What do you think? Have I had a great time during this practice period? Yeah, I really, really have enjoyed it. I've enjoyed the regular fun of sitting together and just the ritual and ceremony side of the practice. is enjoyable. The physical discipline has been great for me. For me, in terms of it's been great for my body, and I think it's been great for your body, although I know both of us have had some difficulties. But in the end, It's been a good training of my body.

[01:03]

My body has yogically come along quite a ways. The ability to cross the legs has much greater range now. not just when I can barely walk from my seat to the altar, but just from three weeks ago. So, I mean, I think you've also learned a great deal about your body and how to work with it. So that side's been great. And last practice period was also, I thought, was the best three-week practice period that I've experienced here. I'm not saying this one's better, but this one has a little bit more of a, quality of going deep and being difficult than last year. Does that seem the case for other people, that it was a little bit more difficult this time, the teaching and study?

[02:05]

More challenging in some ways. But I just feel like, you know, just really great about How we've been studying and what we've learned so far and all the insights that have already occurred in response to these teachings. People are are wanting to find a way to extend these teachings to day-to-day life, and some people are feeling like they can see possibilities, lots of possibilities, that these teachings are very relevant to their basic problems in life, and that there could be applied this great resistance to applying them. and great resistance to hearing the teachings, which, after you understand them, you will have great resistance to applying them.

[03:10]

You will have great resistance means there are deep habits set up by past karma. Karmic accumulations have greatly accumulated and caused and conditioned obstacles to the way. People are feeling that and confessing it. And that is exactly what that verse you just chanted is about. Confess these obstacles that have accumulated, which are like resisting this teaching. Anyway, it's… I really appreciate the resistance because I can't really express myself unless… I can't express myself by myself. I need you to help me express myself. And one of the main ways you help me express myself, one of the main ways that my self is expressed fully is by you resisting. And so, because you've been resisting, this expression's been fuller and fuller.

[04:14]

And this is a great joy for I also felt, you know, so I've been emphasizing the last few days, particularly the meditation on the teachings of the other dependent character phenomena, meditations on dependent co-arising. And someone gave me a note questioning the relationship between meditation on the pinnacle of rising and Samatha. I'm not clear about it. And maybe I'll deal with that later. And I could happily spend today, I continue to spend today on encouraging and clarifying how to practice meditation on the pinnacle of rising, how to listen to the teaching,

[05:18]

and let it come into a meditation process. But I feel like I'd like to give you a taste of the next step in the wisdom process that the sutra is laying out. And to again say that the you know, the one-pointed awareness in the womb of light, which is the one-pointed awareness in the womb of the pinnacle arising, that this is the fundamental meditation of our school, handed down by the burning lamp Buddha to Shakyamuni. This is our practice, our fundamental practice.

[06:21]

And if we do this practice, just wonderful evolution arises. Our behavior really becomes transformed in a positive direction towards virtue as we do this practice and the other dependent nature phenomena. But even though it's so wonderful and the practice goes forward greatly, still, as it does not bring liberation, meditation on light, on the light, meditation on the other dependent character, meditation on beauty, does transform us in a positive, very positive way, but it does not accomplish liberation. In order to do that, in order for that to happen, we must go on to receive, study, and meditate on the other two aspects of the teaching which pertain to the other dependent phenomena.

[07:37]

We are meditating on the light, then we have to hear the teachings which pertain to the light, which tell us something about what the light's like. The teachings which tell us, which teach us about and help us understand the thing we're meditating on, the other dependent character. Everything, all objects, except emptiness, that we meditate on are other dependent phenomena. So we, as a basic meditation, we need to continue this ongoing meditation and then take on, in addition to this ongoing meditation, the contemplation of the teachings of the imputational character and the thoroughly established character. Tomorrow I thought I would put more effort into discussing meditation and other dependent character, which I think you should understand to walk out the door of this practice period with.

[09:06]

and to give you some suggestions about places you could look for opportunities to practice it. Before practice period is over, I want to give you a taste, a peek, at this kind of challenging examination of the of another character of all phenomena, namely the imputational character. And so this will be kind of hard. And again, I intend to continue to work in this area the year so if you keep in touch you may be able to get more opportunities to listen to teachings about what this imputational character is which we remember in the

[10:22]

In the chapter on Gunakara, it says that when you understand the computational character as it is, you understand the characterless nature of phenomena, and then because you understand that, you're able to understand . the imputational character, then you can understand that they're established. So, in other words, according to the sutra, we need to understand this imputational character in order to understand suchness. So, the Gunakara asks the Tathagata, you know, about how is the Bodhisattva wise with respect to the character of phenomena or the nature of phenomena? And then the Tathagat says, thanks, that's a great question. You're a compassionate being. This is really going to help.

[11:24]

This question is going to help a lot of beings. Thank you. And then he says, so listen and I will describe to you how bodhisattva is wise with respect to the character phenomena. Vinakara Bodhisattvas are wise with the character phenomena when they understand the three characters of phenomena. There are three characteristics of phenomena. What are they? They are the dependent character and the thoroughly established character. What is the imputational character phenomena? It is that which is imputed as a name or a symbol in terms of the own being and attributes of phenomena, in order to subsequently designate any convention of what... Remember that? So the first definition is that the imputational character is that which is imputed to what?

[12:38]

What would you impute the imputational character to? To the other dependent character. What's the other dependent character? Huh? What? Yeah, life. Well, not just life. It's not exactly life, because it's life in the form of objects. life as it comes to you as something to know, the other dependent character. It's what you attribute to life as it's happening, how it's happening. You attribute to this other dependent character, or you could say even it's what you impute to the light in terms of what? you impute to other dependent character as a name or a symbol in terms of own being and attributes in order to later be able to talk about the objects.

[13:51]

Okay? So that's the imputation Buddha wants us to become wise about. And so imputational character is also sometimes translated as mere conceptual grasping. Mere conceptual grasping. Mere. M-E-R-E. Or grasping, nothing more than that. Again, we can go into more detail on this later, but the imputational character that's being discussed does not include all imputational characters.

[15:05]

There are other kinds of imputational characters that are not being discussed here. For example, uncompounded space is a mere conceptual grasping. the two types of cessation are imputational character. The generally characterized phenomena are imputational character. Examples of those are, for example, a big one is that all phenomena have a generally characterized nature of having an arising all compounded phenomena have a rising and a maintenance, a degeneration and a ceasing. That's a general characteristic of phenomena. Also non-existent things are generally, are imputational characters.

[16:12]

And in particular, the two most crucial The two most crucial imputations are those, are versions of imputational character which are crucial for being the source of suffering, all the suffering of this world. And also they are what obstruct the realization of full capacity of the Bodhisattva. They obstruct knowing all the things you need to know in order to be fully useful in this world. Maybe I'll mention what they are.

[17:26]

One is this imputation of, the false imputation of a substantial difference between an object. That's one kind of imputation that's superimposed, that's possible. the false conception that subject and object are substantially different, like two different beings. That's one thing that can be imputed and superimposed. That false conception can be superimposed or imputed onto other dependent characters. So that makes them seem like they're out there on their own, separate from the awareness of them.

[18:29]

And this can happen for any of the six types of consciousness. Eye consciousness, ear consciousness, tongue consciousness, skin consciousness, and mind consciousness. So there can be an awareness, for example, of a mental factor like fear or an image of the future or a feeling or an emotion. And it's as though the emotion's out there separate from what knows it. And of course there can be a consciousness of a color, as though the color were out there, separate from the consciousness of the color. And actually sitting out there all by itself, separate, independent, and not like other dependent.

[19:33]

Not depending even on the consciousness of it. But there are actually no colors appear in this world except to consciousnesses, which physicists even are finding out now. And same with the other kinds of consciousness. So that things appear that way and they appear that way innately. We're born with the inclination to see things that way and we're born with the inclination to believe it. So the idea or the conception that things are that way because it's a concept. Things aren't really that way.

[20:36]

It's just an idea of the way they are. concept then is superimposed over the radiance of dependent core arising. And it looks like this other dependent phenomena actually is not an other dependent phenomena. That's what it looks like. And the other dependent phenomena of a consciousness looks like it's separate from what it knows, which it's not. When you overlay the consciousness with this misconception, the object of the consciousness with the misconception, they both look self-produced. That's the way they look. And not only that, but they look so much that way that you believe it and you kind of like want to be on that side of the world that believes in it.

[21:38]

I like the example of putting on glasses when you look out at a hillside and it's kind of blurry and you can't see whether there's trees on the hillside or grass or people dressed up as plants or a golf course or what it is. In other words, you can't really see what it is exactly. You're not sure what it is. I mean, you do see what it is, but, you know, you want to see it, you want to see it, as we say. Put the glasses on, and suddenly you see, oh, there's all those trees and leaves and deer jumping around, and we think that's clearer. And so on. ...and you're looking at the hillside, it's very difficult to remember what it looked like before you put your glasses on.

[22:46]

It's hard to see the blurriness at the same time you see the clarity. Similarly, once you overlay a reified subject-object split on objects or subjects, you can't remember what they look like before you impose that. And maybe actually you can't even remember ever seeing it without that imposition because it's innate. So the concept dependently co-arises, but it's a concept of something that doesn't dependently co-arise.

[23:56]

The concept dependently co-arises, and there's a consciousness that can produce such concepts. The consciousness or the imagination that can produce these The consciousness which can produce these concepts is the other dependent phenomena. As a matter of fact, it's in some ways the most important other dependent phenomena. The consciousness which can imagine things which don't exist is the most important other dependent phenomena. It's called a vuta parikalpita. which means unreal imagination, or the imagination — this is not a definition, and this is a definition — the imagination of what does not exist.

[25:00]

You can imagine a concept, and the concept is a dependent core arising of something that's not a dependent core arising. Like it's not a dependent core arising that subject and object are split. it is a dependent core arising to imagine that they're split. And what you're imagining is something that doesn't happen. It's only imagined. However, when it's imagined, there's a dependent core arising of what? What? What is that? Went backwards. When there's the imagination of something that doesn't arise and then it's superimposed on things that arise, rises on that superimposition.

[26:02]

What? Affliction? No. Skipping a step. Yeah, you're all skipping it. That's interesting. What? What? What? No. What arises afflictive emotions. Huh? Pardon? Somebody said it? Who? Peter? No, yeah, not afflictions. Afflictive emotions. I didn't hear, did anybody say afflictive emotions? Huh? Total, total failure. I have just the students I deserve. Students like this make teachers. And the students already know there's no teacher, just a room full of teachers.

[27:05]

But students like this make teachers. Keep fighting, keep fighting, teacher has to get more and more alive. Okay, if I give you money, will you believe this stuff? Permanent money. Money that doesn't change. Money that's reliable. True money. Truly existing money. So anyway, the next thing that arrives, you've got the concept, you've got a consciousness which is other dependent phenomena, a consciousness which dependently co-arises, and it gives rise to images, things that don't exist. And the images of the things that don't exist, those images do exist. They're impermanent.

[28:07]

Images are impermanent, but what they're imaging is something permanent. what they're imaging is something that doesn't dependently co-arise. There is no dependent co-arising, an actual separation between subject and object. That doesn't happen. It's only imagined, according to certain people. Once this idea imagines of imaginary existence, of an imaginary way in which other dependent like that light is split into subject and object, really. Once that exists, then that, so far it's actually nothing much has happened in terms of like problems. But when it's superimposed on the other dependent, then afflictions arise. Afflictive emotions means emotions that give rise to affliction. And so you can imagine perhaps how when you see something and you project on it a substantial separation from the seeing, that you might feel greedy towards it.

[29:17]

Does that make sense? Because you really think it's out there, separate from you, and you might want to make some effort to get it, rapaciously even. Just because you believe it's out there, you're like impelled towards trying to get it, or get away from it, or get it away from you. Or perhaps you just can't tell which to do. Anyway, there is a freak-out which follows upon this superimposition, and it's painful. And then, because you think, Somebody separate from the problem, that somebody who is self-produced can do something about this. So then activity based on this pain and these unwholesome emotions and this ignorance, then action comes to those things, right?

[30:22]

So I got the three of the steps. Imputation, well, the pinnacle arising of Fantasy, false fantasy. There are some true fantasies. Okay, not all imputational fantasies are false. Not all fantasies are false. We're talking about two big false ones, one of which you've heard. This is the easier one in a way. This is a false one, and this false one, we believe. Shucks. we believe that it belongs on top of dependent core, dependently coalescing things, and then we start to feel these strange feelings for it, strange emotions, greed, hate, and delusion, and then we feel suffering, and then we . And that projects us to, you know, that's a reenactment of the delusion.

[31:24]

It's a dramatic enactment of the delusion. The separate person does something about the problem separate from the person, and then that sets a template which gets installed in the mind, and the mind reproduces that thing again, just round and round, okay? So that's one imputational character. Question? Okay. So I'm on a trail of me. I think that's a little too complicated. Let's wait a little while. The second imputational character is the one that the sutra speaks about, and it is the establishment of phenomena by way of their own character as a reference of a conceptual consciousness or a word. It's the imputational character which is the imputation of the establishment of phenomena by way of their own as reference of conceptual consciousness or words.

[32:45]

Does that sound familiar? That's the second kind of imputation. That's the one that the sutra is working on. Pardon? How is it different? I'll get into how it's different in more detail, but just basically that it puts more emphasis on the function of, on the linguistic function of objects, of words and reference, or images and referenced images. So it's putting less emphasis on the subject, although there are two aspects of believing that things have self.

[33:46]

But we need to understand both these types, I think, really. So this imputation is done in terms of entities and attributes. For example, an entity of a book and the book's attributes of being old and valuable, those are the attributes. And then there's a non-existent imputational character of the book. or a non-existent imputational character, a non-existent fantasy is imputed to the book. And that is to impute to the book that it exists by way of its own character as an object expressed in words for entities and attributes or as a reference

[34:59]

conceptual consciousness about entities and attributes. Isn't that hard? So I told you yesterday that today would be hard. But this is like just to begin. You have to go over this. Some of you have to go over this as many times as I've had to go over it. many times before this starts to sink in. And I see some hands, but I think it's better to go forward a little bit before, unless you're trying to clarify terminology. Are you? Another question? Back there, Barrett? No, okay. Yes? Yes? Yes? I will. And

[36:17]

this superimposition of that when the superimposition, the other dependent characters exist or are established by way of their own character as reference, when that imputation is absent, that's the thoroughly established character. So in other words, in order to find the absence of it, we need to understand and be able to see how this is happening. So again, in the next chapter, the sutra says something like, it is thus. Those characters are characters posited by names and terminology and do not subsist by way of their own character.

[37:35]

But that's a short do not exist by way of their own character as reference for words or conceptual consciousness. They do not exist by way of their own character as reference for words or conceptual consciousness. They are said to be character non-natures or a lack of own being in terms of character. So, on one side, there are things which depend on names and terminology, and on the other side, they do not subsist by way of their own character. Those two things. They depend on names and terminology. That's one reason why they are character non-natures, or character, a lack of one being.

[38:40]

On the other side, they do not exist by way of their own character. And you can put those, those are two reasons why they lacked an own being in terms of the character. But you can also put them together because they are an imputation in terms of names and so on that are not established by way of their own character, or they're not established by way of their own character as reference to these terms and names. So they're not established by way of their own character. Other dependent characters, are they established by way of their own character? Are other dependent characters established by way of their own character? They are established by way of their own character.

[39:47]

Are imputational characters established by way of their own character? Are imputational characters established by nature? Kathy says yes. How come, Kathy? Because if they weren't established that way, they wouldn't be established at all. Did you hear what she said? Well, I disagree with you. A little bit different. Are other dependent characters established by way of their own nature? Their own character? Yes, they are. One more time, Kathy? Are there dependent characters established by way of their own character? What? Yes? How come? Use the answer that you used for the other character on that one.

[40:55]

Use the answer you used for the other character on this one. If they weren't established by their own character, they wouldn't be existing at all. Remember that one? That applies to the other dependent character, not the imputational character. The other dependent character is established by way of its own character. If it weren't established by way of its own character, it wouldn't be established at all. You mean it could be understood. Is that what you mean? Well, do you understand the imputational character? Do you understand the imputational character? Does she understand the imputational character? Anybody here who doesn't understand it?

[42:02]

Well, I don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, the other dependent character phenomena is actually the objects of knowledge. Those are the things we know, except for emptiness. And know means we know them. How do we know the other dependent character phenomena? By strongly adhering to it as the imputational. We know these things. These are the things we know. These are the things we work with. These are the impermanent phenomena. They are established by way of their own character. And what is their character? What? What? One person at a time. Only one person. Being other-dependent. Their character is other-dependent. Okay? So are they established by way of their character? Yeah.

[43:11]

They're established by being other-dependent. They're established by things other than themselves. Their character is that they're other-dependent. They are established by way of that character. Their character is that they're other-powered. They're established by the power of things other than themselves. That's the way they're established, and that really is the way they're established. So their character is actually the way they're established. They're established by way of their character. Get it? Isn't that amazing? Some things are established by way of their own character. When their character is, they're established by way of conditions other than themselves. imputational characters are not established by way of their own character. And that's the fact that they're not established by way of their own character and that they are affirmed in connection with or by way of terminology and words.

[44:13]

That's why they lack own being in terms of their character. That's how they are established by the way they own a character. How are they established? By imputation. By language. They're established by language. and imputation. They're established by fantasy, but not by their nature. The imputation arises other-dependently, but what is being imagined is not an other-dependency.

[45:14]

Even if you think you're imagining another dependency? I didn't understand that initially. that's not other-dependency, but it is other-dependent phenomena. But she's not actually, you can't imagine, it's another she's thinking, but it's not, I'm not sure exactly what is about that, what you're saying. Let's see. She's imagining a story about how things dependently co-arise and that image is superimposed on something, would that be an imputational character?

[46:30]

Maybe. Okay, now I see where we have it. Okay, so... Do you feel like I answered it? Well, I think... My question to you about how... You didn't feel like I got an answer yet? Well... I just wanted to know if you felt like it was answered. Was it an answer to your satisfaction or do you feel like that something else is not... Well, I don't know if it's on my mind, but I think it was answered maybe partially by saying that the imputational character is established or it subsists

[47:43]

independence on names and terminology, or names and conceptual consciousness. And it's not established by way of its own character. Because its character is not that it's established by way of those things. That's not its character. Its character is, for example, that it exists independently. It's got a fantasy about itself that it doesn't depend on things. It's got a fantasy about itself that it's an entity. It's got a fantasy about itself that it's actually something there about the other dependent.

[48:47]

There's something about it that really is referred to by this word which exists in the other dependent. That fantasy about itself doesn't actually get established. It just gets established by the words and the conceptual consciousness. So that's kind of how it gets established. So could you say it was established by way Well, you can say that, but that's kind of general. But specifically we're talking about, we're trying to find out the particular ones, and we happen to know what they are apparently, because the sutra told us that it's the words and conceptual consciousness that it's affirmed. And which goes with it, is it's not established by way of its own character, because its own character is not saying, hey, there's something interdependent here.

[49:59]

It's projecting something as though there actually is something that's a referent of these words that belongs on top of the other dependent. So that whole gesture is not the way it gets established. It gets established by dependence on these particular things. And these things are, like words and conceptual consciousness, are the dependent phenomena. So it does depend on them, or in dependence on them, it's affirmed. And so that's how the arising of the fantasy occurs. But what's being imagined is not something like that. What's being imagined is something that's subsists by way of its own nature in terms of reference for words and conceptual consciousness. So, uh... ...character

[51:01]

that the sutra is talking about here, different from like uncompounded space or the general characteristics of phenomena, is that a name of the object is not the object. It's not that. And it's also not that the object is the name. Okay, so we're not refuting that the object, that the name of the object is the object. We're not refuting that the name of the object is the object. We're not saying that's not true. And we're not saying that the object is its name.

[52:11]

We're not trying to refute that. We don't need to. That the object is not the name, right? Like if I say tree now, it doesn't produce a tree. So we're not arguing with that. People don't think that. the word tree is the tree, right? The thing that we're refuting is the conception that other dependent characters are established by way of their own character as reference of conceptual consciousness or words. Objects, other dependent characters are reference of conceptual consciousness and terminology.

[53:22]

Other dependent phenomena are reference of the concepts about them. The erroneous concept that's imputed, which is the source of our problems, the imputational character that's imputed, which is our source, is not that the name of the object is the object. That's not the problem. Right? I just mentioned that because you might think that was the problem. Not sinking in yet? Yeah.

[54:30]

So that's not the erroneous, that's not the imputational character that we're worried about here. That could be an imputational character that somebody would do, but that person . Right? Some people don't have common sense. And they would think that the object is the word, or the word is the object. All right? But this isn't really our problem. This isn't the problem that we all have innately, which is causing the world's suffering. Okay? But it's closely related to what is the problem. No, I wouldn't. The problem is the conception that the other dependent character is established by way of their own character as a reference of conceptual consciousness of words.

[55:30]

Isn't that hard? Because I just said other dependent phenomena are established by way of their own character. Didn't I say that? but they're not established by way of their own character as reference or words or concepts. That's the key difference. Is that reference spelled E-N-T-E or E-N-T-S? Reference is spelled R-E-F-E-R-E-N-T-S. Is that the same thing? No. It's talking about a certain type of imputation. And what's being imputed is that other dependent phenomena, basically the objects of knowledge, impermanent things, okay, it's the conception.

[56:39]

They're established by way of their own character, which is true to the point that they are, because their character is that they're other dependent, so they are established by way of their own character. So that's what other-dependent character is. It's an other-dependent thing that's established by way of its other-dependence. Okay? The subtle and key erroneous imagination is that they're established by way of their own character as reference for words or conceptual consciousness. That's the error. They're not established by way of being referenced They're established by way of being other-dependent. By depending on it, that's the way they're established. So when you say they're established by way of your own character, yes, that's right. But then you throw in this other thing as a reference to terminology, conceptual consciousness, and so on. That is the erroneous concept.

[57:43]

That's the imputation that's overlaid. That is the problem. That's what, first of all, obscures the nature of other dependent phenomena and thereby causes an appearance of things what they are, which then gives rise to these unfortunate emotions. objects are reference to these words. They are. A book, a dependent, other dependent phenomenon like a book to the word book. That's true, that's true. So, what is being pointed to as erroneous is not merely that objects are not reference of consciousness, or that objects are the reference of terms, because they are.

[58:49]

Objects are dependently co-arisen phenomena are, other dependent characters are, the reference of concept and terminology. But they are not established as such by way of their own being. Agreeing with this referentiality actually lives in the objects themselves is what must be given up. So what happens is that we actually now impute reference to the words we use to refer to objects. We do use words to refer to objects. like I use Kimberly to refer to you.

[59:54]

And you are you, actually. This other dependent, radiant, impermanent, unreliable person is the referent of the word Kimberly. She is. I'm not refuting that. That's not erroneous. What's erroneous is to think that this other dependent character here, is the referent, to think that she is established by way of that referent, rather than she's established by way of other dependents, that there's actually . And we make that mistake, and this mistake is subtle and extremely crucial in the suffering of this world.

[60:59]

And this is what we need to study more and more. And now there can be questions. Well, it says, there's various ways of putting it. One way is words and terminology. Another way is words and conceptual consciousnesses. So it can be images. This is a pre-verbal thing, but it also can use words. Conceptual consciousnesses and words, or words. Not necessarily and, either one. So that's why it is pre-verbal, that's why it's innate. And it's not just in humans. Other beings have this too. So it's pre-verbal beyond just the human realm.

[62:02]

The special thing about the human realm is we have instructions which can help us turn around and look at this and stop believing it. Other beings believe this too. They believe that the conceptual consciousness You know, that is the thing they're looking at. Like, you know, acceptable material to cover, come through cell wall, you know. They've got that thing going on and the subject-object splits there, you know. They've got afflictive emotions too, you know, mean cells and stuff. This pattern, you know, is deeply in us, it's in ourselves. That's why if you just change it in your head, it's not enough. You have to re-educate yourselves. That's why it's all beings in this program. So, yeah, it's pre-verbal and before you're born. Okay.

[63:08]

Somebody over here? Yes. Oh, two of them. Yes. Yes. So did you say it's not that we can object, but we confuse a concept of the object with the object? Implied by the word Kimberly? Like what's implied by the word Kimberly? Well, I mean, whatever.

[64:13]

People can have this concept. confusing our concept with the object no i don't think that's a problem i think you can tell that your concept object right you don't you don't have that problem do you You don't think the word tree is a tree or that your concept of the tree is a tree, do you? Well, tentatively anyway, I don't think that's the problem. I don't think... Not exactly a better way, just more about what we're talking about here.

[65:19]

that you look at a tree and you have this word called tree and you understand that the word tree refers to that object. But you don't think the object is the tree. That's not the problem. That you think that there's something that the word tree refers to in the person through which this thing comes to be. Now you know that, actually you're right that this, whatever it is, it does exist by way of its character, that it's a dependent core arising, but it doesn't exist by way of something about it which is the referent to your word. That isn't the way it exists. that goes with the word, like an essence.

[66:24]

It doesn't exist that way. However, it is the referent to the word. We're not saying it's not the referent to the word. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to find Kimberly or the tree. But we can find Kimberly in the tree by using the word Kimberly. We're not refuting that and we're not refuting some other strange things which are also erroneous but we don't have to talk about because they're not that important. Like people thinking that Kimberly is the tree. We're not talking about that. Or that Kimberly is some characteristic of the tree. Kimberly is some variety of a tree. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about that we actually imagine that there's something about the other dependent as a referent to the word that inheres in it and that it's established in terms of that referent.

[67:26]

That's the mistake that we're talking about here. That's the error. And so we're trying to see, listen to that teaching and see if you can find that. So we're hearing teachings about the other dependent, and then you can see how with the other dependent teachings that you're being told that before you hear these teachings and take them in, you think things are solid, dependable, reliable, permanent. You think that before you hear this teaching, and you actually see things that way. As you hear this teaching more and more, you start to enter into a meditation on that character and enter into more and more rapport with the other dependent character, which you can't know in the usual way without confusing the problem. and you actually enter into that. And then your behavior starts to change. And as your behavior changes, you become more and more ready to, as you are now, your behavior has changed during this practice period, so now you're more and more ready to hear the next level of the teaching, because that level of teaching still leaves your misconception.

[68:38]

They're still sitting there, and you believe them, probably. So now we have to look at them and get clear about what they are, and that's what you're doing in this conversation here, so that we can, like, stop believing this erroneous conception, which we not only have erroneous, take that erroneous conception and slap it onto what's happening. And then we have afflictive emotions and suffering and so on. Okay? Yes? Yes? Helpful. Well, it seems to me that there is some sense of in this other dependent phenomena.

[69:43]

But what they pointed here to is not just that you're imputing some old existence to it, but a particular existence which is the reference to the word. So it zeroes in on actually that there's a reference We don't think that just Kimberly generally really exists. It's a particular thing that goes with the word of Kimberly that we might think is actually there. Getting a lot of attention today here. So, in a sense, there is this imputation in terms of essences and attributes, okay? But the way the essences are imputed is independence. In this, the imputation uses words and conceptual imagination in the process of imputing a reference to the word.

[70:44]

I'm not sure, but I think the referent is both essences and attributes. Both. That's with reference to the essences and attributes. So the imputation is in terms of essences and attributes, and the mistake is that we think that the other dependent character, which we know correctly arises by its own character, we add into it that its character is that there's something about it which actually is a reference to this word. It's a mistake. The big one. So Kimberly gets to ask a question, I guess, so she can survive. Can you explain your definition of reference? What the object being referred to by something. So you are

[71:53]

whatever you are, the other dependent character that you are, the impermanent and so on that you are, the miraculously dependently co-arisen being that you are, okay? Recall Kimberly, and you are the referent of that word. I guess, right? We're not retreating that. You are. In that sense, you're a referent. You're not the only one, but anyway, you're one of the referents for the word Kimberly. If we need to get more specific, we mention your last name and social security number and so on. But you are also the referent of a social security number. That's true, conventionally. That's not an erroneous concept. But it is an erroneous concept that an other-dependent being is established by way of our own character as in that way.

[72:58]

Other-dependent beings are established by way of their own character, but not in that way that they're referenced to terminology and concepts. Not that way. But funny thing is, we think that's the way they are established. We hear about them and we meditate on them as being established by way of their own character, which is being other-dependent. And that's why that meditation for the next one. Because as you get more and more virtuous in this meditation, you also get more and more intimate with the reality of the other-dependent You get more intimate with the way they're actually established by their own character. You get more and other dependence. Then you're more ready to see how then you turn to these very same phenomena which you've been meditating as established by way of other dependence, and now you think they're established by way of their own character in the mode of being.

[73:59]

to this terminology or names. That's false. And now you're in a better position to see it's false because you're intimate with the way it's not that way, although you can't see it that way because in order to see it that way you have to use the imputational. So it's a pretty subtle thing. I see two hands, but there were some people before that. Who was a long time ago? A long time ago, I think, was Liz and maybe Martha. And I think it's maybe Susan next. I don't know, Sam and Vernon. And also, there's another question, which is because this came in before the lecture. Yes, Liz? You say in part? It seems like our problem is? Uh-huh. Could you speak up, please, if you want me to hear you?

[75:09]

I still couldn't hear you. Sorry. You can come closer if you want to. If you don't want to yell, just come up and whisper to me. Want me to hear it? Can I relate it to relinquishing all thinking? Any particular way you want me to relate it? Can this relate to the question that was, this other question? how to lighten the burden of attaching our concepts and believing them? Well, the first step in this process of lightening the burden of believing our attachments. And I might take another step on what you said. She said, lightening the burden of believing our attachments.

[76:29]

All right? So perhaps one of the most lightening ways or enlightening ways or de-hemifying ways to deal with our attachments would be like to see that they're totally an illusion. That's the way to really lighten them up, right? Does that make sense? And that's what we're approaching here now. We're sort of approaching the possibility of a major, a total giving up of the burden of these misconceptions. That's the goal here. So you're wondering how that happened? The first step is meditating on the other dependent character. The second step is to look at and try to understand these things. That's what we're doing now. Now, do you have some questions about that? The second step, we're getting into the second step now of looking at what it is that creates the burden.

[77:33]

Meditating on the other dependent, we're kind of like... to opening up to the other dependent character, unburdened. Okay? And that's very good for us to be more and more in rapport with this other dependent character. It has various, you know, almost unspeakably wonderful benefits. but it's not enough, because the misconception is still sitting there and believable. Forever you'll enjoy it. I often think of Keats, and you know, truth is beauty, beauty is truth. Something like, this is all ye need to know, and all you ever will know, or all you'll ever know on earth.

[78:39]

It may be all you'll ever know on earth, but it's not all you'll ever know. You could know something more than truth is beauty. Actually, beauty is the first step towards truth. The second step is to realize the absence of these imputations in the truth, in the beauty. So the first, and this relates to the question of the, it almost looked to somebody as though the meditation on light, or the meditation on other dependents, started to sound like, I'll read the first part of this. I'll read the first part of this. shamatha or calming practice is basically thought. The sutra says it uses non-conceptual images.

[79:46]

When you read this to me, did you say energies? You said images? I heard you say energies and I thought that's interesting. Interesting way to put it. Samatha is basically giving up discursive thought, or the sutra says, using non-conceptual images. But let's just say discursive thought for now. And then it says, meditation on dependent core arising or absorption in the womb of light is inconceivable and beyond thinking So if it's beyond thinking, this seems to imply also continuing to give up discursive thought. Okay? Does that make sense, that question? Like, you have inhaling and exhaling, and if you're with the inhale and exhale, and you give up discursive thought,

[80:58]

then you become calm. And then maybe then you would enter the womb of light. So what's the difference between trusting everything to inhalation and exhalation and while inhaling thought? Sounds similar, right? That was the point, part of the point anyway. So this way of describing meditation on dependent core arising or meditation on the other dependent seems to imply also continuing to give up discursive thought and conceptual images. It's not so much to give up conceptual images, but give up being images. It's giving up conceptual elaboration of images.

[82:04]

which means giving up discursive thought on top of the conceptual images. Okay? So then, how is it different from mirsamatha? The sutras of Vipassana uses conceptual images. Okay? So insight work, you're using conceptual images and In the calming work, you're giving with a non-conceptual object. But a non-conceptual object means it implies the way you work with concepts. And the way you work with concepts is you don't elaborate them. Not elaborating concepts, you calm down. It's to use the concepts. So if you're experiencing a concept like a breath, because again, when you're breathing, you're looking at the breathing through your breathing, so you're not actually yet seeing the other dependent character.

[83:24]

Usually you look at the breath, you're seeing the concept of the breath, so the breath looks pretty, you know, like It's a pretty substantial breath. It's not just radiance. You can find it. It's got boundaries for most people, like the breath isn't the time, the breath isn't your foot, the breath isn't yesterday, and so on. So you're focusing on this image of the breath, but you're not being discursive about it. You're not elaborating on it. Okay? You calm down. Trust everything to the breath. It's similar in the sense that you're just trusting to the breath, but you're using this concept now in the wisdom work. And how do you use the concept? Yeah. How do you use it? And then in the process, you might calm down in the process, but basically what you're doing is you're using the object in a way such that your vision opens up.

[84:31]

You start to see the object for what it is. And what do you see? You see the object is impermanent, unstable, unreliable. In shamatha practice, you don't necessarily see the object. Now, if you've had wisdom teaching, and you've heard these teachings, and you're practicing shamatha, then your mind can flip over from not being elaborative on the concept, to switch over from not being elaborative on the concept and calming down, to not switching to be elaborate, But using discursive thought now, using discursive thought of trust everything to this breath and leap into the womb of light. Trust everything to this breath and open to dependent core rising.

[85:36]

Because now what you're trying to do here is to see the nature of the object. In the other case, you were not trying to see the nature of the object. If you were trying to see the nature of the object when you were doing Samatha practice, you weren't doing Samatha practice. You were calling it Samatha practice, but really you were doing insight practice because you really wanted to see a breath. This is a wonderful enterprise called wisdom practice. You're training yourself in wisdom if you want to understand the nature of the breath. When you start looking at the breath, at first, you don't see the other dependent character. You see the other dependent strongly adhered to as the imputational character. So it looks permanent, out there, and so on. And you accept that, hopefully. And you don't say, well, since I'm not seeing the real other dependent character, I'm going to look at something else. No, you completely work with this, because the fact that you see it this way is the horizon.

[86:41]

And as you work with this in this way of giving yourself entirely to it, which is a kind of concentration, but it's not a calming type, it's an insight. focus. You start to open. You can't see impermanence exactly. You can't . But in fact, you do understand it. You sense it. You smell it. You taste it. You intuit it. You feel it. And you can reason it. You can think it. You can think it out. But you can't see it with your eyes. You can't sense it with your eyes. In other words, you can become absorbed in the way things are. And then you can also feel the impulse start to crop up and so on. People have had glimpses in this practice period of the other dependent.

[87:48]

They saw the light, and it was a light that you can't see. It's the light of you are doing the practice that the practice is doing you. Rather than you're doing the breathing, the breathing is doing you. Rather than you're walking into this room and practicing here, the room happens and then you happen. This is... How do you see that? You can't see that. So, The difference between these two is the difference between two intimately related dimensions of meditation. They're not zillions of light years away. As a matter of fact, they're uniquely connected. And in the end of insight practice, because they're so similar, they can be united. The calming, the giving up discursive thought can be united with using discursive thought in order to penetrate to the nature of the object.

[88:57]

And you can use instructions, a wisdom, to penetrate the nature of a phenomenon like breath. Various words like trust everything to breath, trust everything to some dependently co-arisen phenomena, trust everything to some other dependent phenomena, which you don't yet see as other dependent the way it really is. But you know that there are candidates for this vision, namely everything you see. So you pay attention to something like your breath and you give yourself completely to it. But your agenda is to see it, to understand it, open to a vision of how it's other-dependent. And you hear that teaching over and over. Whatever it is — breath, body, feelings — this phenomena depends on things other than itself for its arising. You hear that teaching, you hear that teaching, you hear that teaching, and you… What?

[89:58]

How do you get ready? Watch the thing that you want the revelation about. What do you want to understand? The object in front of you. Look at it. Now it doesn't say look at it and get all excited about it, but you look at it and you sort of a little bit remember the... You're looking at this to see what it is. And in particular, you actually want to see some particular aspect about it because you're told, let's first look for the other dependent character of the phenomenon. This is the other dependent character. Let's see if you can see that that's so. So you actually are looking to some extent, hopefully, eventually, in the way that will help you realize this or, yeah. So can you see a little difference between the two? Do you have any more questions? Did that sort of clarify for you?

[91:02]

Yeah. But they're very close. And once you use your discursive thought to look at this object, to look at that concept and use the concept as the opportunity for penetration and vision of the radiant way it is, then you're ready to practice virtue spontaneously because the way you see things is that you do not any longer get excessively involved with them because you don't get involved excessively with impermanent, unreliable, unworthy of other dependent things. You love them, you're devoted to them, you enjoy the light, but you do not get excessively involved. Fortunately, for everyone concerned. Devoted without excess. However, you're not completely free of excessiveness and not completely free of attachment because you still have this lurking misconception which could come in there and obscure the whole thing again and cause you to become excessive.

[92:18]

You're always to start thinking, not this one, it is permanent. And then become excessive. towards something which is very beautiful to you. There's still the impulse to get a purchase on the light, get a purchase on the beauty, selling it and become a great famous artist. See the difference? Now in order to avoid slipping in that way eventually, we're now turning to look at the main slippery concept. have been overlaying on the other dependent for a long time, and always inclined to do so, even while we're meditating on the other dependent, this can come back. So it's right available to us, and based on that we're not going to look at it. And this is the hard work, the subtle work, of spending a lot of time getting really familiar with it.

[93:19]

After we know what it is really clearly, and get a feeling for it, and can confess it left and right, because we're still caught by it, then we have a chance to look carefully at the other dependent and see, really, this thing never reaches it. It only can be superimposed. It never gets into the other dependent. It's never in there. The stuff is trying to, and that's what other people often report, when they see the light,

[93:57]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_87.59