How is it that it becomes obscured? Oh, we'll see. Alaya is the source of the idea of an independent existence. And then there is another transformation of consciousness which can think about, you know, and actually hold to that image of independent existence. And that happens, that's called Manas. And then you could say Manas is really the one that's obscuring the thoroughly established character. But Manas is based on Alaya, so really the buck stops at Alaya. Manas is more like Alaya's messenger. Where do they come from? Alaya is a resultant. And by the

[01:08]

way, another piece of information is that resultants are generally speaking undefiled and karmically neutral. So that's another reason why Alaya is karmically neutral, because it's a resultant. So, for example, if you're cruel to someone and then people punish you for that, the punishment is a result, and the pain you feel is a result, but the pain is karmically neutral. So anyway, Alaya is karmically neutral, it's a resultant, it's a result of past moments of karmic thought. Past moments of obscuring the other dependent character give rise to actions, and those actions leave a residual impression or create a formation, which is the result,

[02:15]

which we call Alaya, when that result is connected to sense organs. So the connection of results of living beings' karma, when it connects to sense organs, creates a birth in an Alaya. So I didn't finish the story yet. So now you have Alaya, which can produce this mind consciousness. This mind consciousness then gets connected to the mind organ, which brings with it the idea of self, is projected on what the mind consciousness knows. The images of what it knows are coming from Alaya, and the image of its independence comes from Alaya. And now we have this sense of something happening, but with this self cast over it. That's the imputational character, which is cast over the other dependent character of whatever this phenomena we're knowing is. So when you see the imputational character, you're seeing the presence of the imputational

[03:16]

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

[04:28]

the rap for covering over the interdependent world, which is all immediately impacting us. And we cover it over so we can designate and identify it. Does that make sense? Yes. However, it does not add to what moment that separation begins. Where is the moment that duality steps out of non-duality? Is that at birth? In terms of birth, you're born with it. You're born with the... But if you go back further, what happens before karmic effects? It takes... you need duality to determine before and after. So it's before and after business. You can't come up with anything. There is no such thing like that unless you project duality upon the situation. So your question about where duality comes from is a dualistic question.

[05:36]

If there's no duality, there's no before and after. But in terms of the arising of this projection of duality, it happens as soon as a living being sees something clearly, they see it as out there. When you don't clearly identify things, at that level of cognition, the seeds for projecting dualistic impressions upon the world aren't activated. But then also you don't really see anything, you don't identify anything clearly. That's the basis, right? But as soon as this thing rises up and you know things clearly, then you bring along this projection that they're out there. Even if you can't put on your words yet, you first of all project the essence on them. And you can do that as birth. As soon as you have an active moment of cognition over and above alaya, depending on the arising of mind consciousness and mind, and then a sense

[06:43]

consciousness, when you have these clearly identified things, then they're out there. See new people? Yes. In the example of holding up the flower, so there's this appearance of Buddha holding up a flower to show everybody. So there's this appearance of some fuzzy event. I don't know that what happened until something goes on in here that makes it less fuzzy. So I've got a mind consciousness image of some formerly fuzzy thing that's gone, but this is less fuzzy. Now I'm relating to that, that's the organ, Manas. So the organ, Manas, and the Mano-Vijnana-Dhatu,

[07:50]

mind consciousness, are coming up together. In order for there to be an object, mind object, can a sign be a mind object, or does it need to be a name or symbol? Can a sign be a mind object? Yes. Or does it have to actually become a verbal designation? A sign can be made into a mind object, and also you can use a sign without the sign being a mind object. That's important because you usually use signs for your mind objects and also for sense objects. You usually do use the sign in order to perceive them. But do you know it? Usually people don't. So part of wisdom is to start to notice how you're using the sign, but when you start noticing how you're using the signs, then the signs are not going to become objects. But that's going to be part of the insight work, is to make what you don't usually

[08:51]

notice you're using to have a perception, to become aware that you're using that. Like that's why I asked the question yesterday, can you see the signs you're using in your process's perception, and you could to some extent, but sometimes you go ahead and use them without noticing them. So then it's not really insight working in that sense, because you're not noticing, you're not analyzing the process of perception, even though it's working on that basis. I'm trying to open up the process of perception by noticing the signs that are connected to the names, and then that will help you notice the projection of essence. You can actually catch yourself projecting of essence because you can see it all over the place, because that's the way things look, they look like they're out there, you can see that. And that out there-ness is connected, part of the reason why we're so strongly inclined to do that is because that makes it possible to connect the sign to the name and name it, and talk to people, and you know, get your lunch, and so on. However, when you use that example of the Buddha holding up the flower, I thought,

[09:56]

he held up the flower and winked at Mahakasyapa, and Mahakasyapa smiled, because something happened there. Other than the mechanics, there was some insight into the process. He smiled, he understood something. One person saw how funny it was that this thing happened. So you described the mechanics of what happens for most people, but what happened? Tell the story of what happened to Mahakasyapa, according to the Yogacara school, that would make sense that he would smile. I hope to tell you that story during Sashi. Here we are, on Vulture Peak, near Raja Giriha, the usual characters. Except today, what has been just given,

[11:10]

new flower ship. Mahakasyapa is ready. Anybody else who hasn't asked a question? Okay, so Mark, and Liz, and Linda, and Sylvia, as the first-time people, yes? Mark? Earlier, you were talking about, in more highly realized people, that alaya isn't repressed, but diminishes, or something like that, you use some language kind of like that. Earlier, you talked about transformation, and those seem different to me. You know, I had this idea about alaya transforming into this mere wisdom, which doesn't seem like it diminishes it at all, it just seems like it transforms. So I'm wondering how I'm confused. Yeah, so one translation is it's turned back. Another translation would be that it dissipates.

[12:19]

Another translation would be it turns inside out. I don't know. Anyway, but the obscuring function of it, it doesn't have an obscuring function anymore. So in that sense, it's not really alaya. Because alaya is the point of attachment. So nothing can hold on to it anymore. It can't hold on to things anymore. Attachment stops. But I'm not sure if the word that they use at that point in the 30 verses is a shriyat pravritti, which would just mean that alaya turns around. Or you could say flips from being, you know, the backside of the mirror to the front side of the mirror. That it becomes illuminating from being obscuring. I'm not sure. I think it's

[13:24]

important to understand that, what the tone is there. Yes, Liz? When we were talking about complicating times earlier, I was thinking about an experience yesterday where I noticed what I imputed as a psychological conflict. Something happened and my signs for the psychological conflict, afflictive conflict, maybe it got to me, but maybe the speed with which other negative things all joined together and my name for that was, oh, this is one of those times when I'm taking, where one experience of self is really quickly coalescing into this ball of affliction that I call psychological conflict. But it wasn't

[14:32]

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

[15:37]

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

[16:42]

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

[17:44]

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

[18:44]

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

[19:53]

Linda? When we chant, however all this is perception, because it is unconstructed, it is immediate recognition, I would be very appreciative of your commentary on that, the relationship to what we've been talking about, about perception as the grasp of the sign or the image and the direct, the immediate. Yeah, that's very apropos of this discussion. And the unconstructedness is still there. Is that the transformation of the alaya? Pardon? Is that the awareness, once the alaya has transformed into the mirror-like wisdom, is that when you see unconstructedness? Anyway, I would like to come on. Yeah, well, I would like the kitchen to be

[21:03]

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

[22:04]

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

[23:10]

on that more when the whole group's here. Well, it's unconstructed. All this does not appear within dualistic consciousness. It says later, because this state is not realized by the diluted mind, by dualistic mind. But there is a mind which is illuminated by this. The mind, consciousness, can't reach this state. But this state can illuminate consciousness. And the illuminated consciousness can talk and write. And it can talk and write. It can use conventional designations without relying on habitual tendencies towards conventional designation. So this state can speak and write and express itself. Again, it says, although it's not

[24:12]

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

[25:17]

is construction is another way to put it. But the realization of everything being constructed is even more profound than the realization of a thoroughly established character. A thoroughly established character, according to this sutra, is a good way, is a way we can approach more easily the realization of this mind-only teaching. Any other new people? Sylvia, did you have a question? Yes. I have two. One was already brought forth, but this is in a different way. I had a hard time putting together the realization of the dependent co-arising and what you mentioned in the beginning of today, of the experience that the sages have of no taste, no smell, no sight. There is no

[26:22]

perception. Yes. There is no perception. Well, yeah, there's no perception. There is perception, but it's not perception of these kinds of things. That is different than experiencing dependent co-arising. Yes. What they're experiencing is that all dependent co-arising are empty of construction. So they're looking at, when the sages are looking at the absence of repetition, they can't see any construction, because they're looking at the absence of construction. They truly don't perceive. No, they do perceive, but what they're perceiving is empty. They still perceive, but they're perceiving the ultimate. They still smell, they still see. No, they still smell and they still see, but while they're smelling,

[27:24]

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

[28:30]

out-there-ness about her. And the main thing I'm concerned about, I care about you, but I'm really focusing on the fact that you're not separate from me, that I'm seeing an absence of separateness. But I can still see you. And that's kind of wonderful, because now I understand I'm seeing you in a different way. I'm not seeing you as separate anymore. I'm not seeing you as out there. I'm seeing you in this new way, maybe for the first time. The real cognition of emptiness of something is the first time you get it. And I actually suddenly see you not separate. So that's really what I'm looking at, is the fact that, oh my god, she's not separate. So like, again, I've seen many Blue Jays, but one time I walked out and talked about Zendo in the middle of the winter, and I saw a Blue Jay, and he was all puffed up, because it was really cold. He was puffed up to try to keep warm. And I was too. I was all puffed up trying to keep warm. And for the first time I didn't see

[29:37]

the Blue Jays as separate. I was seeing the Blue Jays, but it was a new way of seeing Blue Jays. And my compassion and my understanding changed at that moment from previous ways of feeling about Blue Jays to a new way. So I was looking at the Blue Jays, but really what was most important was this new way of seeing the Blue Jays. And that's more important in some ways than all the Blue Jays you ever see. Because the seeing of the Blue Jays as separate is not really the Blue Jays. They aren't really separate. Seeing them in a true way is... But you would say, I didn't see the Blue Jays. I saw the absence of separateness. And in the absence of separateness, I don't pristine the Blue Jays. I'm pristine in the absence. Oh, the separateness of the Blue Jays. Okay.

[30:38]

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

[31:49]

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

[32:53]

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

[33:56]

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

[34:59]

consciousness, you can be aware of that. And before we get over this thing by training, we always do it whether we name it or not. So children do it, even though they can't really successfully put a name on it yet. They do it too. Maybe an example would be like seeing something kind of hazy in the distance, and you see something outside yourself, but you can't yet see what it is. So you don't have a name for it yet? Not a name, but an unknown object or something. That could be an example of sense perception. But a mental version too, yes. Where you don't clarify it yet. But like Jane said, maybe you know it as an unknown. Oh, I can't identify that. But then you clarified it. Yeah, that's what I was saying. Then you put some kind of temporary name on it. But the svalakshina of a visual impression is not as clear as the samanyalakshina.

[36:11]

But the svalakshina is there. Each time you look at the hillside, it's a different pattern that's impressing you. So again, I was talking to somebody this morning about this. I like this example of, you look at the hillside, and if you don't have, I don't know what, even if you have, almost nobody's vision can't be improved a little bit with glasses. But a lot of people put on glasses, and then they see the hillside sharper, more clearly, in a sense. But the sharp way you see it is less unique to the situation than the fuzziness was. But once you put on the glasses, you can't remember what it looked like when it was fuzzy. It's very hard. And when you put on the fuzziness, of course, it's hard to remember what it looked like when the glasses on, but easier than the other way around. For example, if you look and you see, oh, it's a leaf, and then you take the glasses off and you can't see it, you can

[37:16]

remember it was a leaf. But when you see it's a leaf, it's very hard to remember what it looked like before you could see if it was a leaf. The world's more vivid with the glasses off. It's more vivid and unique and rich, but we're not clear about what it is. So, okay, I get that. The second time around? So, Indigenous people, I guess, with all of the discussions that we've had in conversation, I kind of see Alaia as my experience storehouse. So the more complex and, yeah, complex life or that I lead, I have a complex Alaia. How about the Indigenous people? Would they have a less

[38:18]

complex, and that then goes to, do they have less of the imputations? I don't think they have less of the imputations, and I don't know if they have less rich Alaia than you or I do. But I don't think they have less imputations. Okay. Otherwise, I don't think they would be on the planet. Oh, I see. Okay. I think we have eliminated all the people who don't impute. I think we got rid of them all then. There probably were some, but we arranged them not to be able to reproduce. When I die, when I die, does my Alaia die or does this Alaia die? It's not available anymore for a new... Yeah, but this is what the Sutra says, it shares your destiny of your body. Okay. As long as I'm alive and it's there with me, and then...

[39:20]

Well, unless you do some major work. Okay. It lasts as long as you're alive, it lasts through your whole life and ends with your life. Okay. Unless you either become an Arhat or a very advanced Bodhisattva. In this life, in this... Yeah. And then, in which case, the Manas get turned off and Alaia gets reversed. And then, from then on, you can still participate in conventional designation, but you do it just totally on the basis of imagination, which you always were, but didn't think so. And now you understand that you're imagining things, and you do it in order to play with the other imaginers. That's what you were doing before, but now you understand. So that's what the Sutra says. I know the Sutra says it ends, but it says, other treatises says it goes your whole life, with the exceptions of these people who have the attainment, and then it's foreshortened. The Sutra says it shares the destiny of the body.

[40:22]

Shares the protection and the danger of the body. So a baby, just born, would have a clean slate of Alaia. There's no... A clean slate of Alaia? No. No, yeah, because there's no experiences yet. Unless they predispose and came with their baggage. They have a full-fledged Alaia. They do, huh? But they have had no experiences yet. Because Alaia is a resultant. A resultant of the beings in the universe, or it? It's the resultant of past actions. Okay, okay. Alaia, as soon as Alaia first appeared, it's a resultant. It's not the first Alaia. It's the result of past Alaia. Okay. If it's a big one, they got a big one. When they're born, they got a big one. However, it's like this. It's like really unidentified. They're swimming around the same place we're swimming around.

[41:25]

It's just as complex as ours. But what do they have in that storehouse? Unless what I'm thinking is when I die, the Alaia still stays on until someone else is born and takes my Alaia. Alaia doesn't stay on. Alaia never stays on. Alaia is impermanent. It is impermanent? Alaia is impermanent. The body is impermanent. The body is impermanent, okay. Manas is impermanent. Mono-Vijnana-Adaptive is impermanent. Chakra-Vijnana-Adaptive is impermanent. All these consciousnesses are impermanent. Okay. And Alaia dies with the body. Okay. And so Manas can't arise because it arises with dependence on Alaia. Mono-Vijnana can't arise. Sense consciousness can't arise. So all the consciousness collapses with the body. However, nothing is annihilated and there's a consequence of every life.

[42:26]

One of the consequences of a life can be... Rebirth? Okay. The arising of Alaia with the body. Okay. Just like it's proposed that when you were born, the sutra says, when beings are born what happens is there's an apprehending consciousness of the sense organs and then you have birth. And then there's Alaia. Apprehending but also bringing along the basics of all experience which is the result of past action. Okay. That's the story. Okay, so then somehow there's a choice. Thank you. I think I'd like to get some other people acquainted because we're getting very close to lunch and I'd like to give them a chance. I thank you very much. I appreciate your enthusiasm. I hope it lives permanently forever. Okay. Let's see. Walker hasn't asked a question yet. I'm wondering, who are the eight brahmin doctors? Nagarjuna only got the first round.

[43:29]

This is really tough. This is really tough. I often think of this. One time he accidentally killed an ant when he was studying a scripture. He closed a scriptural book on an ant. Because of that he wasn't able to, in the life where he was the great sage, he was only able to get to the first stage. You've got to be careful around here. But he might have evolved. Maybe he became a sangha. I don't know. Sangha got really way up. But anyway, that's the story about Nagarjuna. Is that the story about Nagarjuna is be careful. First time. First time, okay. Another first time. What... May not be easy to answer.

[44:32]

This may be not easy to answer, yes. But how, in our interactions with each other, where each person's own karmic patterns are involved, what's the role of alaya in interacting with other people, or pulling in these patterns that go through over and over in our lives? What's the role? How do they interact with each other? Yeah, is there some... What's the role of alaya in my interactions with you? Well, it's a little more than that. Like, how does relationship... Or it doesn't even have to be relationship. Like, let's say I go out and get hit by a car. And we might say that's the result of past actions. I'm feeling like you're getting... Your question is getting out of hand here. So maybe you could make a way to come back to you and focus it. I think it gives...

[45:33]

It's not... At this point in time, it's too amorphous. I was wondering about the dynamic or the functioning when a sign could be multiple things. I think there could be a sign of multiple things. So I had a conversation with somebody yesterday. We both had a similar experience. You're out walking and you take an unfamiliar trail and you come to an obstruction. Large. And so what you see is a sign is a large overgrowth. That's what you see. That's what I saw. Yeah, and maybe I see another sign. And it seemed like there was a mental process that went on considering what that was. So one process was lost, scared. Another process... Another thing that happened was... But you're getting off track now. Yeah.

[46:33]

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

[47:35]

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

[48:37]

And each further consideration here are based on alaya. Okay, that's what I was asking. So it looks like we're going all the way to lunch today. If it says in the sutra that there is no birth, no death. The sutra, the Har-sutra says that? Right, for example. It says in emptiness, there's no birth. Right, and that's probably where my question is going to. Is there no birth and no death? Because in that mind, there is no signs and no imputation. And therefore, there is something happening like birth and death. But you wouldn't call it birth and death like we talked before about. There is no smell, no taste, no touch. There is, of course, perceiving of smell and taste that is not perceiving of normal taste.

[49:43]

But it is happening, but you don't put imputation on it. And is it the same for birth and death? So the phenomena are arising and ceasing, but since you don't put an essence on it, there is no birth and no death. Well, the example you chose is a different kind of a poignant one, because that particular thing of birth and death arising and ceasing is one of the main things that doesn't happen in emptiness. In emptiness, things don't really happen. But things not happening doesn't mean that there isn't anything. Just that the way things really are is that they don't happen. They don't have own being, so they aren't produced and they don't cease. They're quiescent from the start. So in emptiness, it's not that there's nothing there, it's just that everything is very quiet. Very quiet.

[50:44]

Unconstructedness and stillness is what you're looking at. But it doesn't mean nothing's there. It's actually this great life called nirvana. But nirvana doesn't mean nothing's there. It just means that the arising and ceasing cannot be grasped. Because you can't have grasping of arising and ceasing when you don't have inherent existences. Because things that don't have an inherent existence, you can't find the arising and ceasing of them. However, things that don't have inherent existence, in conjunction with mind, can appear to arise and cease. So there's something there. It's not to say there isn't a life or a world. It's just that in order to make it appear as arising and ceasing, mind has to make them an arising and ceasing. The thing is actually basically quiescent. Minds can create the illusion of arising and ceasing.

[51:49]

So minds can create the impression, the appearance of birth and death. But without construction, there is no birth and death. But that doesn't mean there's nothing there. It just means this is the way things are. Ultimately, if you look at it this way, that will purify your misconceptions about the way they are. You can look at them even when they're appearing and disappearing, without being misinformed about them. So again, I like the thing from the Sarangama Sutra, which is quoted, I think in case eight of the Book of Serenity, where it says, To say that things exist is slander by exaggeration. Is that okay? Slander means to demean, to put down.

[52:55]

So to say that things exist is slander by exaggeration. It's too much. Please. To say that they don't exist is slander by underestimation. Winter estimation? To say that they both exist and do not exist is slander by contradiction. And to say that they both exist and do not exist is slander by nonsense. Or pure mental fabrication. Things don't both exist and not exist. So all those categories don't really apply to our life. The mind projects these categories on life, and then we have the appearance of birth and death. So dependent co-arising is not the ultimate truth, but it's a conventional truth. And we love conventional truths, because conventional truths are... People are conventional truths. We're devoted to conventional truths.

[54:02]

Our whole life is for the sake of conventional truths. We love them with our whole heart, and that's all we care about, really, is conventional truth. But we need to see ultimate truth, where there is no arising in the ceasing of conventionalities. If the absence, not so much of conventionalities, but of essences projected on them, then our vision of conventional world is clarified, and then we can be better servant to all the conventionalities. But the conventionalities can never be found, and they have no beginning or end, really. They just look like they do, because our mind makes them so. But that doesn't mean if you take away those things, that they're not there. They're not tampered with anymore by this segmentation process. Any other first-time people? Yes? If I don't enlighten yet, I don't have to.

[55:08]

If you're not enlightened yet? Not yet. But I awaken. When I die, I would like to rebirth. In Green Country. But that time, I know the limit time for rebirth, for looking for a place. But that time, I don't find a place I want. I have to choose. Because I have a limit of level for... There's a deadline on your application. Yes, that's where I stay. Why I'm waiting for... I choose to play the right place, I will go for true life, Bodhisattva's action, activity.

[56:09]

Well, you know, fortunately, if you become awake a little bit, anyway, then you can use that awakeness so that whatever place you choose, you can choose with a very good intention. So even if you wind up in a tough neighborhood, you're born with a very good intention. So when you're born, you say, ooh, this is a tough place, but I have a good attitude. I want to be helpful here. And I want to help these people. So if you really concentrate on this point, you may be able to remember when you open your eyes, in your new world, your intentions. So it's not... That's the most important thing. So some people are born in really tough situations, but they have a good attitude from early on. And so even though things are really difficult, they sometimes can keep remembering their good attitude and get through pretty well. So now we have to develop an attitude

[57:12]

so that whatever situations you come into, you can be really well-established in that attitude. So the power of the virtue of that attitude will carry through no matter where we go. I said, like, if I want, I want the place I want. But that's... But that's your attitude. No, no. But that's your attitude, and that's... I cannot choose that, no. No, but if you have an attitude like that, that attitude will force you to be born in a bad place. That attitude will put you in a bad place. And it can change your attitude if you want to wind up not in a good place.

[58:13]

And it has no good, no want, no want anything. That's why you have to really focus on not wanting anything. But that attitude, that attitude will be very good. Whatever happens. You may not. Yes. The alaya of newborn baby. Alaya of newborn baby. Is a result. Yes. All alayas are first of all a result. And then, how does that connect with, would it say, all beings have been your brothers and your sisters and cousins and so on. Is that symbolic, or is that... Is it symbolic? That saying. That saying, is it symbolic? Yes, it's symbolic. And it dependently co-arises out of the mouths of sages sometimes.

[59:20]

And they can, you know, and it's a big encouragement to them. It makes them really respect everybody and care for everybody when they see that. When they have that symbol. It's a symbol of dependent co-arising. It's a symbol of everybody's, you know, my friend. And I'm devoted to everybody. It's a symbol, you know. But it's not... It's not what? Factual, because there is... What do you mean by factual? Well, there is no... It's not ultimately true. Continuation, right. It's not ultimately true. But in terms of conventional symbols, it's a really good one, I think. Especially if you don't infect it too much. Don't strongly adhere to it as having an essence. That'll be good. Are we done? Could I say one thing? Bozzy has a really bad tick. Yes.

[60:23]

Which I just saw about 45 minutes ago. So afterwards, if someone could help get it out and off. By bad, do you mean big? It's really big. The big ones are the good ones, because the big ones are willing to let go. The little ones, they're looking forward to a life of blood sucking. They don't want to let go because they got a good, well-fed dog. But the big ones, they're kind of like, okay, I'll go someplace. Let me go off. I got enough blood to raise a whole family here. Precious habits? I just realized yesterday that conventional reservations and the mix up around them is what humor is all about. How funny that I saw that it's all about that. And one that occurred to me when we were talking about signs was Sarah Adar, when she was little, misunderstood the lyrics to the song, I Left My Heart in San Francisco.

[61:23]

And she thought it was, I'll let no reindeers wait outside your door. So the idea that a reindeer is kind of waiting at San Francisco, whenever I say reindeer, it's a sign for San Francisco. And then the other thing that occurred to me was a joke that somebody at Tassajara told last Friday's kids, somebody who's deaf, and I know sign language, and we kept talking about these babies having been alive, but the sign for milk is this. And often babies can hear that sign before they can say milk. And so this is milk, and then he said this is the sign for pasteurize milk. I'm sorry, I messed up the joke. This sign means pasteurize. Pasteurize. Pasteurize.

[62:36]

Pasteurize. [...] Who had their hands high-raised before? Okay, Humbo and Andres. In that order? Seniority. What do you think? I'm not so old. What do you think? When we talk about eliminating signs, do we mean something more than not grasping signs Do we mean something other than not grasping signs? Do we mean the disappearance of signs or just not grasping signs? They'll disappear by themselves. So disappearance of signs is different than eliminating them.

[63:38]

So I think that's helpful, that we're not going to beat up on signs. We're just going to eliminate them. The way we eliminate them is to not grasp them. Because they're going to go away in the next moment anyway. But if we stop using them in the grasping way, it starts to transform the situation. Because to eliminate signs means we're going to start relating to the other dependent in a different way. We're going to start to undermine our projection system. So really the way we eliminate it is, as it says in the Sutra, if you look at page 185 of the Power Translation, it talks about how you actually eliminate signs. It's really by the way you look at things, a new way, that's how you eliminate the signs. You open yourself to being okay with not perceiving things. So you open yourself to letting go of holding on in such a way that you can perceive.

[64:40]

So it isn't really... You have to drive them off. Andreas? I'm trying to understand Alaya from a physiological perspective. Like when I perceive a chair in a way. I mean there has to be something in my brain. Physiologically it's just like the visual electromagnetic waves hitting my eyes. And it's actually a very complicated process before I can perceive a chair. Because the edges are perceived in a different part of the brain than the colors. And so everything has to be put together before I can perceive the chair. And that means that somewhere in my brain there has to be a concept of the chair that informs that these different parts of information belong together in a way. And is that the functioning of Alaya? That it provides the information that all this...

[65:44]

Or the sign or the concept of a chair so that it's put together? I mean it's not like... You're sort of on the right track there, yes. That Alaya... It isn't so much that Alaya provides the information but rather Alaya encountering the information which you described offers conceptual versions of what it might be. Alaya has a seed for all the different possible ways of interpreting. Recognition. Yeah, exactly. But in Alaya itself, prior to the arising of these other transformations of consciousness, the identification doesn't occur. So in order to go from having the possible concepts of what's going on physiologically available, that's as far as Alaya goes. The actual choosing it and applying it to what's going on involves these other two transformations of consciousness. So all three are involved in, for example, sense perception.

[66:49]

But I think that this is a good area to meditate on what you're doing. Let's see who wants a second time. Jamie? So it's becoming more clear that... I might be too tired. It does happen, doesn't it? Sometimes in these classes you do... It's not that your questions aren't that good or that bad. I just have low blood sugar sometimes. So maybe you have one of those slumps. Should I come back some other day? Okay. I'm going to stop pretty soon so we can have a break before the servers and enchanters have to start serving and chanting. So I'm trying to focus on this split that happens, this possibility of splitting the self and object. And in a present moment experience, if there's a focusing on an object going on,

[67:51]

is the self-sense actually no longer happening? It's like you're just really in mid-air there. If you're focusing on an object that seems to be out there, the self-sense is there. It's there. It won't be out there if there isn't a self-sense projected. But is it actually there, or has it dropped away? I think the chair is still there, but you're actually standing there. The self-sense is nowhere. It's just totally imagined. It's not even there at all. The self-sense isn't there at all. It's just imagined. Okay. And we are perceiving that false image. Okay. We're believing it. So is what's actually happening is Mano Visnana Datu is holding two sensations simultaneously, one of an object and one of a self-sense, and it's really just this one thing that's being perceived? In the present moment? Well, you can do it that way, or you can say it's perceiving the object, and it's imposing upon the object an appearance, putting an appearance on top of an appearance.

[68:56]

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

[70:00]

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

[71:03]

Anyway, thank you for putting up with the early classes. We appreciate your attention and interest with the difficult topic. I think we'll move a little deeper into the cave. Thank you. I am inexhaustible. I vow to end them. Dharma gates are boundless. I vow to enter them. Buddha's way is unsurpassable.

[72:06]

I vow to become it.

[72:10]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ