I was asked to make an announcement. We haven't paid for the concert yet, so I'm going to get checked. Are there any questions? There's nothing left over to talk about before we move on to the next part of this.

[02:09]

Well, there's a few things left over. One was, I think it was last time Clay asked, was it last time you asked about, would emptiness of thought being be the primary characteristic of Buddhism if you were discussing it with somebody in another religion? Or what would you say to somebody in another religion if you had to distill Buddhism down those most important points or two? So what I said, yeah, I said that emptiness or the lack of any core is really the essential aspect of Buddhism. And maybe in some technical way, in terms of comparative religion, that's true. But in terms of practicing Buddhism, that's really not true. I think that the primary point, if you had to pick just one aspect of Buddhist practice, is that because we can't help ourselves, seemingly we can't help ourselves from craving and desiring and grasping and so forth, that we create suffering.

[03:22]

And that there is a way to release our grip on that craving and reduce the amount of suffering that we cause ourselves and others. And that's what makes people practice Buddhism. And that was actually Buddha's first sermon. That's what he said. And in the second sermon, he talked about that self, the emptiness, or the lack of an own being, or the lack of the self in ourselves. I just wanted to clarify that. I think that what I said wasn't exactly right. Although, I think that... And another thought that I had was that the sort of concern with religion is that if you think about what we mean when we say the word God, what most people mean when they say the word God, it seems like that talking about emptiness, the own being, or the core,

[04:52]

There's really a direct contradiction of most people's, in this world's, idea of what God is. Most people think when they use the word God, there's some sense of a creator. And of course, there are other ways of using the word God, which can be more subtle or, you might say, sophisticated. But in the sense of God as being a creator, If everything has an off phenomenon, it has no being to it, how can there be a creator? That's a real threat to the religions of the world. And then, I think you want to talk about compassion.

[05:55]

Well, the Mahayana, Mahayana Buddhism is concerned with the Bodhisattva path. And so, the question that's important to me is why is this discussion of emptiness so important? Why is understanding and emptiness the key to the bodhisattva way? And that's something I think we could talk about here. Someone asked last week about wisdom and compassion.

[07:12]

And I kind of quickly said that, I forget how I phrased it, Something like the compassion Wasn't helpful about wisdom And Wisdom in this sutra really is about understanding the truth of emptiness So And this Bodhisattva path is the path of compassion. And so, what does emptiness have to do with compassion?

[08:21]

Ram suggested that we talk about this rather than, you know, this kind of monologuing about it. I think the answer to the question is pretty easy. The problem is not what we're talking about. And also the problem is not being understood in a intuitive understanding and not a rational understanding. but we're trying to rationalize it now. So, I don't think I have a very good answer to your question, but those are the problems I have with your question. Can I ask you why you think that, you know, I was reading, I think he's, uh, Sloan Sinéad says that if, he says what he just said, I think, that it's not rational, it's intuitive. I wonder, why isn't it rational?

[09:23]

It seems to me that Emptiness is as rational as you can get. Just sort of observe it. It seems to make sense. Well, I think you might be talking about the experience of enlightenment. To really understand it is not something that you can just analyze. Yeah, I would agree with that. Because that experience is so difficult.

[10:27]

It seems like there ought to be children who are accessible to the kids. It's kind of silly. Unsuccessful way. I think part of the problem, again, is the word semantics. Emptiness seems like a void. And really, if we say intervenes in emptiness, then it kind of sounds different. What does intervene have to do with what we saw? Otherwise, if you're not coming from that place, then you might be coming from a place of co-dependency or something.

[11:32]

Or a place of ego, looking after someone else's, thinking of yourself as the great savior and other people as helpless victims or whatever, instead of Seeing yourself as completely empty of any essential self, and all other beings as empty of essential selves. And it's a pretty tricky place to get to. But I think it's really important to try to get to that path. It's definitely something that I'm interested in. I was thinking, you read again and again that the father sadhana who attains the ultimate wisdom would actually leave the world if he wasn't for compassion that's keeping him there.

[12:34]

Because there's really nothing in the world that would attract the very wise being. Everything would come to an end. The Buddha wouldn't even have preached his, his, uh, discovery of the truth, if he hadn't been compassionate. And I think that's why we wouldn't even know, first of all, if there weren't these, if there weren't compassion enough to stick around. And somehow, though, to me that touches on There is a nine wisdom element in Buddhism. And without compassion, Buddhism really says, there's nothing in this world that there's no reason for me to keep going once I've seen through.

[13:38]

So in a sense, from an ordinary point of view, yeah, this is pretty scary. Why should I do anything? Once I see that this is all empty, if I wasn't compassionate. I guess we're wondering if the term emptiness can be substituted for the term emptiness. It doesn't seem like it is. The issue of emptiness just stays at the forefront. What's valuable is that we have such an assumption Even if we don't articulate it or even think about it much, there is such an assumption that there is such a strong sense of need in most of us.

[14:57]

And because that causes so much problem, you have to address it directly. It's empty. There's not a core there. It's important to say that. It's kind of a hard note. Yeah, it's a hard note. But, if you follow that, then if you let go of that notion of me being so critical, so important, then you just naturally, well, that's still nothing I want to say, it would seem as if naturally at that point you would open up to what's obvious is that we're all interrelated. So, and you just engage. But maybe it's not so neat, and it's not so just black and white. It's not just like, oh, as soon as you let go, everything just opens up. And you just feel totally one with everybody. It just doesn't seem to work like that.

[15:58]

So I think it's more gradual. And it can be difficult. And it can be depressing. We let go. If we direct our lives always based on how we can make me feel better and feel happier, and then we start to question how important me is, then what? What's the point? Why should I go on? And of course, that's how our emotions seem to go. You know, you come up with various answers, why you should go on, or how things can open up, but the experience is actually gradual, in my experience, it is gradual, and what I see with others, and it can't be depressing. There's a depressing aspect to it. And then, you have to get in, you have to be willing, I think, you have to be willing to go through that.

[16:59]

You have to be willing to go through that difficult process. It's a letting go process. It's a letting go process. It's a letting go process, but you can't dictate the terms. You can't dictate what it's going to be like. I was just wondering about emptiness. We've always been trying to look at it from a positive view, saying it's the same as suchness, or it's like the absolute. But what about looking at it from the point of view When you see something as empty, what is it that you don't see anymore? In other words, we project all these things into objects, and all these things that support our own ego, we project it into something else. And when you see it as empty, then all these things are not there anymore.

[18:01]

What are these things? I think that has been also shown in poetry and art. There's a lot of beauty that people see at the same time. I don't think, I don't find emptiness depressing. I think it's often mistaken to, it's often equated with nihilism, dullness, like everything's the same, or it doesn't matter, or that it loses its vibrancy. But actually, emptiness is very much a lot. Yes? I was thinking about this emptiness. And it seems to me like this idea that people understand

[19:04]

aren't saying that anything is there. Everything that, as I look at it, as I think of it as there, is still there. It's just all fundamental. It's just all, it may be that my body is made up of 99.9% empty space, and it's all atoms that were formed from the Big Bang 10 million years ago, or everything else, I don't know, the stardust. But still, this body is here. And this heart is really here. And the same thing is going on with my thoughts and feelings. They may be continuously changing. I may be a new being every moment, but there is a continuity from when I was born. Just like you have a candle flame. Every minute, every instant that candle flame is new, but at the same time it is also the same candle flame that is burning ever since you lit it. Both are true. I have a whole pattern of emotional reactions.

[20:10]

It's all shifting emotions. Sure, at every moment it's different. And I have a whole pattern of ideas about who I am, self-conceptions, which changes actually every moment, even though one of these I believe is constant and unchanging. And I have What I'm getting to here is there's this idea that I've heard that if you really understand and you realize that your ego does not exist and there's nothing to protect, and so you have some liberation experience. Well, I doubt that. It seems to me that I have old patterns of habitual emotional responses. They may be riddled with emptiness, but they persist. And they will perceive. I think I understand how they're empty. But still, those emotional patterns also exist, even though they are empty.

[21:13]

And if somebody sticks their tongue out at me, I'm going to feel bad. That's not going to change anything. Feeling bad is empty. How do you know that's not going to change? Well, it has a response. You don't always see it in the same absolute way. It doesn't mean it's not there. It's like a candle flame. You might go to another country where they all stick their tongues out and they really like each other. And then you'll see a difference. And then that'll change. And then my pattern will change. But I have memory. Right? So things that occur call up experiences in my subconscious that is empty and real, and I have a baggage reaction when something happens. Even though I am fundamentally empty, that stuff exists at the same time. So, actually what I'm getting at is why is it that, oh, and I do a practice dropping them over and over again, which is learning new patterns, which is a good practice.

[22:23]

But this idea that realizing emptiness is going to save people from suffering, I don't understand that. That's right there in the beginning of our sutra, that it saves you from suffering. To realize it, to touch the throne is going to save you from suffering. It seems to me that that is the hypothesis which supports the idea of compassion, that we realize this, and we see that other people who are still deluded, that they're suffering unnecessarily. realize that it's unnecessary, you want to help them, it's natural. It's that first part that they have trouble with actually. How does it save you from suffering? Well, you still get cancer even though you're a good athlete. You can't get away from that unless you're a good athlete. That's one thing, that when they say sigma goes A to 10, Buddhism doesn't mean it's hungry and can't get rid of that.

[23:25]

Well, the thing about Buddhism doesn't get rid of it, but there's a distinguishing between pain and suffering. Between experiencing pain and holding on to, holding on, wishing that the pain would go away, wanting to separate from the pain, that's more suffering. But no Buddha never said that there would be pain. That's why they emphasize composure, that you go through it. But if you develop a composure, you definitely see the emptiness of nature. But it's not a kind of a stoic. It's not just sort of like... But yeah, it's a composure because You're not holding on to the notion of wanting to get rid of the pain that is bad.

[24:28]

You want to get rid of it. You want to change it. I just want to say one thing about what Paul said, though. You're saying that you don't see how there's an end to suffering through this. Is that what you're saying? Well, just what line can I tell you? No, I was just going to say that understanding oneself, the absence of the I there, is, from my understanding, the path towards ending suffering, perceiving the emptiness of oneself. and not, once the I is out of the way. Realize that you're creating that self, that I, the sense of I, with your original thought patterns.

[25:33]

You can see yourself creating it, then it's important for these to drop in. And even cancer is not so disturbing. Because you're no longer, you're dying, because we no longer believe we existed, exist in the same way we used to. We really do exist, but we have a story about who, what we are, which is not the same thing, but really exists. Actually, I think when it's invested, we don't care. Nancy, did you have a question? Isn't it possible to speak of emptiness as a form of concentration? Zazen allows this experience.

[26:34]

As well as someone working on a little tiny model plane gets out of themselves, that person's self. It's the act of getting out of that. I don't know. I tend to think this is founded a lot on being able to watch one's breath. And it's a form of concentration. It just reminds me, there was a question Saturday talking about fine restaurants, Raoul speaking, and someone asked, does the cook at the fine restaurant experience the same thing as Utenzo? And the answer was, like him and a few others, that some do, some don't, you know.

[27:37]

And so what's the difference there with what makes Buddhism? Well, we That's our foundation in a way, and we have ancestors who have experienced this, and we can make it into... I mean, it's one thing that really is a kind of a salvation. You know, the word concentration slash meditation, it minimizes it. You know, our society with so many catchwords, things going on. but whatever we, you know, the foundation, there's a march of people who we can say, yes, they have done this too, you know, to less or more satisfaction for themselves, you know. But are you saying they're the same?

[28:39]

No, I'm saying that people, it's the foundation and it's a... Yes, and some people need Buddhism, some people don't, you know, and some people need this kind of warmth and consolation that I seem to need. I've customized my music. But I really do appreciate in March, or I don't know what you call it, the touching, constant change, the people who have gone and we've born and, you know, they are our strength. And I think, well, once, I think it was Mel said in a lecture, our text really, we really focus on the ancestors. I mean, that is, And they're so important, and we will be ancestors, you know, and even the molecules have their own ancestors, you know.

[29:53]

And these are the ways we let go of self, I think, as much as we want. Sometimes, whether or not we concentrate or not, it can be a very good thing. I guess we should. Hmm? Can I say one thing? Yes, please. I just want to say about compassion that, you know, because I'm really concerned about what you mentioned about being able to change habitual patterns and I think that compassion, you know, instead of just kind of knowing, oh, I'm nothing and this reaction is nothing, I think what's more useful for me is, you know, let's say you get triggered somehow, the tongue sticking out or whatever happens, you have a habitual response and then

[31:12]

And then you have a different reaction to the individual response. You have a compassion towards that individual response. So you're angry, or you're hurt, or whatever it is, but you're aware of it, and then you're compassionate about it, because you understand that there are millions of people in this world, and they all have the same problem. They all get triggered, and they all have emotional responses. So what happens is the skandhas just become a way for us to be compassionate with all beings. And to understand how we're all interrelated. And if we get in touch with our own feelings, then we can feel for their feelings. Right. Yes, that's true. If we get in touch with our own feelings, then we can feel for other people's feelings. Yes, I appreciate your point, by the way, and we're not abandoning it, okay?

[32:19]

This will come up again, certainly in the second half. Does everyone have a secret book? great wisdom, beyond wisdom, heart sutra. Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita, perceive that all five skandhas in their own being are empty and form does not differ from emptiness. Emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness. That which is emptiness form of same is true of feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness,

[33:24]

Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feelings, no perceptions, no formations, Consciousness, no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind, no realm of eyes until no realm of mind. Consciousness, no ignorance and also no extinction of it until no realm of mind. and also no extinction of it, no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment, worth nothing to attain a Bodhisattva, depends on Prasna, Kumaramita, and the mind is no hindrance, without any hindrance, no fears exist,

[34:29]

Far, far from every perverted view, one dwells in nirvana in the three worlds. All Buddhas depend on prajna paramita, and attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Therefore know that prajna paramita is the great transcendent mantra. is the great right mantra, is the utmost mantra, is the supreme mantra, which is able to relieve all suffering and is true, not false. So proclaim the Prajna Paramita mantra. Proclaim the mantra. that says, GATE, [...] GATE. So we can pass those booklets back up.

[35:45]

So I think that where we ended in the text last time was form does not differ from emptiness. Emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness. That which is emptiness, form. We completely talked about that and completely understood it. And then, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness, which are the skandhas, which we talked about. And then Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness, which we also talked about and which is also kind of going back to the Hinayana schools and making sure that we understand that not just that the person is empty of an all-being, but all phenomena are empty of a core all-being.

[36:59]

And so now we come into sort of new territory. I mean, not really, but in terms of the words. They, meaning the dharmas, they do not appear or disappear, are not tainted nor pure, do not increase nor decrease. So this can be a little confusing, at least to me. in terms of the language, because if you think about it, well, it certainly seems that darkness would appear and disappear. Everything is changing, elements come together, water, hydrogen, oxygen comes together and creates water, and then water evaporates. And if you have some definition of what's pure or impure, things become more pure or more impure, things increase and decrease. So what they mean, what we mean in these words, is that the actual process of appearing or disappearing itself, that process does not have a core to it.

[38:15]

It doesn't. It's like Paul was saying, that things do appear and disappear, but the actual process itself is not doesn't have an inherent core to it. It's just a culmination of elements which creates appearing and disappearing. There's no law. That's right. There's no law of appearing and disappearing. Well, it depends how you're using the word Dharma. If you want to use dharma as the way, as the way of reality, that also, the way of reality is that there is no core. In that sense, the dharma has no core, and that's why it's the dharma. Well, doesn't it mean like the way changes, there's no one way? There's a way. But there's many ways. Well, you can decide that there's one way.

[39:20]

You can say that there's a reality, that this is real. Something rather is real. But that realness has no... You can't break it down into something where there's this immutable core point which is not influenced by other factors. That's the point. So, purification, you know, there is a Buddhist text, Abhidharma text, I believe, called the Path of Purity, the Path of Purification. And this is what the Mahayanas were objecting to, and some of the Hinayanas were thinking was that the Hinayanas wanted to purify, [...] until we were kind of perfect. And so we enter nirvana, we leave samsara behind, and we purify ourselves to be perfect.

[40:22]

And the Mahayanas were saying, wait a minute, you're creating this dualistic world of purity and impurity, and that's not the way that it works. So, in the Heart Sutra it's saying that the whole process of purification, the process itself does not have a core to it, although there is purification. And the same with increasing and decreasing. Therefore, in emptiness, no form... Again, they keep coming back to the skandhas. They love the skandhas. No form, no feelings, perceptions, impulses, or consciousness. Now we have a new one. No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, and no mind.

[41:24]

And these refer to the bases, the six bases, or in Sanskrit as ayatanas. And the bases are how we experience the world, in the same way as the skandhas. All these different facets of our character and body inter-overlap. So the skandhas are overlapping with the bases, and the bases overlap with dependent origination. But the bases are on five senses. I'll try to... Ear, nose, tongue. Ear, nose, eyes, body, just touching is one. And then the mind itself. And the bases are organs. First of all, you can see it as an organ. The organ of the eye, the organ of the ear.

[42:27]

And then the mind, the organ of the touch, your body, is an organ in itself, and then your mind is also an organ. And the organs need an object. The organs need something to perceive, to relate to. And without that, they don't function. So, the five senses are pretty obvious. Your eye needs something visual. Your ear needs something auditory. Your body needs something solid. Well, solid is misleading, but your body needs to touch something. And your mind needs some thought or needs some kind of a movement, some kind of an image in order to be engaged. And then... So that's...

[43:33]

called I-consciousness, those-consciousness, mind-consciousness. So there is consciousness when the mind engages with mental objects and there's mind-consciousness. And in the sutras actually Buddha goes farther in describing the way these interact. So you have like the eye, the object of sight, and then eye consciousness, which is

[44:36]

which is those combining up, and then you have contact, which is when they come together, and then with contact there arises a feeling. And then the feeling is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. And then based on that pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral, you have desire or craving. If it's pleasant, you want more of it. If it's unpleasant, you want to get rid of it. And if it's neutral, you can't win. If it's neutral, there's a kind of ignorance there. You're stuck in ignorance of not really understanding the nature of reality. So, the point of this is to, you know, it's not to be sort of like clinical, to reduce everything down to kind of a clinical scientific observation, but it's to see how this actually affects our personalities, that when we see something,

[45:57]

you know, various elements have come together and create a consciousness of seeing something, and then right at that moment we have a feeling about it. Either we like it or we don't like it, or we just have a neutral feeling. And then, right after that feeling comes desire. Either we want to get rid of it, we want to... The point of this is that Although this is all working very dynamically, but there's, again, there's no core. That's what the whole thing is about, obviously. There's no core to it. So, your eye is made up of various elements. The thing that your eye is looking at is made up of various elements. And your eye consciousness is made up of various elements, and it's all changing. Is there any question about that?

[47:07]

So they're saying it's because what we're seeing isn't what we're doing. Yes, yeah. But the whole process, the whole process is so dynamic. Each element in that process, there is no... Each element in that process lacks a core. There is no starting point, there is no core point. And also what you're describing are conditioned events. I'm not sure if it's clear, but all these things that Ron mentioned, the feeling and the grasping and et cetera, how they work together so that one leads to another. When this exists, then that exists.

[48:09]

And that's the way of... That's why they have no goal, because they are conditioned by other things. And if you could start, another helpful thing about this, again, it's not just a matter of making some kind of a, you know, writing an essay with an analysis of human psychology for turning in a paper or something, but that you begin to see your own personality and your own experience and perceptions in this way, and you start to see how that the I and the me is not so not so personal, not so dear as we might have thought, that the I and the me is this terrifically dynamic process of things coming in, and feelings arising, and contact, and consciousness, which is all very amazingly precise and beautiful, actually.

[49:15]

Just the fact that this complexity works so well, or is so rich, But, but nowhere is there an I. If nowhere is there some central authority which is, you know, directing all this. That's the point. There's no central authority. It's like we talked about, it's like the Wizard of Oz. There's not even a guy behind a curtain. What is memory? What makes you think that memory is particularly... What makes you interested in memory? Because it seems to give that more enduring permanence. nature that one experiences.

[50:25]

That's what we like to remember. That's what we like to remember. Don't just take my word for it. You know, you asked a very good question, but how does that connect? It seems to create a sense of permanence. In fact, you can remember something day after day after day. It fixes it. Right. And you have consciousness, you have emotions, you have all of them. And where does memory, which seems to play a role in the way we interpret all the others? Well, memory is actually just a part of our... It's the... formation, it's the mental formations of a, a skanda of mental formations.

[51:25]

It's actually just a mental state. It's a mental function. It's important. I mean, if you didn't remember anything, people who have Alzheimer's have to be taken care of. So, it's important. But, the thing is, In a lot of our memory, it's our drama. We're the main actor in our memory. And memories change. But we don't perceive it so well, because we're changing, so we can't perceive how our memory is slightly not always the same. And our thoughts that happen in the present. That's true. And then it changes and goes to something similar. Incidentally, this is related, but not exactly to what you're saying, that the original sutras were really based on memorization.

[52:35]

That this was all an oral tradition for at least several hundred years. And in the old days, memory was really important Nowadays, and as technology becomes increasingly more important, memory becomes less and less important. But in both Europe and Asia, in the older times, memory everywhere was very, very important. And people had, there were the art of memory to both develop the capacity to memorize things. And then, this is before, excuse me. Yeah, and I mean, when Trinket came along, they thought everything was going to go to hell, because they would lose the ability to remember, to memorize, because they'd be lazy, because everything would be in books. They had no idea what would happen in the computer space. One question. So, you just blew it up.

[53:39]

So if that, if the process is somehow changed, then at some point a person experiences emptiness. So that's the process for my identifying. I guess I don't have words for If this doesn't occur, if these things do happen, what has been stated, what has been written down of what the people who are looking at that, what happens to someone who goes through this? What has not been put in line? I'm sure I'm wondering what it would be like to have a student like that in my school.

[54:57]

Yeah, I've never met anybody in that way. I'm just wondering what is written about, or described, or stated about what is, what, what is, you know, what I'm hearing. You know what I mean? Like, they, they, you know, they're not, I know that, I know that they're not that sophisticated, or they have, you know, like, they don't care what quenches, quenches against people. They, they remember through the, through the toys, The reason they don't do that is because they're not consistent. They're going to have to be inspired to see them do that. Yeah, but they have lots of little, they have lots of things churning around. Yeah, but you know, it's on the inside. They're all present. Yeah, they're all present. They don't have a fear. They don't think too complicated things.

[55:58]

There is writing about meditation experience, and like in Samadhi, people will write about it. And they can't really say. I mean, they all say that they can't say, because it's not a matter of seeing things from a dualistic perspective, which is how they use words and thoughts and imagery. So they really can't put it into words. But they kind of try. It seems to me that you talked about Europe as a real breakdown. Why would you think that it's... Well, I think that I, you know, I'm talking about no eyes over here. No core to the eyes. There is eyes, but there's no core.

[57:04]

There's not a little thing that's sort of like the seed of the eye that's immutable that, you know, just always there. That's the seed of the eye. One thing that the Buddha taught was that there are really two truths. There's relative truth and there's ultimate truth. Those words aren't so great, but that's the words that we happen to have. the relative truth would be, you know, that this bell exists. We all hear it, we see it, we experience it. So, of course, we're not saying this isn't here, you're not hearing anything. But then there's, of course, the ultimate truth also, which you're talking about here with the absence of a core. But the two things can't be understood really separately. They have to be understood together. I had something here.

[58:09]

This is from, this is something from Nagarjuna about emptiness. and emptiness in the dharma because Nagarjuna was having an argument because somebody was saying that he was saying that the dharma didn't exist, that this logic meant that there was no dharma. So his response was, you don't know what emptiness is about. You are distressed by emptiness and what you wrongly see is the implications of emptiness. In teaching the truth, Buddhas resort to two truths, worldly conventional truth and the ultimate truth. Those who don't know the distinction between these two truths do not understand the deep reality in the Buddha's teaching. The ultimate cannot be taught without resorting to conventions.

[59:11]

And without recourse to the ultimate, one cannot attain nirvana. What is linked to emptiness is linked to everything. and what is not linked to emptiness is linked to nothing. Interdependent origination, that is what we call emptiness. There can be found no element of reality that is not interdependently originated. Therefore, there can be found no element of reality whatsoever that is not empty. If everything were not empty, there would be no arising and passing away. and it would follow that the Four Noble Truths, which involve the arising and passing away of suffering, did not exist. How could suffering not be dependently originated? Indeed, suffering is said to be impermanent, thus it cannot be found to exist. It has its own permanent, inherent self-existence.

[60:14]

Also, there's a cool word that they really use called imputed reality. There's ultimate reality, which is kind of what we're talking about. We're talking about how there is no core to things. But we impute that, and we have what Karen is saying is conventional reality. We impute a form. I think impute comes from means to put on top of. and that's what we deal with in the reactor. It's important the idea of, no, it's not there, but we can't handle it, and so to work with it, we make-believe that it's there. Exactly, yes.

[61:27]

Because so often we talk about suffering, pain, liberation from pain, and this of course sounds cliche after a while, They're not separate things. We can suffer and have pain, yet be awakened. Yes. Do I understand that the notions of perfection preceded that this emptiness must be

[62:44]

I don't know about Hinduism preceding Buddhism. I don't know what they said. There are similarities. But the Mahayana is more a response to early Buddhism, not so much pre-Buddhism, but to early Buddhism. Is that what you were... No. Well, there's some disagreement about that, but generally it's thought that it comes later. Yeah. Yeah, although my feeling is that somebody else wrote it later. Yeah, something like that.

[63:49]

That's what I think. I don't think it's one of Buda's original. So now you can discuss dependent origination. We need to address dependent origination, but I don't speak for Karen, but I have not studied this thoroughly or much at all, and so I'm not going to be able to give you a very good idea in terms of how the real intimate functioning of dependent origination and the dynamics of it. So I'm just going to let Karen. Oh, no. This could take eight weeks to talk about. So page 21 of the text. But it's OK. Don't worry. Because the main thing here is what we're talking about all along. We don't need to under, I mean, it's wonderful.

[64:51]

And we should be able to know it. But for the purposes of this class, it's not necessary to understand. the details of how it works. Well, I think you've talked about it quite a bit. I mean, when Buddha was enlightened, this was one of the things he understood. And really, the understanding was that all things originate, nothing originated by themselves. And so these 12 things are also called the 12 interdependent origins.

[65:51]

And this cycle kind of locks us into the wheel of suffering or the cycle of birth and death. But really what we work with a lot ourselves when we sit is one particular link in this chain which is the grasping No, no, no. That's the one to notice. It's okay. So it's the grasping of these things. that really causes us suffering.

[67:06]

And that's usually where we try to break that chain, when we're sitting zones in. The clinging and the aversion. So the idea is, can I ask a question? Yes. The idea is that one through eight are what it is to be human, and those are going to happen. That's kind of the goal of everything in the world. Everything being in the body. Being alive. But it's that, it is a disjunction of grasping onto it. We're going to have feelings, we're going to have pain, we're going to have joy, I don't know if I should keep going on.

[68:31]

examples of this cycle. Edward Kanze, who wrote quite a few books that are somewhat academic about Buddhism, but they're really good books. He goes through this 12-fold chain and compares it He starts with a blind man who does not see what's in front of him because generally, you know, it's believed that ignorance is really the cause of all these problems that we have. Ignorance of our true nature. So, this is his example. He says a blind man does not see what's in front of him. He stumbles and then he falls and then he develops an abscess. The abscess ripens and matter accumulates in it, and he presses on the abscess, and then it hurts, and then he longs for a cure.

[69:40]

Then he has recourse to the wrong medicine, and then he uses the wrong ointment, and then the abscess swells up, and then it bursts. But we got the top ten issues done, the visual issues. So anyway, after, in the sutra, so as you can see in the section of the sutra we're working on, emptiness has been reaffirmed in five skandhas, the six sense organs, the six sense objects, the consciousnesses, and then emptiness has been reaffirmed in this

[70:51]

wheel of life or the twelve linked chain of causation that we just described. And then it goes on, it says, no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path. So, he's also, or, emptiness is being reaffirmed in the four noble truths, which are most basic and the first of Buddha's teachings. So can everybody handle that? I have a question. Yes. The other place to cut the real from what I understand is ignorance. So is that the purpose of the Heart Sutra to help us to cut that ignorance?

[71:56]

To really understand the Heart Sutra? Yeah. But again, as powerful as this whole list is, Also to see that this is all interdependent and there's not... that all of these processes depend on other processes. But yeah, the Heart Sutra goes directly to number one, which is our ignorance of how to touch the Lord. And so, as Karen said, then we come to the four noble truths.

[73:00]

Can we just go back for a second? Yeah, sure. You said that number one is the theory of the universe. And then we chose the universe as a means to natural formations. Well, think about. I'm not sure if I want to answer that. Well, mental formations are also... It's a very good question, actually.

[74:19]

So, would it be that Buddha has no mental formations, or would a completely enlightened person have no mental formations? You would know that they're empty. That's right. It goes more into what karma is and how karma is created. And I can't give you an answer. That's a good question. Yeah, but there's, but mental formations are, there's so many, you know, states of mind and mental formations that are just, you know, all the subtleties and nuances.

[75:24]

You're talking about something which is really gross and kind of self-centered, but If you think about more of the subtle kinds of mental formations that are in your mind, try to imagine being human without that, or without creating any, you know, trying to be human without creating volitional action. I can't really, it's hard to imagine. How about this, that ignorance, to be ignorant is to separate subject-object separation from all, from the fundamental reality. And that once you separate, then you can have an external world and you can have relationships with it, which is going to bring out formation.

[76:26]

They're saying, it looks like it's saying here, that if you were to, is it possible to live without ignorance? In order to function, of course you have to have subject-object separation, but it's like knowing the fundamental reality at the same time as you're operating a little bit. But, I mean, we're cognizing somehow that the world is spinning at the same time we operate as separate beings. So maybe we have to. And this is talking about the enlightenment, which is just talking about one side. You can't keep going and crashing as far as you can. When you don't do that, you don't dwell in emptiness when you're laying around. They talk about it in a way of talking, as if there's nothing.

[77:31]

As if you're just a boy, experiencing a meditation. Where is that? Where is it? When the rationality of the Abhidharma, of Abhidharma is transcended... Which page are you on? Page 20. I don't know if I'd call it the realm of intuitive truth. I think that's a horrible description. But anyway, for... So it's a good question, you know, if you saw, if you weren't... Is it possible to live without ignorance?

[78:48]

Is it possible to be completely unmindful? Is it possible to live without ignorance in your everyday life? And if that were true, does that mean that we have no mental formations? It's hard to imagine, but I... I don't know. I mean, for our practical purposes, we don't really need to be so concerned about it. It's an interesting philosophical point, but for practical purposes, most of us are going to be ignorant to our dying breath, in one form or another, so we have to pretty well swallow it. But the important thing here, I think, is that what they're saying is that mental formations and the production of karma are based on our ignorance. That's an important thing to understand.

[79:50]

And again, I don't understand this well enough to be able to give you what it's like. can have enlightened and life-givingness. What can we think of in theory in that sort of way? I think that we might be getting caught in the trap of impermanence. I'm not saying we live impermanently without being impermanent. We live impermanently without being impermanent. But it's too illogical to have it in a flash. There's impermanent laws that we can use. I was kind of thinking about it earlier. You're saved from all suffering. But then, what helps me is to realize that you can be safe in certain moments, and for a second, don't drop away.

[81:08]

And then maybe the ego just drops away, and this whole issue of the cycle, the cycle drops away. But you know, after Buddha died, everybody got together and tried to discuss and consolidate what he had said and agree on the points that had been made. And one of the biggest issues was, does an arhat, can they revert back to being unenlightened? go backwards, and they regress. And that was a big doctrinal problem. A lot of people had big disagreements about that. So a lot of people thought, no, they can't. Once you're enlightened, you cannot lose that.

[82:11]

So it's not just an authoritarian thing. Of course, ultimately they decided that yes, you can. The majority was Yes, you can regress. I don't know if the Arhats had to leave the room. Right, I mean, this is the Bodhisattva. It's nine o'clock. Actually, I'm looking forward to that.

[83:06]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ