There's a concern that some of the activities that I've been doing since this operation might be endangering my health. For example, if I fall, then maybe I'll split open the incision in my abdomen to some extent, producing an accidental heart acute. And I have no second. Mung bean free. He's only got that little thing in his head and never saw it. You'd be amazed what he could do with it. When I'm bowing, when I keep the angle of my groin area open, it doesn't create any stress.

[01:03]

So when I go down, I step forward so that I'm not making a real sharp angle in my groin. And also, I do experience pain if I do certain things. So if I experience any pain, I usually stop whatever direction I'm moving. So I think I found a way of bowing that's not stressing the wound. And after service, I check to see if anything's wrong. I was pretty scared to see you suddenly doing those full bows. I was thinking about it. As I was imagining. Anyway, so far, there's been a splitting. And he's appealing really well. Also, I was studying yesterday afternoon. And, you know, I thought afterwards.

[02:05]

I studied all afternoon. And I understood a little tiny bit in some new way after studying all afternoon. It's quite, for me to go, you know, to extend the understanding deeper, it's quite difficult. I want to let you know that I moved deeper in the material with considerable difficulty. So I thought, you may think it's easy for me to understand this. But it's not. It's quite difficult. I often read stuff and just don't know what the point is. What they're driving at when they're talking about certain things. So I just go over it and over it. And then I, you know, I had experiences, oh, yesterday didn't mean anything, today it does. Some kind of thing. At the beginning of the practice period, I told my wife that I was feeling really happy because

[03:13]

I kind of feel like I've been circling around certain dimensions of this teaching. I felt like during this practice period, I was going to really like ... So that's been my feeling. And so, these are things I've been studying for a long time. When I first started studying Yogacara was more than 20 years ago. So, I've been going around and around, circling around and around, getting closer and closer to the center. And so now I'm thinking, I don't think I've announced the topic for the series of classes that I'm offering here in the spring. I'm offering one section, a short section, three classes.

[04:20]

And that's going to be on koans. But there's another section. How many classes? Do you know, Roberta? Well, there's another class series of three left in the fall. There's another one in the spring? The one in the spring is only three? Yeah. Okay. What was that? And I'd like to start today with a brief period of responding to the questions of the people who had their hands raised at the end of the last class. Who had their hands raised at the end of the class? Bernard? I did, but I asked you. Catherine, just two? Two questions I can get to at the end? Jamie? Okay, so what are your questions? You asked me, okay.

[05:24]

I was wondering about how the process of imputing works when you're imputing something that you do, like an action or an emotion. How do you impute onto an action? Yeah. Like, how would you impute an essence onto longing? How would you impute an essence onto physical action? Or onto longing, like a kind of emotion that actually there's no... So you have a question about how to know the imputational character. Right. And what's your question? It was kind of around around an emotion like nervousness when the image isn't so clear. There's nothing there as far as...

[06:30]

But there's words. There's a concept there for sure around the sensations, which I call nervousness. But the actual... If I had to describe it, I would probably use whatever the sensations are going on. So my question was, is that description sufficient enough to meet your criteria for sign? Okay. Any questions? I was actually interested in having John's question. It was about signs in sort of endless... I don't know, endless... sign upon sign upon sign rather than just sign and sensation. Is that the nature of the question? Some signs being composites of many, many simpler signs. Okay. I got your questions

[07:31]

and they all seem to be about signs. Right? For years and years I've been interested in signs in relationship to imputation. The way we know imputation. Imputation is an activity of imputing an own being or imputing an independent existence upon the only kind of phenomena there are which are interdependent phenomena. So you impute that and you impute it by names which are connected to signs. So there's a big question about what's their signs. And so I think I would go back to Andreas' comment about signs yesterday. Where is he? So he said he looks at a chair

[08:31]

and he thinks of it as something he can sit on. And then he talked about it having a shape I guess a shape maybe would hold a body. And I think now looking back on that I thought that looking at the chair as something that can hold a body in a sitting position but that actually is more like what we call the it's the lakshana of the chair it's the characteristic of the chair it's not the sign of the chair and

[09:34]

actually and then I would say that the actual thing about a chair being able to be something that somebody can sit in is actually more like what Al brought up I think it's more like the general characteristic of a chair the samanya lakshana the specific characteristic of a chair would be the way when a particular chair at a particular moment with a particular body the way that particular chair supported that sitting activity and that would be unique moment by moment it would be unique in the moment of first sitting in the chair each moment of continuing to sit each one of those moments of the chair functioning as a

[10:38]

point of support for a sitting person that would be a different, unique experience and those would be called the the word is sphalakshana the own characteristic or the specific characteristic of this phenomenal chair pardon S-V-A and then lakshana is L-A-K-S with a dot under it I think A-N-A the own character that's the big word at the beginning of chapter 7 of the sutra the buddha has taught the sphalakshana the own character of the skandhas the general character is samanya S-A-N A-N

[11:41]

Y-A samanya samanya samanyalakshana samanyalakshana which is the general characteristic samanyalakshana is a conceptual is a conceptual version of the characteristic the conceptual version of the chair is that it holds a person up And that characteristic of a chair is known to conceptual consciousness indirectly. And the Svalokana, a particular, unique characteristic of a chair, is known directly. But the sign is like the image that you would use to cognize a chair.

[12:47]

And the image of a chair wouldn't necessarily be that you could sit in a chair. Like, you'd see a chair, and it's like you'd see a corner of just a tad, a little bit of fabric out of the corner of your eye and say chair. Just an image of the chair would be enough for you to say chair. And then you could go sit in the chair, sit in what you thought was a chair, to experience, to see if it satisfies the Svalokana of a chair, namely can you sit in it. But you could have a correct or incorrect perception of a chair, but the perception wouldn't necessarily need to be based on actually trying it out as a chair. Or even see thoroughly whether it actually satisfies the structural requirements of a chair for you or anybody else.

[13:53]

So it doesn't say in the Abhidharmakosha or other places that you use the characteristic of things to perceive them. It says the perception is to grasp the sign, the image of the thing. It's enough to sort of like say, oh it's a chair. You don't have to sit in it to perceive it. But if you can't sit in it, it's either a broken chair or not a chair at all. In other words, it doesn't have the characteristics of a chair if you can't sit in it, or nobody can sit in it. But it still might have an image which led you to perceive it. So that image that you use is a sign. Now did you want to say something Andreas? Yes, that's what I meant originally. That's what you meant? No, I meant it wasn't about holding the body.

[14:55]

I was just saying that I look at these chairs with the red stuff on it and recognize it as a chair. But my sign of a chair is more like... No, not your sign of a chair. Your characteristic of a chair. My sign is more like these yellow chairs with the board on it. That's the typical chair that I have in mind. That's the more typical image that you have of a chair. Okay. Now, that's signs. Now, the next step would be to ask some questions about these signs. And so Jamie asked a question, for example, with a chair or an action or an emotion, so what's a sign? How does the imputational process work with longing?

[15:57]

So, let's say you have some feeling, and there's something about the feeling that you feel connects with the word longing. So far, this isn't imputation. This is just a sense of a word connects with some image you have of this feeling. So if you have a feeling and you can't get an image about this feeling, and we do have experience like this, but we have a feeling and we don't have an image of it. This is part of what we're talking about here, is that you can have feelings without images of them, and when you don't have images of them, then, in a way, you can't perceive them clearly. So you can decide whatever image would be sufficient for you,

[17:05]

or what types of images would be sufficient for you to connect, so you'd be able to connect that image to the word longing. However, to actually then not just connect the word to longing, but then to say, this is longing, then we need to impute upon this feeling an essence, an independent existence. And you can watch sometimes and catch yourself at sensing maybe the sense of self has not been projected, and therefore I do not feel comfortable actually saying, this is that word, and then you can sense when you put it on there, and then you can sense if you would take it away, you wouldn't feel comfortable with the word being on it,

[18:09]

or even if you took the word away, you would feel uncomfortable because the essence was on it. So you can get to know the imputational character that way. And one of the exercises that I like is to say that this is the same as to say to identify the feeling. In other words, we have to identify the feeling in order to name it. But then to say that the identity of this feeling, which we have identified, is nothing in addition, I should say, that the identity of the feeling is nothing in addition to the name, to the verbal designation, is the emptiness of that feeling, of the essence. Once you are able to name something, and by that naming identify it,

[19:11]

or identify and name it, then I would say to you that one of the ways to work with the imputational character is to say that the absence of the imputational character in the phenomena of the feeling is the fact that the identity which you've come up with is nothing more than the word, than a word. And when you hear that, then you notice you recoil against that, and your recoiling is because the imputational character is operating. If you don't recoil, and you accept that, then you let go of the imputational character. But there's a sense in us when we look at something, and someone tells us that the identity of this person, or this thing, is nothing more than the word, the recoiling is because of the imputational character.

[20:16]

Resisting, feeling, no, this person is more than just a word, the identity of this person is more than just the word web. Isn't there a difference between a feeling and a sense object? Yeah, I'm just talking about feeling. He's using the example of feeling. This would apply to all phenomena, any phenomena. That's just the example that he used, that Jamie used. So with a feeling, that means there actually really isn't an imputational character. Pardon? There actually isn't an imputational character. There isn't an imputational character? No. The imputational character is just the word. No, the imputational character is not just the word. The imputational character is basically that which you put on things, that which you falsely, you know, inaccurately put on things

[21:22]

so that you can name them. And what we put on things so that we can name them is an appearance of independent existence. So if I don't really feel like you're independent of the wall, I would feel funny calling you Jamie. Because the wall isn't Jamie. And if I don't see you as independent of Walker, then it seems funny to call you Jamie. I have to make you separate from Walker to call you Jamie and him Walker. So verbal designation doesn't make sense in the realm where there's no essences. So in the realm of emptiness, there's no verbal designation. So, let's see. I want to go to the example

[22:24]

before we go too long of John saying, take the example of a sign that's a complex of many signs. There can be a sign of a complex of many signs. Just sort of some image of an extremely complex or a great complex of many simple signs or many complex signs. There can be a sign of all that. A single sign? A single sign, yeah. Or even just a little squiggle, just a little beep is enough to say, oh yeah, that's an extremely complicated problem that we've been working on. So the glimpse of a complex object like the Wheelwright Center, if you just saw a corner of the roof or something and were immediately able to identify it, that's what you're calling a sign? Just that little piece that you saw? Well, it might be just that you saw a little piece,

[23:27]

but it might be that you saw the whole Wheelwright Center, but you just made an image about the whole Wheelwright Center that you saw. In other words, the whole thing might have impressed you, but you came up with just a little snippet of it, which was enough for you to say Wheelwright Center. Because the sign of whatever it is is not the thing. You never can make an image of something that encompasses... For example, you can't make an image of a person that includes the back of the person, even if you have a mirror behind them. So the image is always not the thing that's being imagined. I mean, it's imaginary. So the sign is like an image of what's going on, but it's an image that's connected to the physical basis. So it's partly physical and partly imaginary. So something about the Wheelwright Center directly impresses you,

[24:29]

and also you have an image of this direct impression. And it can be a very complex thing that impacts you, and different parts of the complex thing could impact you. But no matter what, you can make up an image of it. And the image of it, together with the complexity of it, is the sign. And the Other Dependent Character is the sign of the compound phenomenon. It's part of what the Other Dependent Character is, is that it provides a direct impact of itself upon what it's connected to. It arises with the Other Dependent Character arises with something that it can impress as a sign. Imputational Character is to work with that sign, connected to words, using essences.

[25:31]

But also, before I go any further, I just wanted to say one more kind of major thing, and that is going back again to Chapter 5, where he talks about these mechanics of alaya, and manas, and and mano-vijnana, and cakshar-vijnana, and shabda-vijnana, and so on, all these different sense-consciousnesses, together with the mind-consciousness, and the mind-consciousness, sense-consciousness, and the mind-organ, which is manas, and the defiled mind-organ, or defiled mind-consciousness, which is manas, and alaya. And at the end it says, but it's not because of understanding this alone that the Bodhisattva is wise with respect to the functionings of mind-consciousness and intellect. It's also that they do not perceive all these things.

[26:35]

So not perceiving happens when you remove the signs. So, if you're looking at a phenomenon, or watching how the mind functions, and if you learn to see, if you learn what the invitational character is, and learn to find that it actually is not present in the other dependent character, then the signs are removed. Again, the invitational character is known through signs that are connected to names, and then it's known and it functions by the signs and names and projecting essences. If you find that this process is not present in what's happening, you see it's absent, then that removes the signs in the process.

[27:37]

When you remove the signs, the images of the process, then you can't perceive these things. So that's how it comes to be that in emptiness, or in the absence of the invitational character, in the situation being empty of the invitational character, you don't see eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind, color, sound, smells, touch, taste, because in order to see these things, in order to cognize them, in order to perceive them, in an identifiable way, so that you can say, color and so on, you need the signs to connect to the names. But in order to connect the signs to the names, you have to impute something that's imaginary. When you realize that the imaginary is absent, you can't... the whole conventional designation system

[28:39]

collapses just like they said it would. And then there aren't any of these things. So that's a short course on sort of the most difficult part of the text, is to actually learn how to remove signs. And then in order to remove signs, you have to learn how to see suchness. In order to learn how to see suchness, you need to focus on the other dependent character, and then learn what the invitational character is, and then verify that the invitational character is absent in everything. However, even though it's absent in everything, it can be superimposed on anything. And it's always available to be superimposed in a normally functioning unenlightened person. And an enlightened person can also

[29:40]

project it, but they do it not because of predispositions towards conventional designations. They just do it out of the kindness of their heart. So I'll go over this point about how to remove signs more, but I just wanted to put it out there for now since somebody asked me about it this morning. The other thing I want to do is review... I'm just going to do questions for a while. I want to review... sort of... also because someone asked me about this. Someone said something about that she was mindful of the immediate sense experience. She told me about the immediate sense experience of... Do you remember what you said, Silvia? The immediacy of sound. The sound, yes. The immediacy of color. Of color, yes. The immediacy of your experience immediately. So like the deer sound, she was trying to be mindful

[30:44]

of the immediacy of a sound or a color. But I felt my feeling was, when she was talking, my feeling in general for us is that when we have what we feel is an immediate experience of a sound, because we're talking about it that way so reasonably and clearly, that this is not the immediate experience of sound. Could you repeat the point about removing... In order to perceive, you need to remove signs? No. In order to... The definition of perception, said the third skandha, is that you grasp the sign. Right. So perception depends on grasping signs. So, if you meditate on suchness, if you see the absence of the invitation, you kind of undermine the process of perception of signs.

[31:51]

So you remove the signs. So within the context of removing the signs, which happens when you meditate on a fairly established character, you also remove the signs. So then, in some sense, you don't really perceive things in the normal way of perceiving things, where you can identify them and designate them. Because you've removed... You've seen the absence of what you use to identify things. Like words you use to identify things. But you can't put words on things without the invitational character being slapped on them. So when Sylvia actually perceived the sound of a color, she really perceived it, but in order to articulate it to you, she came out of that immediacy. Correct? Exactly. And that's why I said to her, I said, you do have an immediate experience of sounds and colors.

[32:52]

You do. The immediate experience is happening all day. But, without interpreting it as a sign, it's basically, literally, excuse the pun, insignificant. And that's what the Thirty Verses articulates. It says, Whatever appears, whatever indeed is the variety of ideas, of self and elements, or you could say persons and elements, that prevail, it occurs in the transformation of consciousness. Such transformation is threefold. The resultant, what is called meditation, or we call manas,

[33:55]

as well as the concept of the object. Herein, the consciousness called alaya, with all its seeds, is the resultant. The resultant is unidentified in terms of concept of object and location, and is always possessed of activities such as contact, attention, feeling, and perception. Alaya has within itself representations of consciousness of a not clearly imagined object in places. So, alaya, you know, so this is, this Karka 3, you know, sometimes I really, these words, I kind of like, they kind of induce me, or induct me into this space of where it's kind of like

[34:59]

there's contact, there's feeling, and there's all these representations of the universe, and this ocean of representations which consciousness is making of the universe. And all these feelings and everything, everything's in there, right? But nope, but this part kind of like, nobody's saying, do you know these people? I mean, some people are saying, do you know any of these people? And somebody's saying, oh no, do you? Do you know me? No. Do I know you? No. No. Haven't I seen you somewhere before? Yes, but I'm not going to tell you where. Is there anybody here who could, you know, tell us who else is here? I don't know. And actually, there is,

[36:04]

no, we're not there anymore, look, now we're up above, you know, and we're saying, but we know there is a transformation of consciousness which can tell those guys who's there with them. There is a transformation of consciousness which can identify all these objects which are floating around, sliding over and around each other, bumping into each other. Right in that group there is an idea. There's one of the people in the room can be used to identify any of them. One of the ideas, one of the representations of consciousness between the room is the representation of something that exists on its own. There's also the idea of things that exist independently. It's in there too. Totally useless under most circumstances, so nobody wants to play with it. But it's in there too. But one of them is the one that these guys who don't know what's going on

[37:05]

want to meet. Because if they can find that one, they can put it up, and that one can say, the sign of this one is connected to a word, and if you separate this guy from the rest of the situation, you'll clearly know who this is. But there is consciousness, there is cognition, this alliance is cognition, but it's unidentified cognition in terms of concepts of objects. So the objects are there, it's cognizing the objects. So, in this aspect of alaya, is what might be called, kind of described there in

[38:05]

Karka 3 of the 30 verses, this aspect of alaya is alaya as resultant and alaya as basis. And this is alaya which cognizes objects and cognizes beings and cognizes residual impressions. Residual impressions from past actions, and particularly residual impressions of past moments where there was settling into the imputational character of things as being them. And settling into them

[39:08]

is pretty much the same as the residual impressions of conventional designation, which can be also said residual impression of past yieldings to the predisposition towards conventional designation. So now, part of the residual impression is that we have another feeling of impulse towards and compulsion towards conventional designation. That's part of what alaya cognizes. It cognizes objects, it cognizes beings, living beings, and it cognizes residual impressions of past action, of past mental and physical and verbal action. And very important among these residual impressions is this strong compulsion towards conventional designation.

[40:08]

And that arrives from past moments of conventional designation, which means past moments of settling into the imputational character as being what's happening. So this is another... I'm expanding now on the third verse of the Thirty Verses. So this cognition is without any particular individuation. It's a cognition without any particular individuation. So it's not like a cognition of the sort this is fu, and this is toga, and that is toga. It's not that kind. It's a different kind of cognition. It's without a particular individuation. Which cognition? The cognition of alive. This is alive, right? This is the resultant basis kind of alive.

[41:10]

So this is the mind that's like another mind? This is the what? And this is the mind that's like this cognition, this mind watching the mind? Is the mind watching the mind? I think it's more like the mind watching its contents. Watching. But not identifying. But not identifying. So what's that? That isn't. That isn't. The mind is its contents. The mind is its contents? Unidentified. Well, I don't know if its knowing is a content. I... When the list was not... The simple act of knowing was not on the list. The simple act of cognition was not one of the objects. So the objects are... The objects are the five sense objects, and

[42:13]

those are what they mean by objects. And then the sentient beings, what's meant by that is is the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, and the body and mind. Cognizes those. So those... In alaya, it's like alaya is right down there in the organic situation and the physical situation. In the inorganic and the organic situation. And it's cognizing this stuff, but not in a particular way. And it also cognizes the residual impressions of settling into the imputation or character of selves and dharmas. Would you say that again? Would you say that again? It's... It's cognizing the residual effect

[43:15]

of settling into the imputation or character of selves and dharmas, but not in a particular way. And therefore it's right in there with all this stuff, this rich soup. So this is the basis of it all, but not knowing it in a particular way. It's not knowing it the way we usually know it, like this is that and that is that. This is x and that is y. It's not like that. It's a different kind of knowing, but it is knowing. That's why it's called a consciousness. But it's a consciousness. And what does a consciousness know? It knows directly, immediately, the sense organs and the sense objects. But it's not a sense consciousness yet. It's pre-verbal. It's pre-verbal. It's even pre-sense consciousness.

[44:17]

Sense consciousness is not verbal, necessarily. Sense consciousness is pre-verbal. And this is pre-verbal too. But it's also pre-sense consciousness. And how do we get sense consciousness? What's the story of the rising of sense consciousness? Just pop that out there now. Monovisionana? Monovisionana, where does that come from? It's contact between sensory stimulus and organ. It's contact between sensory stimulus and organ, but in this system, what makes that happen? The alias. Yeah, alias supports that because you can have moments of sense consciousness, one sense consciousness, but you have to have monovisionana adopted. You have to have mind consciousness with it. So mind consciousness has to arise. So it says here in the,

[45:18]

what does it say? When you get to the fifth karaka, it says associated with the process of alaya, and depending upon it, there occurs a consciousness called manas, which has the nature of mentation. So from alaya, this manas arises, and with it arises monovisionana adopted. And then from monovisionana adopted, now you can have sense consciousness, and then you have the arising of the sense organ and the sense consciousness, and now you have, now you can actively know the images of alaya. So I'm just, that's just a parenthetical thing. I want to go back now to alaya, soup, and just sort of have you just think about this

[46:20]

situation where there's cognition, but where it's not, you're not yet able to make conventional designations, and that that is immediate, and that's going on, and that immediacy is going on all the time. And people are asking questions, and it's not like I'm stupid, I can't see you. So I told you to keep raising your hand, it doesn't really mean that I didn't see you before, does it? You don't think that the first time you raised your hand, I didn't see you, did you? No, you don't. Good. And one other thing I want to say is that, I want to say again, is that the initial meditation practice, the criterion for our sitting practice being

[47:23]

the true path of enlightenment is that we sit in the awareness, which is called the self-fulfilling awareness, and the self-fulfilling awareness is basically to sit in the awareness of the teaching of how our existence is totally arising through the assistance of things other than ourself, and how we are part of the assistance network for all other things. And that all Buddhas are sitting with each of us, and all beings are sitting with each of us, and we are sitting with all Buddhas and all beings. And so when we sit, we invoke that awareness, which means we invoke the presence of all beings and all Buddhas, which means we invoke the teaching of dependent co-arising. So that's the basic

[48:25]

faith practice of Sutra Zen, is that we don't just go sit in Zen-do as though, and just, what do you call it, settle into the imputational character of our sitting, which is that our sitting is this thing which has an own being called sitting. We don't just go do that. We do that, but that's not the practice. That's just a human trick we go on, like everybody else, of, I'm doing my sitting with those people who aren't helping me, and some of whom I'm helping, and I feel like it. No, that's, we may feel like that sometimes, but that's not the self-fulfilling awareness. The self-fulfilling awareness is the invocation of the presence of all Buddhas, all Bodhisattvas, all our hearts, and all beings to realize the awareness that we're practicing together. That's the basic. And that's the same as

[49:26]

to meditate, to invoke the teaching of dependent co-arising, and to think about it while you're sitting. So, that's Dogen's, I think, basic faith, and he said, there are millions of things I haven't understood, so this practice period, the millions of things he didn't understand, and the trillions of things I don't understand, is what we've been talking about. Millions of things, the millions of teachings and subtleties, the extreme subtlety and profundity of this dependent co-arising. And again, the Sangha is saying that to study dependent co-arising in the context of the Mahayana is part of the path to understand the most deep and subtle understanding of the self-fulfilling Samadhi, or of dependent co-arising

[50:26]

in the Mahayana. This is a kind of like I'm saying this to encourage you in one sense, that this is a very difficult and subtle study, but that I feel is directly connected, kind of wonderfully and coincidentally, to the central point of Soto Zen meditation. This self-fulfilling Samadhi is very much meditating on the teachings of dependent co-arising in connection with the laya Vajrayana. The mountains and the rivers of the immediate present are the manifestation of the path of the ancient bliss. Abiding together in the normative state, these mountains and rivers culminate the qualities of thorough exhaustiveness. This is a teaching about dependent co-arising in the context of the laya. Thank you. So, I think

[51:27]

I I covered most of what I wanted to say, but one more point, big point, which I don't know how much more you're going to see at this point before this all is said and done, but I am impressed by the value of looking at a laya from another point of view, which is not separate from the previous point of view. So the previous point of view is the one that's clearly expressed in Karika 3 of 30 verses, which I've just been talking to you about, this resultant soup, which is the basis for the arising of all active consciousness and all

[52:28]

clearly appearing objects in our world, of persons and selves and things. That's the resultant basis consciousness of laya. And we'll talk about that more. But there's another way to look at a laya, and that is to look at a laya as seed, as seed, or as dependent. The dependent seed of laya. So one way is the basis of things and where things get laid down, and the other thing is things that get laid down are also another way to look at a laya. To look at a laya as the seeds, or sometimes they say the perfumes,

[53:30]

the residual impressions are sometimes called perfumes, which are laid back down in the laya. By what? By the perfumer. So that's the perfumer is not a laya, the perfume is a laya. So the effects of our actions that get laid back down in the basis and make, and change the basis, and make the basis into a new resultant basis, that's another aspect of a laya, which I want to tell you about now, and I'll try to unfold that later. And one more thing I wanted to say about a laya, which is in chapter 4, no, not chapter 4, verse 4, karaka 4, of the 30 verses, after it says

[54:32]

that it's, you know, it's unidentified in terms of concepts, of objects and location, and it has all these feelings in there too. And it has samya, it has samya, but the samya is having trouble working in its usual way, because the signs aren't being connected to the names very well, because no essences are being projected. And it has, it has a, and there's an organization in the system, which is the will of the situation, the volition, and it has attention, there's attention in various ways. All these normal basic mental factors are in a laya too. And then the fourth karaka says that in this context the feeling is neutral, it's uninterrupted, and not defined. And so are these mental factors. And it proceeds like a

[55:33]

current of a stream. And I want to point out that it's undefined. I recently ran across somebody who's trying to say it's not defined as not subject to moralizing. Now, not defined, but the word that they're using is the word which means morally neutral. So, when we're classifying experience, like in the early teaching of the Buddha, one of the ways to analyze our experience is in terms of wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. Or wholesome, unwholesome, and you can't tell whether it's wholesome or unwholesome. Or skillful, unskillful, and you can't tell which. So you can analyze your experience in that way. You can learn to analyze your experience in that way. Alaya is morally indeterminate.

[56:35]

It's the situation in which all the seeds for all unwholesomeness are in there. The seeds for all wholesomeness are in there. The seeds for all indeterminate states are in there. The seeds for states, for images of states that are in all states are in there. But the overall situation is not subject to moralizing. You can't really say that alaya is good or bad. There's no way to get at it. And part of the reason for this is that alaya needs to be the basis for both wholesome and unwholesome activities. So it wouldn't work for alaya to be wholesome because then unwholesome things couldn't arise from it. And you might say well if unwholesome things can arise from alaya then I say alaya is unwholesome. But then I would say well

[57:40]

wholesome things can arise from alaya too. And you might say oh maybe it's not so unwholesome then. But I think it's kind of unwholesome that it can do both. Anyway, both wholesome and unwholesome and neutral can arise from it. Therefore, it's not really wholesome or unwholesome. It's indeterminate. And the feeling in alaya is neutral. There is a feeling in alaya which is not clearly identified, but there is a feeling. And it's a big feeling. Feeling in alaya or of alaya? In alaya. So alaya has a feeling. But feeling like all other objects in alaya are not clearly known, are not identified. So it has a feeling which is not identified. But I would have a feeling

[58:42]

of alaya. Alaya itself would not have a feeling. No? Who are you? My experience is this universe... The you arises from this alaya. And in the alaya there is feeling. In the alaya. However, again, parenthetically, I don't want to get into it at this moment, parenthetically, when the sense consciousnesses or when the evolving consciousnesses —eye consciousness, ear consciousness, no consciousness, and so on— and mind consciousness, when they arise, they can have positive, negative, and neutral feelings. The seeds for positive, negative, and neutral feelings are in alaya. But the only one that's been used in alaya, the one that's always turned on in alaya, is neutral. It's always on neutral. And states can arise which can be neutral, positive, or negative. Those are the states you know. The ordinary feelings are in those states. But those states

[59:44]

arise in dependence on this huge all-embracing basis. The feeling there is neutral. I think it's helpful to remember the feeling in this place is neutral. It's not agreeable or unagreeable or disagreeable. And that connects to what I said yesterday about the second type of dependent co-arising, which is about distinguishing agreeable from disagreeable. I'm just trying to make a little net here for you. Plenty. Okay? So that's alaya. There's the basis, the fruition basis. And there's alaya, which is the dependent seed. The seed which is laid down upon. Or the seed which is based on alaya put back into alaya. It's not the seed that arises out of alaya.

[60:46]

The seeds mature into these active consciousnesses. And then in those active consciousnesses, if we settle into the reputational character, it influences the laying down of more into alaya. Also I wanted to say, has anybody not read the 30 verses? Raise your hands. You might want to read it. It's not very long, just two pages. It says, I just talked about Karak 4, and then in Karak 16. So then,

[61:47]

in terms of Manas, I just wanted to say that it explains that Manas is not found in the worthy one on the state of cessation on the supermundane path. And that alaya is turned back or dissipates in the Arhat. Or in the Bodhisattva, on the eighth boon. So this alaya does get turned back or quieted in certain states of understanding, and Manas is not found in certain levels of being. Certain levels of maturation. So, I think that's enough for now. Do you have some questions? Yes?

[62:48]

We need to speak of moving signs. I'm also thinking of elsewhere in the sutra, where it cautions the practitioner not to deprecate any of the three types of character. Actually, if you deprecate even the imputational character, you deprecate all three types of character, which I found kind of interesting. It challenged my idea of a hierarchy, I think. Unconsciously, I form a hierarchy that thoroughly establishes, like, you know, the grand prize or something. May I say something? Yeah. This is just a coincidence that Roberta is one of the co-chairmen of the diversity committee. Do you understand why I said that? No. Oh, I see. If you deprecate one character, you deprecate all characters. Well, I

[63:53]

could deprecate that character. George Bush can be deprecated. We're not deprecating somebody else. Actually, according to the sutra, you can't deprecate one character without deprecating them all. I was going to mention that, that you might look at this before, says she, page 119, talking about these different levels of understanding. May I say this for a second? This part where Roberta is referring to, it talks about some beings who cannot yet overcome conceptuality. They can't do it. But they're not arrogant, so they can actually keep evolving along the path, and they will eventually be okay. And then it's followed up by some sentient beings

[64:54]

who have not completed all the stages up to great accumulation of merit and wisdom, and who are not honest, and do not have honest nature, who are able to remove conceptuality. So these are pretty effective meditators, but they have some character flaws. And because they are able to move with conceptuality, and they're holding to fixed views of their own view to be supreme, they actually come upon this teaching as a thoroughly established and take it literally. And they can actually understand it in a sense, and then based on that, they adopt a view that all phenomena do not exist, and that character does not exist. Adopting such a view of the non-existence and the view of the character does not exist, they deprecate everything through the deprecation of all characters. So you might look at that section of the sutra, because

[65:57]

that's the section of the sutra where it talks about and shows you the danger of taking a fixed view vis-a-vis a thoroughly established character. We need this view of a thoroughly established character to remove signs, and we have to be careful in this process, otherwise we deprecate the other characters. So then we'll even deprecate the thoroughly established character. And this is one part, this is pointing out the big danger of nihilism in the process of removing signs. That's why we need strong ethical basis as we enter into the process of removing signs. Yeah, thank you. So my question was more how to work with removing signs without deprecating the imputational. Yeah, without deprecating the imputational. I mean, because removing them seems to imply that you can get all sorts of images about evacuating,

[66:57]

rejecting, rejecting. Yeah, so we have to watch out for that stuff. And so when you actually get to the place where you can see the thoroughly established and you're ready to drop those signs, let me know. I'll check your deprecation, your level of deprecation to make sure it's not deprecated. Page 119, check that out. What Roberta said, I think that the signs aren't the same, are not the identity of the imputational character. The signs aren't the identity. You could work with signs without harming the imputational character at all. You could remove the signs without harming the imputational character. Yes, right. But you would, if you removed the signs, you would

[67:58]

not deprecate, but you would lose the identity. Because the identity process, the identification process depends on signs and imputation of imaginary images upon the signs. And holding, holding strongly that the imputed character actually applies to the other dependent. You don't have to deprecate anything in not strongly adhering to the imputational character of the other dependent. However, some people if they're not careful and hold to their own view in the process they could start getting, deprecation can arise. Again, holding strongly to our view is a kind of deprecation, right, of other views. And it's hard to like, it's hard to attain actually the state of not holding

[69:01]

to our view. You know, and to be open to other people's views, sort of on par with ours, that's quite a quite a feat. We're actually trying to train ourselves to be able to open to other people's views almost as, not as though they were ours, but as equally good to ours. That would be, that's another way to put the training. When you were going over Alaia in such detail in this class, I was reminded of something I had thought before, but much more strongly this time, that it seems that in the 20th century, that psychology what Freud and others were calling it, what they were reaching for was Alaia. Yeah, and maybe some people think that what Jung was reaching for by collective unconscious maybe is Alaia. But that doesn't say that, and what they say

[70:02]

is an evidence of what they say Alaia, of what they say collective consciousness is, is Alaia. Maybe, you know, Buddhists might say, I think they might have been reaching for this, and this is as far as they got. So this is, this is pretty good what Freud got there. And that may, what they found out will probably illuminate our study, even if they didn't reach as far as the founders of the teaching did. And they may have reached some crannies that the others didn't. The more perspectives on this, the better. The more people that are looking at this consciousness and reporting what they find, the better, I say. Charlene, did your hand reach? I did. Yeah, I felt this sense of urgency before when I was raising my hand, and I was going to ask about the experiencing the

[71:03]

support of all the Buddhas, and how that related to a lack of individuation. But then you mentioned that, mentioned the support of all Buddhas right after I'd put my hand down. And so, my question has changed from that, though if you want to talk about something like that, that would be okay too, but my question has changed to if there is this experience of somehow a lack of individuation, is there in a sense... You said an experience of a lack of individuation. That's different from an experience which lacks individuation. Okay, I want to talk about the second one. Yeah, okay. Because if you experience a lack of individuation, that sounds like a clear identification of a lack of individuation. Okay, yeah, I mean the second one. Yeah. Yeah, okay. So, with that then... That's a lie as the basis. A kind of experience

[72:04]

that doesn't have much as hard as the individuation in it. Yeah. And that's the basic experience. Okay, so then this might be jumping a little bit, but I don't like this word, because it has a stigma tied to it that I don't... Individuation? No, the word I'm going to say. Telepathy? Yeah. Okay, so without the stigma of that... Take the stigma away. Then... Is telepathy something that's experienced within the relative? So is there imputation and whatnot connected with that? Or is it more of... I think, from my understanding of telepathy is that it's a relative phenomenon. It's a dependent co-arising. Anything that arises is a dependent co-arising. And therefore it's relative. That's the first thing.

[73:09]

What's the next part? I answered the relative part. Is there just one mind? Is there just one mind? Yeah. There's just one mind. But the alaya is not that one mind. I don't think alaya is that one mind. I think alaya is those many different alayas. I think. For individual people. Because alaya is how? Alaya is not operating, floating up there. Alaya is when consciousness is laid down, apprehends a body. That's alaya. It's body-based. And it's not based in everybody's body. It's based on individual bodies. And has individual history. And alaya obscures

[74:12]

the one mind. And by the way, the word, this first type of alaya I talked about, the basis alaya. When it talks about the resultant alaya, it says vipaka. Vipaka alaya, Vijnana, is the resultant alaya. And the resultant alaya is also a basis alaya. And the word for basis is ashraya. Where are you alaya? Ashraya. Ashraya. Basis. This is also vipaka. Resultant. And the big thing that has to happen in this school is what's called ashraya ashraya

[75:13]

ashraya ashraya pravitti. And pravitti is the word for these consciousnesses. These are called pravitti vijnanas. The active sense consciousnesses are called pravitti vijnanas. Which means evolving or turning or entering consciousnesses. Evolving, returning, rising and ceasing. And these are the consciousnesses which we ordinarily are aware of. Clear identification. But the big transformation of alaya is called ashraya pravitti, where the basis gets turned. It turns from being obstructing to being a mirror. It turns from obscuring to clearly reflecting. It changes from obscuring dependent co-arising

[76:13]

to showing dependent co-arising. Is that one mind? That's one mind? Is that one mind? No, that reveals the one mind. Is that the mirror wisdom? No, the mirror wisdom isn't the one mind. The mirror wisdom is the non-dual awareness of one mind. It's the realization of one mind. Is it the thoroughly established one mind? No, thoroughly established is the object which purifies the alaya. Which purifies the obstructions to that knowledge. By looking at suchness we remove the signs of this ocean and then it turns into a mirror rather than a cover. Okay? Yes?

[77:16]

That turning of alaya. Revolution of the basis? Once it's turned is that is that kind of that it? Is that it or alaya? That's it for alaya. There isn't a turning then and turning back. That's it. Nope. That's why it says it's turned back in our hardship or this book was written this text was written before the bodhisattva eight bhumis was you know circulating thoroughly through the community. For some reason they don't mention bodhisattvas here so arhats and bodhisattvas at the eighth level they turn back alaya and it doesn't flip back again. So then they use the imaginative capacities available but not in this way

[78:19]

of this semi-conscious predispositions of alaya. See who else hasn't been called on yet? Catherine? It was yesterday maybe the day before you said that there was a sense or one version of alaya in which it is the object condition for sense consciousness and what I want to know or what I'm wondering is is it the object condition I said that I said it's just an idea for you to consider that the object condition for a sense consciousness might be alaya rather than the object of condition for the sense consciousness would be outside of the cycle of the consciousness being transformed so the transformation the transformations of consciousness are the inward transformation is sense consciousness

[79:20]

mind consciousness, alaya mind consciousness, sense consciousness, mind consciousness, alaya the inward process is sense consciousness, mind consciousness, alaya the outward process is alaya mind consciousness, sense consciousness that process, that transformation process usually when we talk about the sense consciousness we say the object condition for the sense consciousness is, you know, physical forms. And then the dominant condition for the rise in the sense consciousness is the sense organ. But what we just said here is that the forms are actually in a laya. What I said to you earlier is that the basis, the objective part of the basis consciousness is the objective condition of the basis consciousness. Kalambana, the object condition of the basis consciousness, the laya, has the colors in the consciousness

[80:21]

and has the sense organs in the consciousness. So that would say that you don't have to go outside of the system to get sense data, that the sense data and the sense consciousness are connected to the laya. So then laya, in a sense, is the object condition, and it would also be, in a sense, the, or indistinguishable from, wait a second, in a laya, the object condition for a laya is the sense organs and the sense data. For a laya, the object condition for a laya is the sense data. Right? I just said to you, in the basis sense consciousness, which is a laya, the basis is the laya consciousness, the objective condition for that is the sense

[81:23]

data and the sense organs. Okay? So what Manas... Got the basis consciousness of a laya, a laya as a shrine. Its object condition is, its objective support is the five sense objects, the five sense organs, and the residual impressions. Okay? It's objective support. Which is, yeah, it's objective support. It's a laya. Can I get my question out? I think I'm in the area of it exactly. So in saying that the object condition for a sense consciousness, that a laya is the object condition for a laya, or you used the example of color, it's the capacity to read color or the concept

[82:33]

that we see as color, but not the electromagnetic light. That's the electromagnetic condition that we interpret as color. You're not saying that's in a laya? You know, the other day I think I sort of did. That's why I asked you that. But I didn't say I really thought that was so. No, you said there's one possible... I just said you could go that far. Yeah, but that's the question. But what I'm saying today is that a laya is sitting there in this soup, intimately, you know, hanging out with images and sense organs at the same time, that's a laya. Sense organs and physical objects, physical sense data, it's all kind of like, they're like together. And then out of that soup arises mind consciousness. And the mind consciousness, of course, is dependent on a laya, and also arising with the mind consciousness is this mind organ, because

[83:35]

mind consciousness can't reflect on the material in a laya unless it's got an organ, and its organ is mons, which is the just-to-see sense consciousness, or just last cognition, as the force to activate the arising of this mind consciousness. So now mind consciousness can know the images of a laya, influenced by the predispositions of a laya, plus influenced by the infection of its organ. Its organ, the pal who got it able to identify what's in a laya, also slapped the idea of self in there. The fourfold misconceptions of problems of self got connected to the mind consciousness, and in a sense consciousness arises from that. Simultaneously, you could say. Because you have a laya, monis, monovision on it, and

[84:38]

the sense consciousness. And then, if the sense consciousness by themselves can't believe this self, the mind consciousness can believe the self, that the mind organ has imposed upon it. And then the believing the self, which means self agreeing with this mutational character, that influences the way we see the world. And that whole pattern then has the effect of going back into mind consciousness, and planting seeds back into the laya. That's the story. So the sense consciousnesses are in there, intimately connected with the laya, through the whole process. I think the force of the discomfort of the question that I'm trying to get at is, is there an environment around a laya, or is there an environment only in a laya?

[85:38]

According to this teaching. Yeah, I mean, I think there are two ways the teaching goes. I think this teaching, in its early phase, as taught by Asanga in Vasubandhu, I think that the sense, the physical world, is in a laya. Our perception? It's not saying it isn't the physical world, it's just saying the physical world is consciousness. The way consciousness manifests is as physical, data, sense organs and so on. But we also said laya connected, at birth, with the organs. But there was no laya before that. The actual laya arises when the being arises. So the birth of being, when there's no beings, there's no laya. But when there's a laya, there's beings and there's organs, and the

[86:52]

organs and their objects are in a laya. I think that's what the early people are saying, early yogic people are saying. So there's not a physical world outside of consciousness, different from consciousness. But we're not denying the physical world. I understand that, but once you have that, then how do you have a consciousness here, a consciousness here, a consciousness there, a consciousness here, a consciousness there? How do you have separate consciousnesses? Because of a laya. Because a laya has the imagination of separate consciousnesses. But they're not really separate, and none of the elements in them are separate. So there's just one laya after all? No, there's not just one laya. So you can play this out. There's not just one laya.

[87:53]

A laya is the source of the imagination that there's one laya or two layas, but they're separate entities. That's the idea of separate entities. So according to the idea of separate entities, there's separate layas. But that's an illusion. That doesn't mean that there's one big laya, because a laya is a source of separation. You could say all the layas are interdependent. All the different ideas of separation are interdependent. But the interrelationship between all the layas imagining interdependence is not another laya. That's actually the mirror-like wisdom. So the mirror-like wisdom is, there isn't a mirror-like wisdom which is separate from the other mirror-like wisdom. The laya is obscuring and confining. It hooks us into a particular place. So we have a birth. But that place and birth in a laya are actually

[88:57]

not identified as a separate place and birth, but the source of imagining separate places and births are in that situation which is not separate. So my sense organs of my laya are not separate from your sense organs of your laya, but my birth comes with a consciousness which imagines itself to be separate from your birth. That's a laya. And I get over that, eventually. But when I get over it, it isn't that now my laya is connected with your laya any more than it was before. It's that now I'm not obscured to see my true relationship with you and the true relationship of my history with your history. And there's now just mirror-like wisdom, unobscured by separation. And there's probably some problem with that. That's what I'm saying. We've got some subtleties looming up ahead of us. There's

[90:02]

ten million things I have not yet clarified. But this is the basic trajectory of faith, is this teaching of Dependent Co-Arising. And rarely heard from. Yes? I'm wondering about the removing of signs, because I thought when you were speaking earlier that the arising of the sign was distinct from the projection of essence. Yes. So I'm just wondering why it's necessary to remove the sign and not just stop projecting essence. So, let's see. Well, one thing, just for now, this isn't true or anything, but we're going to remove We're going to remove the... We're going to remove alaya.

[91:06]

We're going to remove the alaya-like aspect of the other dependent character. So to some extent, when we remove the sign from the other dependent character, that's part of the purification of the other dependent character. It's like the gritty part of the purification process of the other dependent character. So we'll still have the other dependent character. It isn't that we eliminate the Dependently Co-Arising Universe. It's just we eliminate alaya. In the way we eliminate alaya, which is obscuring the other dependent character. So alaya is totally... Understanding alaya is totally... It's an extremely important part of the other dependent existence. And it is what is...

[92:11]

Our problem, our life of alaya is what's obscuring understanding the other dependent character. And one of the pivots for getting alaya to turn around is to remove the signs. We remove the signs by meditating on how the invitational character's absence in the other dependent and alaya is implicated in this. That's my response this morning. But we can keep working on this. I'm sure there's subtleties on this point. But we're actually going... There's actually going to be a dismantling of alaya. Turning it around. And I think the sign removal is key. So when the sutra says that... That the way we know the other dependent character is through strongly adhering to the other dependent character.

[93:12]

The invitational character is being the other dependent character. That means the way people ordinarily do. That doesn't mean that... There's another way of knowing the other dependent character. Which is the way you know it when you remove the signs. That's the way it would be known. And that's the way it's described at the end of chapter eight. Actually, with the signs removed. Yes. At the end of the chapter on yoga, it describes what you know when the signs are removed. In other words, how the other dependent character is when the signs are removed. And there's wonderful little questions that can be asked about, well, what's this person's life? Because it doesn't have an alaya. Yes. How is it... Where does it happen? How is it that when...

[94:13]

How is it that when...

[94:14]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ