So last week we began to talk about emptiness in the Heart Sutra. Are there any questions or anything left over from the last class that anyone would like to bring up? Yes. Well, you know, the quality of this book is not so good. It needs to be improved. The form of it is still a little... Should we have that? I don't think it's... It's a quite inadequate English translation.

[01:02]

I think Shinyata comes from zero. The root of that word in Sanskrit has to do with zero. Maybe better. I think the communication analogies of physics and mathematics are similar. I thought I'd read something in the Prajnaparamita Sutras they talk about there being 18 emptinesses and I'm not going to list them or go into detail about them all but I was going to mention a couple of them because what I think is interesting It helps, I think, understand.

[02:09]

There are many ways to look at it. So I'm just going to mention a few. One is the emptiness of inner things. That includes the six consciousnesses. All our psychological activities have no ego or soul behind them. as we commonly imagine. So the six consciousnesses, meaning the eyes, the ears, etc. And then there's the emptiness of outer things, which is the object of the six consciousnesses. And then it is said there's an emptiness of inner and outer things, That negates the distinction between inner and outer. Distinction is merely a thought construction.

[03:14]

Change the position, and what is inner is outer, and what is outer is inner. This relativity is called emptiness. Then there's the emptiness of emptiness. This destroys the attachment to the idea of emptiness, which we tend to think of as real and attainable. To maintain the idea of emptiness means to leave a speck of dust when all has been swept clean. Ultimate emptiness. All things are absolutely empty. The room is swept clean by the aid of the broom. But when the broom is retained, it is not absolute emptiness. Nay, the broom, together with the sweeper, ought to be thrown aside in order to reach the idea of ultimate emptiness.

[04:21]

As long as there is one dharma left, a thing or a person or a thought, there is a point of attachment from which a world of plurality and therefore of woes and sorrows can be fabricated. Emptiness beyond every possible qualification, beyond an infinite chain of dependence. This is Nirvana. I don't know who uses these, the list of 18 instances, but the Tibetans like to use it. And I thought about what they're doing.

[05:25]

I mean, the other ones we've turned in and read, they get more and more subtle and nuanced. And I think one thing that happens is just, it's a way of practicing where you just, you use your thinking mind and you exhaust your thinking mind. You go through every nuance you can actually think of and keep sort of undoing it and undoing it. And they just kind of come up with some really subtle ones and to really go to each thing that they're talking about and actually try to visualize it, feel it, is exhausting. I think that's one of the purposes. I think that's what it comes down to. We heard talk about things like shock growth. The issue of shock growth.

[06:27]

I haven't read that, with regard to this. The chakras would be your body. They say space is empty and form is empty. You have this kind of form that includes your body. Chakra is a part of your body. Well, prajnaparamita means wisdom that takes one to the other shore.

[07:48]

We talk about form and emptiness together. One way to look at it is that form is a conventional tool. Forms exist, our bodies exist, objects exist. But then we also talk about them in a way that they don't have an inherent existence of their own, so they're empty. It's this understanding of emptiness and form together which brings us. That is what this understanding is, the wisdom of the Heart Sutra. Well, they dwell in it. The sutra says that they dwell in prajnaparamita, they abide in it.

[08:58]

So, they understand it, yes, but... it goes deeper. There they live, Prajnaparamita. Right. Right, well, it's said that the Bodhisattva path is the path of compassion, but compassion is kind of meaningless without wisdom.

[10:09]

So, yes, the Bodhisattva is dependent upon this. Does that make sense? Because there wouldn't end up being any problem. I mean, there's a billion colors, woods, and things, and all those things. But as you mentioned, everything can depend on those red wheelbarrows. The rain, the waves, the waves, the little barrels, the light shooting, these kinds of things. And you have the lights on as well. need it, it's not so much need, it's more like contingency, you know what I mean?

[11:21]

It's their blood, that's what I said, it's their blood. It's not that they need it. Right, that's right. So much dependent on it. But I agree with you that sort of linear sort of way of looking at it, like, here's this, and you'll relate to this, and what's this. I don't do thousands of work at getting at it. It seems like a good thing. I just can't imagine a simultaneous kind of something that exists. and comes into being as a body thought that exists, and the body thought that exists begins to exist. It's like if you have one without the other. But not like, the body thought plays over here, and then, you know, it's depending on these things over here in order to, you know, it doesn't come across to be the simulator or the, you know,

[12:27]

intention to coexist and identification. But I did want to ask a question. I didn't want to think about Protestant or Protestant either. When I think about other religions, a lot of the same thing as their religious capitals were come to some point and realize, well, what's the metaphysical, when you use that word, aspect of our existence? If we can use whatever words to sort of put forms aside and realize how transient they are, et cetera. And you can say, what is beyond that? Or what is imminent? Or what's God? And so, who is God? But the closest thing is this sort of faith, this tendency of have whatever word you want to use on this project.

[13:33]

This ultimate wisdom, which seems analogous in some ways to other religions' version of God, something that you have faith that exists. And it's wisdom. And it carries you. It puts you in the right place. and in the right direction and whatnot. Do you think that there is a sort of parallel there between Prussian armies and other religions, respecting all that they claim for a good God? It's just so, there's just such a huge array of what other people mean by God and how they relate to it. And it's such a generalized question.

[14:34]

I don't really know. You could make it into that. But the main difference is that God, it seems in my understanding of other religions, that there is a kind of an essence. That God becomes an essence. and indestructible essence. And Prajna is not an essence. We want to make it into an essence, but the whole point is that it's not an essence. And that's maybe the big difference. That's what emptiness is, is that there is not an essence. And it seems like most religions, if you really get down to it, are looking towards to find the essence. even though you may not be able to define it. They don't want to define God, necessarily. But there's a feeling that there's an essence. That's my understanding of my religion, which is Judaism.

[15:36]

But there's no essence here, even though it sounds like it, because we're talking about pashna, parameetha, and wisdom. But there's not an essence. So that's the only question. This writer talks about the Dharma as being an essential building block. Could you cite the Dharma? Did he say that? Yeah. Let's look where he says that. Do you remember? If you're not sure, you can probably find it some other way. Here it is. It's on page 19, in the second section, in about the second sentence.

[16:37]

And it says in the sutra here, the term, I guess, Dharma, is used in the sense of a fundamental unit of existence, the building blocks of the empirical personality. Yeah, I think that's true. sort of, you know, that's the good of existence. But they're building blocks that, that's the whole point of the Sutra, is that they're building blocks that each block does not have an essence to it. Right. That's the whole point. Right. The emptiness is still there. The empty is a separate self-existence that becomes what you wish in the transient nature of all that is still there, but But it still has quality. It does have quality. That's true. As it is there and throughout, you can say it's potential. You can say that, but then you have to realize that you're speaking in a certain way.

[17:39]

Yeah. And that's important. Right. New words. Yeah, that's really important. That's why it's difficult. Because we use words in different ways. And to use words can be confusing. And that's for sure how we use them. But the building blocks have building blocks which have building blocks. I had two questions. One is kind of going back to the question of harm that God did. I have a different question. to warm up what you have, so I don't know if my page is borrowing from it, but it's the section right after, when practicing deeply the prajnaparamita. My book is page 15, but I don't know what it is in English. It says, in the Mahayana cosmology, prajnaparamita is the spiritual wisdom of the goddess, who has been called the mother of the Buddha.

[18:42]

The presence here can be interpreted either cosmologically or etymologically. So I haven't really seen any depiction of Prajnaparamita as it was in Buddhist art. But I'm assuming that there must be some. If you think there's a Prajnaparamita figure below the large Buddha statue that Rebecca made, How can you tell that it's prajnaparamita? She told me. No, she said there were certain aspects of the sculpture that identified as prajnaparamita. So, I don't know.

[19:45]

Well, there's... It's a goddess. You know, Buddhism has such a huge array of how it's been practiced, and there's people that treat Buddhism almost like Christianity. Go to heaven or you go to hell, protect your father from going to hell. And so, in that sense, there can be gods and goddesses, and even in... there's aspects of... there's a god realm, and there are gods. But there's not one god. And that's different from sect to sect and school to school. And there can be gods and there can be goddesses in some of the schools of Buddhism, but there isn't just one god. There isn't just one goddess. Some Buddhists can treat it like God.

[20:51]

But we certainly... Zen has never treated Prajnaparamita as a god or a goddess. I'm taking it from that perspective. I wasn't really defined as a Christian. I don't mean to say that there's a god, or any distinct thing to worship as a god or a goddess. But more in the vein of... I'm thinking it can be described as ultimate existence, or ultimate reality, or whatever. various words, and stuff of ultimate reality. It could be Dharma, or some other people might use the word God to describe ultimate reality.

[22:02]

They might say that all of the universe and all of everything that is in existence is God. That the ultimate reality of existence is God. I mean, the word is a little bit... it gives people a little... I mean, it's more of that common, you know, my God, your God sort of thing, but I mean it in a more philosophical sense. just as if a word expresses ultimate reality as you experience it. Whatever that may be. What is this word, what is ultimate reality? Is there provisional realities and ultimate realities? Yeah, I don't know, but in this season, emptiness is described as ultimate reality. And seeing the nature of reality, seeing the emptiness as a characteristic that makes it a function of reality, as opposed to not perceiving the emptiness of things, therefore not really perceiving ultimate reality.

[23:16]

I think that's what he's saying when he uses those words. It's a little bit off-putting to use words like ultimate reality because it's such a duality. This is ultimate and that's not. Yeah, as far as impermanence, it's less ultimate than our own being or suffering is not ultimate. I would be careful about using the word ultimate reality. Although, if somebody were using it and it spilled away, it could be anything. I don't know how to use it. Right. Right, but they both function and exist. Well, we're going to get to, you know, when we talk about the lines, form is emptiness and emptiness is form, that will

[24:20]

That is really what it brings up, which we're going to do. I don't know if we should move on and just kind of go through the sutra. We're going to chant the sutra again. I believe that last time we ended with, perceived that all five skandhas in their own being were empty. Is that? Okay. So we'll chant the whole sutra of course and then we'll continue. Great Wisdom, Beyond Wisdom, Heart Sutra.

[25:29]

Prajnaparamita. Perceive that all five skandhas in their own being are empty and flow safe from all suffering. Sariputra. Form does not differ from emptiness. Emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness. that which is emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness. O Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. They do not appear nor disappear, are not tainted nor pure, do not increase nor decreased, therefore in emptiness no form, no feelings, no perceptions, no formations, no consciousness, no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no color, no sound, no smell,

[26:38]

no taste, no touch, no object of mine, no realm of eyes until no realm of mind, consciousness, no ignorance and also no extinction of it until no old age and death and also no extinction of it, no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition and also no attainment, with nothing to attain a bodhisattva. He depends on prasya paramita. A hand of mind is no hindrance. Without any hindrance, no fears exist. Far apart from every perverted view, one dwells in nirvana. In the three worlds, all Buddhas depend on And attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Therefore know the Prajna Paramita. It is the great transcendent mantra.

[27:40]

It is the great bright mantra. It is the utmost mantra. It is the supreme mantra which is able to relieve all suffering and is true, not false. So proclaim the Prajna Paramita. Parameetha mantra, proclaim the mantra that says, prasidhi, prasidhi, paraha, prasidhi, prasangati, prudhi, pram. So we're beginning with, tonight, Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness.

[29:29]

Emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, and that which is emptiness, form. Yes. I'm actually not looking at the book itself. And then it goes on to talk about how what we're saying about form can be applied to all these other things, the skandhas and the dharmas, etc. I wanted to read a very brief explanation by a enigma teacher, one of the Tibetan lineage, Nyingma is one of the Tibetan lineages. This is very short explanation of the first four lines, and then we can talk about it some.

[30:32]

But Master Jumi Pham says that formless emptiness means emptiness of the phenomenal world. thereby countering the extreme of existential absolutism, the mistaken belief that all phenomena have absolute reality. Emptiness's form presents emptiness as arising as dependent origination, thereby countering the extreme of nihilism, the mistaken belief that nothing exists. So we're saying that things exist dependently. We're not saying they don't exist, or that nothing exists. Emptiness is not other than form. It presents the union of appearance and emptiness, or the union of emptiness and dependent origination, countering both extremes, nihilism and absolutism at the same time.

[31:41]

And then form, too, is not other than emptiness, indicates that appearance and emptiness are not incompatible, abiding instead in a state of total unanimity. Thus these four aspects are understood as presenting total transcendence of all conceptual elaborations. So a lot of what the Heart Sutra does, it brings us away from our own conceptualizations about these things, about conventional reality and about ultimate reality. And this brings up, of course, the question of, are they two things or one? And so often we want to see things one way or another, we want to grasp onto things just as we see them, or we want to say, this doesn't exist at all, and believe in some great emptiness or void, which are both misconceptions.

[33:04]

But the point that we're brought to is that they both they coexist, they're part of each other, you can't have one without the other. I just wanted to read one other little piece from the Dalai Lama, Since form lacks independent existence, it can never be isolated from other phenomena. Consequently, dependence suggests a kind of openness and malleability in relation to other things. Because of this fundamental openness, form is not fixed, but rather subject to change and causality.

[34:11]

In other words, since form arise from interactions of causes and conditions and do not have independent and fixed reality. They lend themselves to the possibility of interactions with other forms and therefore other causes and conditions. All of this is part of a complex, interconnected reality. Because forms have no fixed, isolated identity, we can say that emptiness is the basis of the existence of forms. In fact, in some sense we can even say that emptiness creates form. One can then understand the statement that emptiness is form, in terms of form being a manifestation or expression of emptiness, something that comes out of emptiness. I had that feeling when I was reading this that he was saying something like emptiness is some sort of, or surely I've got some kind of energy field in which phenomena arise and to me an energy field is something very powerful and it doesn't seem to be

[35:42]

I think he had it wrong. I don't think that that was a good way to describe it. He's into the physics. I think he went too far with the physics. Also, whenever we talk about form and emptiness, it strikes me how we keep using the word form, but actually it's Emptiness is not different than perceptions. Emptiness is not... Emptiness is not... Perceptions have no own being. Consciousness has no own being. But we keep coming back to forms. That's the first one on the list. And it's the most solid. So we keep saying form and emptiness, form and emptiness. But it's perceptions and emptiness. And feelings and emptiness. Consciousness and emptiness. And yet there's something about language that keeps drawing us back to the word form because it's so solid.

[36:48]

And emptiness is seemingly so opposite of solid. So we keep talking about form and emptiness, and even though we know that it doesn't mean nothingness, still we keep coming up with this contrast of something solid and something that's not solid, which is true, but it just reminds us that it's also perceptions in all dimensions. And form is just the one that we choose as the It's just one of the problems. I think it's struck me as I'm going through, I guess you could say that once you start at a more and more subtle level, and you bring up today, even more subtle, deeper and deeper forms of, you know, consistently speaking at a more subtle level. And the consciousness really struck me, because a lot of people can't get into this language very much, because it's a language of higher level of consciousness. You should find that there's a... that in a certain type of mind you might be found at a higher level of consciousness where it's conscious.

[37:57]

And in these times where you're pursuing higher levels of consciousness. So that's one. Struggling with the common I want to teach you something good that I might say. But it's misleading, just as you were just saying, to constantly go to the more concrete part and have to keep applying the duality of just this type of thing and that type of thing. And I think it's just a shame upon us all. Right. I personally like the one way that it's written. I don't think in our sutra books it's written that way, but it does say form is not other than emptiness.

[39:00]

Emptiness, not other than form. But it's said a little differently there in some of the Tibetan versions I've read. It says it this other way, which I think makes it a little more clear. I find it hard to understand. It seems to be comprehensible when you say form is emptiness. But what does it mean when you say emptiness is form? The only way emptiness can be understood is through forms. Because, like we've been saying, there is no great emptiness out there. There's no great void out there. Emptiness is the inherent nature of all things, as described in the Sutra. And we can only... When we see their nature, we see emptiness.

[40:03]

So that's why they say emptiness is form. If you could find an emptiness that doesn't have a form, show me. And also, it's important to always remember that it's dependent origination that gets rise to films. They all arise out of causes and conditions. And that's what makes them interesting. that the whole thing in itself would be better if we wait, really. You can maybe just briefly describe it, but we're going to do it more as it comes up later in the suture, probably next week.

[41:07]

I'll give a one-minute summary of the origination. We'll talk about something called the 12-link chain of causation. Basically it describes how things arise and pass away, but each thing gets rise to the next thing. So it talks about the whole cycle of birth to death and death to birth. No one point on the cycle is particularly significant, but that describes Well, because everything is interconnected.

[42:24]

Right. But this whole 12-linked chain we'll briefly discuss later, but that is addressed in the Sutra. Because ignorance, when it says no ignorance, no extinction of it, that's the beginning of the chain. The way I would think about it, it's kind of a progressive, systematic way of looking at human experience. Where one thing leads to another, leads to another. So you have this sense of There's not just one essence here and everything falls from that, but it's just one thing affects another which affects another which affects another. And that's the feeling, the gist of dependent origination that she's pointing to here. It seems to me like I've kind of been to too many of these places when I was a kid, although I don't understand a lot of it.

[43:39]

I've been to Iraq, I've been to the U.S., I've been to China, I've been to the Middle East. I don't know. How would a Bodhisattva have emotions? Not being a bodhisattva. I mean, we all have bodhisattvas within us. But we're not a perfect bodhisattva. So, if you're talking about a perfect enlightened bodhisattva, I don't know. I would imagine that... I would imagine the kind of person you're talking about would have emotions, but would not... Emotions would arise, but they wouldn't be gripped or attached.

[44:50]

So they would feel sorrow, but wouldn't hold on to it. But I'm just guessing, I don't know. The suffering is the hanging on to. The suffering is the hanging on to something. This is a point that Mel makes a lot. And it's a little different than sort of traditional Buddhism, which kind of gives you the impression that If you're in arhat, there's no suffering anymore. You've just ended suffering. And Mo's point is more, and that's just his, Suzuki Roshi's also, that enlightenment includes suffering, but it's not hanging on to it. It's not dwelling on it. It's not giving up on it. But still, suffering is there. You're not separate from suffering, but you're within suffering. and you don't grasp. You're happy with it, so I guess that's good.

[45:58]

Something like that. Right, but that's a whole other... Let's not get into it. Well, we are getting there. We have to get into it. But it seems that this is the same, that all of these things are going to be formed and then become a subsystem. Then all of these things combine and function as a system. Also, realizing that it can't just be a subunit in general and realizing that it can't be done and get managed really detaching from the emotional emotion. Because I think of the Heart Sutra as a compassionate peace.

[47:01]

And it does allow you to take it in. We share this with everything. But sadness is in touch with whatever, I don't know what it is. It's not an isolated sound. Yes. Yes, it does. But the purpose, of course, is not to not have emotions. We're not striving for that.

[48:05]

Yeah. Well, when we sit zazen, so often, you know, we want to have certain experiences, a lot of people. especially in the beginning of practice, but many people start practice hoping for peace, tranquility, not to feel certain things and feel other things. So, we find ourselves grasping at states that we like, joy, tranquility, and then When the anger arises or the sadness arises, often we want to push that away and say, well, this doesn't have a place here. I don't want to feel that. But actually, we can't do that.

[49:12]

We pretty much are forced to accept whatever arises. Yes. Now, I'm not talking to you for the rest of your life. I'm just telling you that you're in the same situation as I am. You didn't have to do this. [...] So come back to form and emptiness, or perception and emptiness, or consciousness and emptiness. Is there anybody who feels confused, I mean, in terms of at least thinking about it? To embody it is another matter. Is there anybody who just doesn't get it?

[50:13]

Who just, you know, is just sort of like going along with what we're saying, but you don't really, that it doesn't make sense to you? I get it when you talk about it, but then I forget it. It's hard to... It's hard to grasp. The problem is I think I get it, but I can't give it. I can't explain to people what it's like. How do you explain this? It makes no sense. I'm really a boss around here. How would you go about explaining this to someone who is not really trying to do this? Well, first of all, don't use the word emptiness. Use some other... Don't use Sanskrit. Don't use the word emptiness. Yeah, it does sound cool, but they won't understand it.

[51:14]

Just say there's no essence. That's awesome. Well, I'm here, right? Well, ask them what their essence is. I think it's just, again, something that shouldn't be perceived. It's because we're into the body, and we connect to the world through our thoughts, conduct. And that's... I still can't help but feel a sense of guilt towards them. Not that we're meant to break through, but I guess it's the higher consciousness, that's why we meditate. It's walking through this context and we accept that as part of our physicality and our being. We just want to see them as they are. We just want to see things as they are. But in a way I do understand it.

[52:17]

in some intellectual way, but I don't feel that the world works like that. Not just because of who we are, obviously, but the experience doesn't work like that. There's no interface. The world doesn't work like what? It's sort of obvious that everything is in a way... If the temporal breaks down, you think about it, it's a knowledge of your psyche, of course, and of course, you're going to be dependent. But you can't feel that way. And what you're just saying, Alice, you lost it, was that when you meditate, you get this, suddenly, there's an interface. Suddenly, your boundaries are breaking down. You wish you could go back and think, God, but he does. He does start to interface. You say, well, what's the reason? Well, the reason would be the low amount of morphic mood that disappears. Also, it's hard to approach it. I know the reason is the wrong word, but there is an interface there. But it's hard to approach it rationally. And the thought. The correspondence. The language, the thought, the words, the writing.

[53:42]

You can't cheat. There's no way around it. You can't open the refrigerator door without the light on. You've tried. You could have a good intellectual discussion about it, though. You could have a very word-oriented discussion, and it should hold up to a certain amount of logic and reasonability. It doesn't mean that you actually feel or experienced your life in that way, but there's no reason why this can't hold up to logic and reasonability.

[54:51]

And this was to be so popular that we were able to practice because of the terrible alcoholics that were out there. What is that propaganda? Well, the point, right, we're practicing it. Our goal isn't to try and explain it to people. It's nice, but we are trying to It's also hard to evaluate the sort of things on consciousness. If you really start examining your consciousness and being mindful of your consciousness, it's not just... it's obviously pretty slippery. Can you say what is the best of this? What is consciousness?

[56:03]

Well, consciousness in Buddhism is just a process. It's not some ineffable kind of mysterious thing. Well, we'll get to that in a few minutes. We'll go through what consciousness was. I just remember back when I was young reading the Bhagavad Gita, which is a different religion, quickly that the dialogue between Agandha and whoever the other character was. And one little part where Ananda said, well, and they were talking about this essence, well, is it this? No. Is it that? No. It's nameless. It has no name. Anyway, am I making... Yeah, you're making sense because this sutra keeps using the word no and it negates everything.

[57:15]

But, of course, it doesn't negate in order to be nihilistic, but it negates so that we cannot attach to any of these ideas. And also, there's a... By repeating it, too, I think we can end that dialogue. It, in itself, is freeing, and your mind does that. And it lets things shed. I don't think we're after any particular experience, Yeah. Can I move this along? Yeah, sure. I'm going to set you up for this. Myself too. When I mentioned this class to Mel, he said, really, you know, the hard switcher is really about duality and non-duality. It's really about non-duality. And I never thought about it like that.

[58:21]

And so I think it's important to see, you know, what do we mean when we're talking about duality and non-duality and how does that show itself in the Heart Sutra? Well... along with everyone else. It's a very hard topic to talk about, and I certainly don't feel adept at talking about it. However, I think we've been talking about dualities all night, because we talk about form, which of course is form and feelings and perceptions, etc. And we talk about emptiness. But really talking about them as separate things, or whether one's better than the other, or whether they're different, they're not really.

[59:37]

And our thinking mind, which is a dualistic mind, wants to do this. So back to the part of the sutra that says, emptiness is not other than form. It brings together appearance or form. whatever it is, the body, the emotion, and emptiness. And that basically all things, all forms, have emptiness as their nature, and yet, and, emptiness is all forms and all things. I find it very difficult to intellectualize about this.

[60:57]

I often like to think about it in terms of Zazen. When we're picking and choosing what we like and what we don't like. often in zazen when we sit with difficult states in particular or even very pleasant states there's this way where we want to cling to things we get very attached to them we believe in their reality which is form We believe in our story, we believe in our anger, or our peaceful moment.

[62:08]

Oh, now I've finally become a bodhisattva. But as we sit and we practice returning to the breath over and over, the mind, we loosen our attachments to these things, or our repulsion, And that is when we begin to really see the emptiness of these forms. Does anyone else have an experience, perhaps, or would like to talk about this subject more?

[63:37]

Go ahead. Just to remind you that evidently one of the main reasons for the creation of the hearts is that it's responding to that what they perceived as a duality of some of the early schools of Buddhism, who were dividing up the world into purity, into nirvana, to samsara, and nirvana, and saying, if you do all of this, you'll get to nirvana, and then you won't have to be in samsara anymore. And so the Heart Sutra was saying, well, wait a minute, The point here is that your dharma is all of these structures that you're hoping are going to get you to nirvana and that you'll be safe in nirvana and not have to worry about samsara. But all these structures are fundamentally empty of any own being. There is no essence.

[64:43]

There is no essence of nirvana. There is no essence of samsara. There is just no essence. So that's non-duality. In fact, it sounds like, when you say there's no essence, it sounds like, well, that's dualistic, because, and it is. Actually, to say it like that, and to think it like I'm explaining, is a dualistic way, and I have to do it in order to speak. But, if you see that all phenomena is just a composite with no no core anywhere, but just a constant flux of composite. And you can point out differences. Things are different from each other. But the fact that there's no essence anywhere is non-dualism. And there is also dualism.

[65:45]

It's like if non-dualism exists with dualism. It's not that there's one or the other. And that's what so much of this practice is about, and what's so difficult, because we want to think of one or the other. Either we see things dualistically, like the way I'm talking, or everything is non-dualistic, we just shut up and just see everything as being merged. But they both operate. That's why in the Sandokai, say, like two arrow tips meeting in mid-air, like that. You cannot have it just work for one or the other. Well, the Mahayanas stress that one cannot escape suffering. Some of the schools of early Buddhism aimed to escape suffering.

[66:49]

The Mahayanas really believed that that was not possible. That all the causes and conditions for suffering were always around you, no matter what you did. So, you had to learn to practice amidst suffering. There was no longer just striving for nirvana as this state or something, permanent state of bliss or anything like that, but to see nirvana within suffering. OK, your last sentence, I'm going to kill time. Oh, OK. You guys haven't distinguished Suffering and pain. You could do that. It's a useful thing to do. There's emotional pain.

[67:50]

Then there's the suffering, which is the aversion to, pleading to, or trying to get away from the suffering. Why is Nirvana to know that all is empty? You're free from claims. If you really do, you know, if you're living, if you're dwelling in Parinibbana, that's enlightened in terms of this sutra. It depends how you understand Nirvana. How you understand it. Which we'll get to later. Well, you sort of asked how we experience it. You know, for me, it's kind of holding both those things, you know, dualism. You know, it's a little bit like Ron was saying, you know, those 18, whatever they were sort of watching.

[68:56]

This one sort of just blows my mind, you know. So, that seems sort of the purpose to me for the experience of it, is holding them both. You know, it's sort of, Yeah, one thing that Dalai Lama says is, well, We talked about the middle way quite a bit, but understanding the emptiness of all phenomena, not discriminating between internal and external, mind and the world, is the refinement of the middle way. Not discriminating between what? Between the internal and the external, and between mind and the world.

[70:02]

Understanding this thoroughly for ourselves enables us to break completely free of the bondage of afflictions and all circumstances. Originally, I think the Middle Way meant, when Buddha spoke about it, it meant not indulging yourself in the extreme of asceticism or indulging yourself in the extreme of hedonism and indulgence. So that was what was meant originally by the middle way. And this is a more deeper... writing was describing as profound appearance. That's what this is. And that his statement was, I didn't find it at all amusing.

[71:05]

So I think that it was used referring to I don't think they don't say that in here in the heart suture, but he is in that state in the heart suture, but he doesn't say that. It's a confusing question for me sometimes when I think about what it means to be a human being. What came up for me is that we were talking about emptiness and how it's being managed to change everything. But to that, would you ask us to consider that to be the essential belief, the essential faith behind Buddhism?

[72:20]

Do you mean, do I think that the essence of Buddhism is in the Heart Sutra? Is that your question? Or is it the chanting of the Heart Sutra? I think what distinguishes the other... Well, I think it is what distinguishes it, yes. I mean, Buddhist practice has so many aspects, there's the Eightfold Path. Yeah, I know. I mean, this is... Okay, all right, but this perhaps would fall under... But people want to know, you know, you're a Christian, you believe. Christ as your Savior is kind of blind. And so I think I'm kind of conditioned sometimes to say, well, I always get confused, and I think, and so I'm kind of shy away from talking about it.

[73:32]

I don't understand why it's good that you can talk about your Savior. Well, most religions are theistic. And so they... often believe that God is a creator, but Buddhism really believes in the law of karma, not the law of God. And karma is the law of cause and effect, dependent origination. So yes, that is a distinguishing feature. Yeah, I mean it's a lot narrower. than the other things, you know. Chuck's really just concerned with suffering, you know. He didn't care where we came from, where we're going, you know. And then all these big courts, you know, hard things to get along with.

[74:35]

He's a very practical person. He's called a great physician. But I would say that if you had to pick one court You had to pick a core teaching. It would be that there's no core. That is, I would say, that's the core teaching of Buddhism. And apparently, other religions have, there are aspects of Buddhism that you can find in other religions, but that one, you cannot. That's what I've read. I don't know if that's true. But from what I've read, no other religion has that aspect to it. And yet the other aspects, you can find in the work system. Yet, you see, this is a graph, and yet, it's almost, if I'm not honest, it's impossible. It's very, very difficult to embody an understanding of what's going on out there.

[75:35]

So I was doing a nice practice of that. I think they're all... Yeah, but if the core... It's the core, you know, secure teaching of the system. And yet, it's so difficult to buy it. I mean, that's like... Yeah. You ever promise your rose garden? No, I don't want a rose garden. It's just, it's... Right. I think it's really frustrating. It feels frustrating, yeah. Because it's, it's... This is the central thing, I guess. That's why you should really trust it. Yeah. And then you talk, there's something, and I'm not trying to argue, but something I threw out there, and I'm not trying to make a point because I don't have a point, but... I said it once before, and I didn't mean that to do that, but she said something about it.

[76:39]

Other people have no idea. Essence. Essence is like, to me, this, if you don't know who this God is, this matriarchal figure, this God, an essence. But then Karen said this is what I was mulling, but there's, even energy is palpable in something, but it is more at energy, it's more at process, it's more at there's the law, what's the law, that lingers in an idea. It seems, you're talking about the core of this, the core of the teaching is that there is no core, and I'm losing my train of thought, but I'm not arguing with you, because I agree with that, but not to say that there is something, But it isn't what we call something. It's almost in this quark realm, which I am seeing as a popular physics, which doesn't really make sense of it. I'm serious here now. We know most of us.

[77:39]

I read the movie Masters and Delphins, and I have people who are trying to say it's a very simple life. We don't really understand it. But there is something, and that's what this is saying. It's not no thing. It's where the Zen folks that I first met said, no thing, not nothing, but no thing. is to avoid duality, but there is something, but in quotation marks. Whether it's process or something, it's not in essence, but it seems to me, in a way I am arguing, but it's more about the words, that there is something, but it's not what we call thing, not matter. And we make God as a kind of matter, or the universe as matter. And what I'm getting at is there is something called idea or something. Once you've called an idea, made it something, because now it's a person, place, thing, or idea. And that is like the exceptional thing. In a way, there's consciousness, and that's the core, but there's no core to consciousness. And what was it? It's sort of related to what I was going to ask. You were talking about all dharmas are marked by it.

[78:41]

It's not that they aren't. And the word marked by it, it's like a hint. It's like quality. The quality of all dharmas. You could say it's a quality. What do you mean by quality? That's their aspect, that's their nature, that's their part of the maker. If I can just throw these words out, those words of empathy for the sufferer, self-existence, it's something that describes a quality rather than a thing, rather than an idea first in place. It's a process or a quality of something that transcends duality, because it's not in a realistic way. I don't like people resisting like that. Everything is emptying from a separate self-existence. And we can honor that, meditate on that, in Zazen or on a train or anywhere, and test it.

[79:47]

Somebody said earlier something like, well, And we talk about here, but you can't really in reality, and I take exception of that, and say in reality, you can prove it again and again and again and again in reality, but everything is empty of a separate self-existence. And you can do it intellectually, or you can do it sitting, zazen, and in my experience, it's true every time. And the great thing about it, not only is that it's true, but that it leads to compassion. And it leads to, you know, that tearing kind of suffering. You still have pain and emotion, but it's not, you know, personal ripping apart type of a pain. But at the core of it is this emptying of a separate self-existence. For me anyways, those are the best words that I've ever come across to really, you know, try to

[80:48]

tested intellectually or what have you. But then that is important. It's interdependence. I mean, you could say, well, you're talking about everything's God. Then you go back to that. But there is, I feel I'm pushing it to something because I don't want to in a way. But in a way, the essence versus the lack of the core. There is no core. I know why. It's just going to happen. It's just something. which might just be my ego not wanting to have antibodies. But it just feels like, as you said yourself, that's a duality too, but there's something, whether it's process or something, but the whole thing is an entity. In some sense that the molecule can choose any way. When we die, we just decompose into something else. That is something. Not just matter and molecules, but in a certain way. That's something. Let me start some of this trouble. What I have spent was the core belief, not sort of what the core was.

[81:53]

The core belief is that this is the way the universe works, though. Right. Which includes our consciousness. It includes our thinking. It includes us. If you said that, if you had to pick one aspect that would distinguish Buddhism from other people of other religions, I think you'd be safe with that. But I think there is something else, too. I mean, emptiness is all belief, and if you actually see everything as empty, that's really terrifying, to see all phenomena as empty. And so there has to be something else, and I think that something else could be compassion. And without compassion, I don't think any being could you conceive of seeing everything as empty and containing insanity.

[82:54]

Because if all phenomena are empty and meaningless... Yeah, but we're not saying meaningless, no. You know, I think you might be venturing into the nihilistic realm. And so that's one thing that is clearly negated here. We're not talking about nothingness. Not saying... Right, we're not talking about meaninglessness. You know, we're going to have to stop in a minute or two. You know, I hate to... Bring an end to this. We're going to continue next week, but I want to respect everybody's schedules and need for sleep. Well, next week we'll go on in the Sutra.

[84:02]

into the probably dependent origination and also the 18 sense realms, for starters. We're going to chat before, which is before we go. So before we do that, I just want to say, if anybody has not paid yet, could you please talk to me right after this? These are numbers.

[84:47]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ