the believing that's the way.

[94:15]

So they're kind of like pushing the person not towards dharma, but towards, you know, this is really so. So they're kind of teaching the person, they're reinforcing the person's tendency, plus their own, to believe that. But it also can dependently co-arise in a bunch of people who understand that there is a constant production. They're grounded in the understanding that there's a constant production that doesn't exist. They can share a, dependently co-arise it, they kind of share a story, and then they work with that in a way that's beneficial. And there's indications, there's dependently coercive indications about whether people are believing their stories. You can check on yourself and you can kind of test with other people, too. One of the nice things about Zen Center is there's not that much agreement. Talk to the coach.

[95:17]

Good. That's a kind of a strong point. It's also a weak point because it's hard for us to really get a concerted effort on something because we have so much diversity of opinion. Yeah? I kind of want to pick up on something Bert said last night about consciousness being localized, not just some type of place or form. Well, de-localized, I think, would not. I think no location is a little bit difficult to de-localize. But anyway, it doesn't have location. Can you talk about that? Yes. So that means consciousness. At a certain level, we only have consciousness with the old there.

[96:18]

and that, on top of that, is supposed to have a story, a concept, a body, an experience. I don't need all of it to be destroyed in the form of an experience. It can't just be destroyed. I think what the... Some of the disciples of the Buddha, some of the Buddhas are saying, what is it called done? If there's an inconceivable done, an inconceivable way things are. And consciousness doesn't reach it. But sometimes they call the way things are enlightened consciousness. And so then it's understood that dualistic consciousness doesn't reach this radiant Buddha mind.

[97:28]

So in that sense you might say what really is the Buddha mind and we can realize it, but ordinary dualistic consciousness doesn't reach it. The consciousness which recognizes things and has objects, like it says in the noon service to you. It doesn't want to recognize, oh, this can't be the divine thing, or it just... Correct. Right. If the practice of meditation and realization were two things, you could look at it. Meditation practice could look at the enlightenment. What can be met with recognition and what can be an object of consciousness is not realization itself. Because realization itself, mind and object merge in realization and go beyond enlightenment. there is this little bit of difficulty in the Buddhist tradition.

[98:33]

They're saying, you know, there's the Buddha mind, which is the mind of those who are living in the inconceivable Dharma, but no consciousness reaches that mind. And that mind, which is not reached by consciousness, can illuminate minds which are, can illuminate conscious minds which do deal with duality and do use language and do make conventional designations, those can be illuminated by this Buddha mind, which is always present. That's a certain way of teaching. Everything is this one mind. But this is not the mind, this is not the dualistic mind which has objects. So, ordinarily, consciousness knows objects. That's normally what we mean by consciousness.

[99:36]

Vijnana means a knowing of difference. That's normal or biological knowing, is to know objects, right? And know different objects. However, even in that case, scientifically now, we see that even in that case, the object that is known is actually a mental event. It's a perception. And it appears to be outside. This is like Buddhism says it, now cognitive science says it. Everybody's agreeing the externality of perceptions is nonsensical. But still, that's the way they look. Buddhism's known it for a while, Western philosophy's known it for a while, modern science in verifying it empirically, okay? That's consciousness in the normal dualistic sense. And we can use that consciousness to hear about teachings which will free us to be able to access a mind which is not reached by dualistic consciousness, but which can illuminate and cure dualistic consciousness of all obstruction to the mind which cures

[100:47]

dualistic consciousness of all destruction. And that's the Sattva Kali Samadhi, because the mind is resonating with the dualistic mind, and the dualistic mind is resonating back to the mind which is educating the dualistic mind. But the dualistic mind doesn't reach the Buddha mind, doesn't reach it, but it resonates back the very thing, the very message that the Buddha mind sends to the dualistic mind, the dualistic mind sends back to enlightenment. So enlightenment knows that it's a dualistic mind. And it says, I don't know, a beam touching dualistic mind. Thanks, I haven't got yet. See you later. And then he goes zap and he says, well, you want another lesson? So another lesson came back. Does that make sense? So what you've got to do is you've got to, like, jump into that non-dual mind. You've got to jump into the place a little bit beyond consciousness. You let God come. Huh? You let God come. Yeah, let go of consciousness and jump into the Buddha mind.

[101:48]

So now you've got a chance. The session is coming. Just dive into the Buddha mind. Dive into the mind that your consciousness can't reach. And if you don't, and you're still out here in dualistic consciousness, enjoy the messages coming from the mind beyond your consciousness. It's inviting you to jump in. By sitting there, visibly in that room, are slaving away in the kitchen. Time check. Time check. So you've got now? Is that enough? A couple who haven't been cried on, is that enough? Five people. Five people. Is that enough, five people? With the five people, would you raise your hand and have them stand up, please? No, but how? Do I have to be serious for you to follow my request?

[102:53]

Would you stand up, please? Can you stand up, please? Sarah, Sonia, Peter, and Shabba. Stand up, people, and tell us what we should do. The people who haven't asked a question ever. The people who haven't asked a question ever should ask some questions? How many of those? Who's never asked a question? Stand up. I mean, of that group. Oh, of that group. Okay, if you don't mind, that group has not asked a question ever. I think all of them have . OK. Go ahead. Ask the question, David. OK. So physiologically, there's no difference between memory, imagination, and reputation?

[104:03]

No difference in memory, imagination, and reputation? I don't know. I'm not sure about that. Say your thanks to everybody. Describe some difference. That's all. There's our physiological event. It's consciousness of the physiological event. So anytime we're mental event, and affected the pupti. So if something did happen yesterday, if something happens today, and then now here we are tomorrow, that thing about today and tomorrow, our physiology is involved in the creation of yesterday and today. So it's not really that there's actually a thing called yesterday and today in the content of human being.

[105:14]

Huh? What? You would say that? Do you see if there are any words? Do you want to bet? Come with me. A bar of chocolate? You're on. So anyway, what we're basically saying is that memory is a dependent cause of rising. There are things like memories elsewhere, independent of human biology. Or for fish biology, fish had memories too. But Cruz definitely said that there's no memories independent of his consciousness. He's still remembering right now. Dropping my mic. So we're not saying no such thing as memory. We're just saying memory is a dependable horizon. It means it's not a natural, distinct thing. It's a dropping body.

[106:19]

Again, memory, imagination, and replacement, and the physiological . I don't think, I don't know if Dropping body and mind is a physiological event. I'm sorry, what's physiological? Body and mind. Material? Is it material? I don't know. I just feel as though I don't know if they're physiological. Well, that's a good thing to know, so maybe we should look that way. Hopefully a biologist is going to answer the question. I think that... Physiology is the way in which the nervous system functions and controls the body. So I think, like, when we talk about, you know, memory, the physiological event, I think it's like there are connections being made between your brain and memory, as it revolves around your experience.

[107:37]

Carry on. Thank you very much. But anyway, back to Toga. He seems to have just talked to me. Right? Well, it would be good. Yeah. There's certain things good about stopping sometimes.

[107:52]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_82.83