I have a few more, there's a few more things to discuss that might be good. There's that sometimes in chapter seven that I already talked about, but I just wanted to go over a little bit more tonight. And one was that in the chapter, the Bodhisattva Paramartha Samudgata asked the Buddha what he was thinking about when he said in the Prajnaparamita Sutras, he didn't say that, but we know in the Prajnaparamita Sutras he said, In various ways, all phenomena lack own being, are unproduced, unceasing, quiet, quietness from the start and naturally in a state of peace, of nirvana, freedom.

[01:19]

Things are naturally in a state beyond all sorrow. So what were you thinking of when you said that? Paramartha asks, and then Buddha says, well, I was thinking about three kinds of lack of own being. He says what they are, and then metaphors about them, and you know what they are, right? And then he says on page 103 of the Powers translation, he says, paramartha-samut-gata, thinking of those three types of lack of own being, of ni-spabhara, three kinds of lack of own being, three kinds of lack of inherent existence, three types of naturelessness, all phenomena lack own being, and so on.

[02:24]

And then he says, then he tries to go through them. He says, Parmartha Samudgata, thinking of a lack of own being in terms of character, I taught what I taught. In other words, that all phenomena lack own being. And he explained, then he goes through, reason why when he when he thinks of lack of character in terms of when he thinks of the imputational character or the lack of own being in terms of says all things lack inherent existence are unproduced and so on and then he talks about how the imputational character lacks own being okay and it lacks own being because And Neil thinks it's better to say it's not established in the manner, in the manner of its own character.

[03:32]

It's not established in the way it is. In other words, nothing is established by being, for example, an essence or being independently existing. Nothing is established that way. That is the character of this particular imputation, so it's not established in the manner of its character. Therefore, it's not established. And anything that's not established in the manner of its own character, anything that's not established in the manner of its own character, anything that's not established in the manner of its own character does not exist according to the sutra. So that's what it says. So this is a big line in the sutra where it says, paramartha-samadgata, that which does not exist by way of its own character, that which does not exist in the manner of is not produced. Does not exist. And of course, so that's the way it is. It doesn't happen.

[04:33]

This imputational character actually does not exist. And that's why, of course, since it doesn't exist, and of course, it doesn't cease. And of course, Since it's not produced and doesn't cease, it's quiescent from the start. And since it's like that, it actually is beyond all sorrow and all affliction. The imputational character is naturally... Cool, huh? The dirty old imputational character is naturally in a state beyond all sorrow. Just like I said in the Prajnaparamita, I was thinking of that type of lack of own being when I said that. So then I'm reading along. So he said, he just said, I was thinking of those three kinds of lack of own being when I taught this. So then he should go on to the next one, the middle one. But he doesn't. Okay, so then I look and I look and I flip the papers around and actually I do have the papers in the wrong order, but anyway, I found a piece of paper between the place where it should have been and where it wasn't.

[05:44]

So, So I was a big star there. And I wrote, at this point, I would have expected the Buddha saying, thinking of a lack of own being in terms of self-production, thinking of the other dependent character, I taught all phenomena, lack of own being and so on. But he didn't say that. And that's a big point. That's what I talked about before. But he goes on to talk about how the fairly established character, the ultimate lack of own being, Thinking of that, of course, he did teach that. But then when he explains why he was thinking of that, how that would lead you to say all things lack of own being are unproduced and so on. So that one also follows. How does it follow? The ultimate lack of own being does lack of own being.

[06:45]

It is the lack of own being. It is the lack of own being. However, it's not a character lack of own being because it does exist in the manner of its character. It exists as a lack of own being. So it does exist in the manner of its character. However, since it is a lack of own being, it is unproduced. and unceasing. And since it is a lack of own being, it is beyond all affliction. Because affliction leads to belief in own being. It's naturally quiescent and naturally a state of nirvana. So, thinking of that, of course, I taught all phenomena lack of own being are unproduced and so on. But again, how come you skip the middle one? But Marabato didn't say, you skipped one.

[07:47]

He didn't say that. At this point in the sutra, he didn't say that. You skipped one. How come? But I noticed it, and some other people, you might have guessed, over the centuries did notice it. So what's the reason? How come he skipped it? Huh? On page 103... At page 103, he starts off by saying, So then he goes right away. Imputational character, fine. Skips the other one. What? Did I miss something? Anyway, you're going through your trend pretty fast. Okay, I did something okay, but I got to pay attention to this. I can't worry about whether I missed something. So yeah, that makes sense. That wouldn't be lack of own being. That would make sense that you would say that thinking of that. Now that you're thinking of the ultimate, that makes sense you would say that. Mostly when people heard the Prajnaparamita, they probably thought that what the Buddha was thinking of when he taught lack of own being in terms, lack of own ultimate, all phenomena of lack of own being, probably most people were thinking, well, he was probably thinking of the thoroughly established character.

[09:05]

Well, they're right, he was. But he was also thinking of the other two. but he didn't mention the middle one at this time. And so the reasons why he didn't mention the middle one, one great Chinese commentator says the reason why he didn't mention the middle one was because he didn't mention the lack of on-being in terms of production. In other words, the other dependent character. He didn't mention it because... in order to indicate that dependently coalescent things are not non-existent. He didn't mention it because he wanted to indicate that dependently coalescent things are not non-existent. And generally speaking, I think it's a kind of an interesting statement to consider that religions are about

[10:12]

Not only how things come to be, but also religions are about how things do not not exist. They're partly about how things exist, but everybody's into that. Religions are also into how come things don't exist. So that's very much what these three characters are about, is the point of how is it... Of course, given the first teaching that things do exist, no problem, but given the second teaching that things have no inherent existence, are un- coescent from the start, how come they don't not exist then? And the reason is because dependently co-arisen things do not not exist. So that's one reason why it doesn't mention at this point that thinking of the other dependent character, you would say that.

[11:22]

Because you don't want to say, thinking of the other dependent character, I taught all things lack of being and unproduced and unceasing. If you think, people will think, oh, I guess the other dependent character doesn't exist. We don't want that to happen. That's what these three It has these three characters for it, and that's what this sutra is about, is so people won't think that. But at the same time, we already have told people another thing, and that is that everything lacks its own being and is quiescent from the start. Not taking that back, but we're not mentioning at this point what character is what he was thinking of when he said that. Another reason for another way of saying this Another way, another reason for not saying that the other dependent character is what I'm thinking about when I say all phenomena lack own being is the other dependent character does exist in a manner of its own being.

[12:26]

And it does have production and cessation. So if it does happen, you've got to be careful in saying that that's what you're thinking about when you make statements about non-production and non-cessation. And the other reason is that most other dependent characters are totally afflicted. They are afflicted. In other words, most states of consciousness are afflicted. There are some that aren't. For example, the Buddha's other dependent pattern of consciousness is not afflicted, but most are. Therefore, again, looking at the other dependent character, that it was naturally in a state beyond nirvana. Still, however, the Buddha did say that he was thinking of all three when he taught that everything is naturally in a state of nirvana.

[13:35]

And there's another way to go. So you can also see how you would be thinking of the other dependent character or the lack of production in own being, and that would uphold your speaking about all phenomena lack of own being, are unproduced, unceasing, and so on. But what I want to emphasize tonight is this point. that the reason for not mentioning it is to protect against people thinking that either that the other dependent character wasn't produced. All phenomena are not produced. That might lead you to think the other dependent character wasn't produced, but it is. So that's why he doesn't want to say anything about it at this point. Also, the other dependent character ceases. It's impermanent. Other dependent characters are... Things that are produced are impermanent.

[14:43]

But things that don't exist are not produced. And selves don't exist and are not produced. Or their selves are not produced and they don't exist. And they don't cease. Selves are not like that. Essences are not like that. Own beings are not like that. So the idea of that... doesn't, isn't produced, doesn't cease, is quiescent in the natural state of nirvana. But dependent core arisings, which are the all of the existence of the dependent core arising, they do have and most of them are afflicted. However, In fact, the Buddhists always thinking about them and their lack of own being in terms of production. Being in terms of production means their lack of self-production.

[15:44]

They have a lack of self-production, but they do not have a lack of production. They are produced. They also have a lack of self-destruction, but they don't have a lack of cessation. They are... But still, The center of gravity, a Buddhist thought about saying that all things lack own being and are unproduced, the center of gravity is thinking about dependent co-arising and its lack of self-production. That's the center. The other two are like wonderful, you know, fulfillments of that point of view. I'm choosing now to go jump the page in Powers Translation 119. And this is partly because Jamie said, you're going to talk about the depicting all of me, all of the characters, aren't you, at some point? And I said, yes. So I'm doing that. Now, where is she? Huh?

[16:47]

Well, there she is. So here we go to page 119. And again, in between those two pages, we just skipped over the part of the book where he told you about the reason for thinking of these three types of lack of own being and only mentioning two. And then he says, I don't teach these to certain people. In other words, I don't teach them to people who already understand them. I teach them to the people who don't understand them. What happens to the people who don't understand them? And then what happens to people who don't understand these three natures, these three characters, these three types of Lacombe, what happens to them is they get all kind of caught up in linguistic consciousness. And they just keep spinning around in conventional designation and never get out until they hear this teaching.

[17:51]

So then he says, so I teach him dependent court rising, and then I teach him about the invitational character, and then I teach him about the thoroughly established character. And this process of being ensnared in conventional designation starts to reverse, and they get to a place that's beyond conventional designation. And then, as I mentioned also, surprisingly, these different translations say, one say, and then, after they stop being caught by conventional... and actually, therefore, can see the absence of conventional designation and imputation in the other dependent, they see the thoroughly established character, and then they understand. When you see the thoroughly established character, then you finally understand dependent co-arising, one translation says, which I think is true. One translation says, you extinguish dependency. But the other translation says, And the other translation says they will be able to destroy the other dependent pattern that arises dependent on others.

[18:59]

They will be able to destroy the other dependent character. And the other one says they will be able to destroy dependency. And the other one says they will be able to understand dependent core arising. But then the next line, the one that says they'll be able to understand, it says, and they will be able in their future lives to continue. And the other translations, so it's really, it's saying, when you understand dependent core arising as a result of understanding emptiness as a thoroughly established character, when you understand dependent core arising because of understanding, you will be able to cut the continuum. And the other ones say, sustained by a wisdom power of this teaching, they will eventually be able to sever all causes for future rebirth. It's a teacher, but in parentheses, rebirth. It's page 111, I guess.

[20:01]

Yeah, 111. So, in other words, at this point, with this understanding, you can cut the rebirth process if you wish you can cut it. You are not reborn at this point. You are not reborn just because they have to be reborn. They're reborn because they do not snip it. They know how. Because they know about the other dependent pattern. The other dependent pattern is how you get reborn. They understand it. They can stop it. but they don't stop it until they're a Buddha. And they don't become a Buddha until they've done their job. So anyway, I'm just skipping over that part, but remember, that's in this chapter. The etiology of entrapment and the process of liberation, nicely put.

[21:03]

in this section. Now we come to the part where he talks about the different kinds of beings, okay? All these different types of beings that you read about. And I think my feeling is reading that part of the sutra, you know, it's a little bit, a little bit mean in a way that Buddha's like classing on. But if you look carefully, you see that there's hope for all of them if things go a certain way. But Buddhas love all beings, but they also know that beings have certain patterns of karmic consciousness, and they know them, and they know what those beings have to go and how they have to train, and they give them the right training for their situation, and they know the trouble that they can get into, and so on. So that's part of what that part of the sutra is about. And Grace Damon and Sala went through and sort of categorized the characters and the consequences of their style.

[22:04]

And we have a little chart for that. And I just recently looked at it, and there's a couple of mistakes, which I'll fix. And then if you want to, if you contact my assistant at Green Gulch, we'll send down a... all those different categories and you can make copies for people who want them. It's nice to have it because it's kind of a mess, right? Keeping track of them all. But if you look at it, it's really not so bad. I mean, the situation for all these kinds of people. If you look at it, actually there's a way out for all of them. But the one that I'm going to show you tonight connects to what we were just talking about and that's on page 119. Anybody have a flashlight? There's probably a flashlight here. I like to use this thing. Turn the lights off.

[23:05]

Turn the lights off. Page 7, 117, 119. Okay, whoops. Okay, so here's the part. Here's 119. Okay. They do not understand this profound explanation just as it is in accordance with my thought. Some people don't. Buddha is saying. Some people do not understand this profound teaching. They understand it according to their thought. The teachings out there, they're looking at it, they're interested in it, but they don't get it the way I'm thinking about it. And although they believe in the doctrine, they strongly adhere just to the literal meaning of the... Quotes, all phenomena just lack own being, all phenomena are just unproduced, all phenomena just unceasing, just coalescing from the start, and just naturally in a state of nirvana.

[24:12]

These people who take it literally are the ones that we're being careful about Teaching literally were the ones we're being careful about when we didn't mention the other dependent character as being part of what we're thinking about when we give this teaching. Because if they hear it at that point, then they take it literally and they say, well, the other dependent then must not be produced. But it is. It's just you can't hear it literally in that case and apply it. So, this is part of the reason for these people, this is very important for these people not to say it at that point. But now, we're going to talk about it. Okay, now here's what happens because they take that teaching literally. Based on this literal interpretation of the teaching of the Prajnaparamita, based on this, they'll adopt a view that all phenomena do not exist and that

[25:15]

establishment of an object in the manner of which it does not exist. They developed that view based on this literal taking of the Prajnaparamita. But this sutra said earlier that something that does not exist in the manner of its character is not produced. But that's the problem. the view of non-existence, which we also say is nihilism. They come to adopt the view of non-existence. In other words, they come to adopt the view that things don't exist. And I'm saying this religion is helping us understand how things don't not exist. And also helping us understand how they don't exist. They don't exist and they don't not exist. But when we teach how they don't exist, then some people take that literally and flip over to that they don't exist, actually.

[26:24]

But they don't not exist. They're not non-existent, and they're not existent. This is the middle way. It's very difficult to understand. So some people here... don't exist, I mean that they lack own being and think that means they don't exist, they develop nihilism. And then based on nihilism, in other words, based on that things don't exist, especially the other dependent, then they deprecate having adopted the view of nihilism to the view of non-existence and the view that the establishment of things in the manner of their character does not exist, they also deprecate everything through deprecating all the three of these characters. They deprecate all three characters. It's easy to deprecate the precious one of the pentacle arising, because that's the one that is produced.

[27:33]

But if you deprecate that and say the dependent core, then the imputational doesn't exist and the other dependent doesn't exist. And to be thoroughly established, you get thoroughly established, is about something that is produced, that does exist. And the imputational character is not possible without the other dependent. You deprecate all three characters, so that is the worst situation, and it tells what happened to these people, and this is really bad. Because then you destroy all virtue practice and everything. And that's enough. If you look at that part of the sutra, That's what I want to talk about. Just draw your attention to that point. And that's what the deprecating is about. That's how you destroy.

[28:37]

Yeah, you kind of destroy by saying things don't exist, by taking the view of nihilism. And you can take that view based on the Buddhist teachings, the wonderful Buddhist teachings. Got to be careful. So now I think you might want to think about this chapter, I think, to start, you know, using it and meditating on it. And Chapter 8 tells you how to start meditating, although it all requires a little assistance. You can probably make some headway of studying it and seeing how to apply these teachings. and study in Chapter 8 is about that. I had some other things to talk about, some kind of summary things. Maybe I could say, kind of simple in a way, this isn't kind of like a messy history.

[29:42]

of my study, but it's something like, first I thought that Zazen was following the breathing and being mindful of the posture. And then I thought it was meditation on dependent core rising. And then I thought it was meditation on emptiness. And then I thought it was meditation on dependent core rising. And then I thought it was meditation on emptiness. And then I thought it was meditation on rising. And I wasn't really wrong when I thought those things. When I first thought meditation was about mindfulness of breathing and posture, I didn't really think I was meditating on dependent core rising, but I was. I was meditating on dependent core risings. I just didn't hear that word really.

[30:44]

And I was also meditating on emptiness, but I didn't really understand it. And when I was meditating on pinnacle rising, I didn't understand I was meditating on emptiness. And when I was meditating on emptiness, I didn't really understand I was meditating on pinnacle rising. Then I started to understand that meditating, that Zazen was meditating on emptiness. three characters. That I was meditating on dependent core rising, but really that I was meditating on the imputational character because the imputational character is the way the way the dependent core rising appears. You're meditating on dependent core rising, but really you're meditating on your fantasies about the dependent core rising called breath. Or you're meditating on your posture, which is a dependent core rising, but really what you're looking at is how it appears, and how it appears is the imputational character. An imputational character is an existing imputational, namely the image of it, and the other sense is a non-existent imputational character, which is the essence of your breath or your posture, which you imagine, and its externality, which you imagine.

[31:54]

These two kinds of self you project onto the dear little posture and breathing and thinking. So then I thought meditation, I thought Zazen was meditation on these three characteristics and how they work together. And now I think that still. But I also think that really first, really meditation on dependent core rising. And then it's realizing that dependent co-arising is being confused with the imputational. And then it's meditating on the imputational, which is like superimposed on the dependent co-arising, which you're simultaneously looking at through the gauze of the superimposition. I don't know if I can say it again, but it's something like... Really, zazen is to meditate on dependent core arising. That's how it's first, what it first teaches.

[32:55]

Meditate on dependent core arising. So you do that, and then you meditate on that. You meditate on actual dependent core arisings, like your body and breath. Those are dependent core arisings. And you listen to the teaching about dependent core arisings as you meditate. You're mindful of the teachings of dependent core arising as you meditate on dependent core arising. It's like posture, breath, feelings, thoughts, okay? But you also recognize this teaching that really, although you're meditating on dependent core arising, how it appears to you is not dependent core arising, but a fantasy, a non-existent. Something non-existent is how it appears to you. It appears to you as a non-existent thing, as an imaginary thing. So then you study that. Be aware of the fantasy that your mind overlays on dependent core arising, which you're always looking at. You can't look at anything but a dependent core arising, but the way it appears to you while you're looking at it is that something that it isn't. So whenever you're looking at somebody, you are looking at that person, but what you're dealing with is not that person, even though the appearance is based on that person.

[34:05]

You study that. So first of all, Zazen is studying dependent core rising because you're always studying dependent core rising. Second of all is realizing that you have to deal with the fact that there's fantasy going on here, that you have fantasies about your breath and about your posture, about your life and about your friends and about your world, which you're meditating on. You're meditating on your world and your fantasies about it. So that's Zazen, too. Zazen is meditation on dependent core rising, and then it's meditation on the imputational character. And then it's meditation on emptiness. In other words, then it's meditation on how that overlay, which you're looking at, is non-existent. Then it's like not being fooled anymore. Then it's not believing or strongly adhering to that imputation. And then it's like by not adhering, not strongly adhering, adhering to this imputation which overlays everything, not strongly adhering to the... arising which you're meditating on, you get to understand and realize the thoroughly established character. And then, you understand the pentacle arising, which you've been looking at all along, but... used with the imaginations.

[35:22]

And now, it's still confused with imaginations, but you understand that so you're not confused anymore. So you understand it as it is. And if you wish, you can snip it. But you can also hang around until the dependent core arising is a thing of an unafflicted dependent core arising. Part of what you understand then, you start to understand as you're meditating on suchness, on the thoroughly established character, and you understand that what you're looking at, the dependent core arising, which is not touched by your fantasies about it, you also understand that it's afflicted, really afflicted. From eons of confusion, it's conflicted. So what you do as a bodhisattva is you don't snip it, or you could snip it, but you don't snip it. You don't snip it. You keep looking at the continuum, and the continuum evolves positively. actually becomes a strange form, an unusual form of dependent core rising, an unafflicted one.

[36:27]

In other words, a Buddha, fully realized Buddha mind. You keep doing that until that time comes, unless you have a really good excuse to drop out, which I haven't heard of any so far. Getting cold? A rare thing in this room. Want me to close the door? Want me to close this? Do you want me to close this thing here? Okay, so that's the story. And now I just want to do, you know, kind of like what is... Well, I don't know. It's not politically correct to talk about Christmas. But anyway, a happy holiday ending is... That was my messy history. You know, my messy history I just told you about. You heard it? It's actually kind of happy. So now I'm meditating on the wonderful... has in her mind when she's teaching the Prajnaparamita. I'm very happy to have studied this sutra with you, and my practice is really enjoyable to study these three characters moment by moment.

[37:33]

However, our great ancestor, Seigen Gyoshi Daisho, he had simplified his. I don't know what his, you know, what it's called. My history would make a novel, right? His history is more like just a cute little saying. When I first started practicing Zen, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers. After 30 years, mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers. Now that I've gone a little farther, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers again. That's the same story in simplified. It's the same story. Do you see how it's the same story? It's the same story. So there we see, I see in his story, this sutra. In a sense, you know, according to the literal reading of the Prajnaparamita, it would be more like,

[38:39]

When I first started practicing Zen, mountains were mountains and rivers and rivers, and after 30 years, no mountains and no rivers. That's it. A literal reading of the Prajnaparamita. But that's not the correct understanding of Prajnaparamita. The correct understanding is, then, based on that, you understand dependent core rising. And then there are mountains and rivers, but it's mountains and rivers again. After realizing... absence of the imputations that were there all along. And also... Yeah. Huh? Well, actually, what I said was what I said. It's true. But that was kind of dynamic, what I said, because you realize that the absence of the imputations there the mountains and rivers in the absence of the imputation were always there the absence of the invitation was always there and the mountains and the rivers with the imputational were always there but now you understand but then finally you saw the absence of the imputation but then you didn't see the mountains anymore weren't in then all you saw this

[40:03]

But then you went beyond that and understood dependent co-arising, so then now you understand dependent co-arising. Now you see, you understand the actual dependent co-arising mountains. And then Dogen goes on to say, you know, and these dependent co-arising mountains are trooping around. They're walking, they're talking, they're strutting their stuff. You're in the actual creative process of the Buddha's mind then, but still just mountains are mountains, as it always has been. And then one more thing I want to say was his poem, which I just read the poem before, but I hadn't thought of it so, how close it is to the sutra. My leaky, tumble-down grass hut, my leaky, tumble-down grass hut for the moon. Now I gaze at it,

[41:06]

Now I see the moment through my leaky, tumble-down grass hut. All the while, it was reflected in the teardrop on my sleeve. I think that's another nice encapsulation of the whole process the sutra's talking about. All the three characters are right there. You can look at that poem. So anyway, that's my holiday greeting. Saigyo Saigyo Okay See that make sense all that Yeah, so you you were tired so I can talk like this to you tonight. You kind of know what I'm talking about. Can you imagine? Three months ago you wouldn't have been able to follow it's so simple, but it takes some study to like have this simple thing be so simple and Yeah, you know, first mountains are mountains, and then they're not anymore, and then they are again, and now you understand.

[42:18]

Where does it go? First there was a mountain, then there was no mountains, then there is. First there is. I knew there was a song. That's great, yes. It's been going through my head since the beginning. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. Am I actually? The other ones are non-existent? What other ones are non-existent? The imputational, the imputational, the imputational is one of those things that doesn't exist at all.

[43:24]

Okay? But the thoroughly established does exist. How does it exist? Huh? Yeah. It exists in a manner of lacking inherent existence, and exists conventionally. Just like the other dependent character exists conventionally. It doesn't ultimately exist. So the thoroughly established character doesn't ultimately exist, and the other dependent doesn't ultimately exist, but they both exist conventionally. However, the other character doesn't exist conventionally. Yeah. Yeah. And also you can say, as this sutra says, in the manner of its own character. In the way it is, it doesn't exist. That's right. That's right. But the phenomenon, a part of my...

[44:27]

My experience and my inflection, the other dependent on that seems pure. I don't understand how it... You just made a self... You just said it again. You just said something out there as though there's something out there independent of you. Yes, and yet... What? No, just do it again. You keep projecting something outside the consciousness. You keep imagining something that doesn't exist, in other words, and then you think, and that thing which doesn't exist, then wouldn't that be different? Well, yes, it might be, but you're imagining something that doesn't exist, namely something out there independent of your afflicted consciousness. So if you have an afflicted consciousness... which is afflicted because you're imagining a self called externality, then you think those external things, you say, well, maybe they're not afflicted.

[45:30]

But you're positive something that doesn't exist. In that thing that doesn't exist, you can say that thing is totally happy. And in fact, you're right. That's what it says here. So those things that don't exist, these selves, they are actually totally beyond affliction. They're not afflicted. So you're right. That's what it says in the Sutra. When we think of these non-existent selves, they aren't afflicted, they aren't produced, they don't cease, they're coalescing from the start, and they'll be in a state of nirvana. But remember, they don't exist at all. But each thing that you're identifying is my imputation, my imputation of the other dependent, my imputation of self. Well, there's imputation of other dependents, but there's also imputation externally of another dependent. So you talked about these other... as though they were external to the person who's aware of them. They're not. The idea that they're out there separate from them, that's the imputational character.

[46:33]

That idea of their externality, that's beyond affliction. But the thing itself, the other... not external and not beyond affliction. It's totally interdependent with the afflicted mind. It's the same thing. It's the object of an afflicted mind. So it's afflicted too, because it's not separate from the mind. But the idea of its externality is existent, and that's not afflicted. So all these little things you're looking at out there, they're all implicated in the affliction of your consciousness, which is imagining that they're external, but their externality is non-existent, and their externality is like totally unafflicted. Cool, huh? Existent things are like unafflicted. How did they get that good deal? So really, those Buddhas got their own dependent co-arisings, and they're unafflicted, and then there's the rest of us who are dependent co-arising or are afflicted.

[47:36]

So aside from Buddhas, the only things are things that don't exist. All those who do exist are afflicted. However, this meditation process is a way to become unafflicted without becoming purely imaginary. And matter of fact, to become unafflicted is to be an expert on what is imaginary and not believing it's imaginary. So when you say it's rare for there to be an unacquainted other dependent or dependent arising, do you mean that for something to arise in general or in turn? For something to arise without believing in extremity is rare. And you and I have a chance in this lifetime to be arising that doesn't believe in externality.

[48:39]

We are all the time what? Arising without externality. We are all the time arising without externality with a belief in externality. That's the usual situation. We're arising without it while believing that we're with it. and because we believe we're worth it, we got a little bit of a problem or a lot of a problem. But we have the potential to arise as a being who doesn't believe in externality, who doesn't believe in the self. And then we can evolve into an unafflicted being. And then we can evolve to help other beings who still believe and or who don't believe but haven't yet completed their course of affliction, reversal. I'm just interested that this page deprecating the imputational character leads to deprecating the other two characters and they're completely basically falling apart.

[49:53]

And yet the imputational character is usually presented like we're told that it's a fabrication. cataracts right right um does it and you know we're told to loosen all right so right yeah so it sounds it's just kind of a kind of a denigrating implication there right that you're saying right yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah so anyway you can i think be kind of nasty kind of be nasty about the invitational character you know i'm not gonna believe you In other words, you're kind of a demon. You kind of entice me into believing I'm not going to do that with it. But you're not supposed to say that it's not there at all. The imputation itself is not there, but you shouldn't denigrate it to say that it doesn't function in the process of confusion.

[50:55]

And So denigrate means like, you know, that it's not possible to function. That's the problem. Because then the other two will collapse. Then the other dependent will collapse. So you don't want to denigrate in that way. Because then you'll denigrate everything. A little nasty about it, I suppose. But really, you don't want to be too nasty because you have to study this It's an incutational character with your whole heart. So you have to study it and become intimate with it so you won't believe it as really applicable to dependent core risings. So you don't want to... much. But I think you can spot it as something that you do want to learn how not to believe in. You want to learn how to not believe it. Yes. But don't throw it in the trash heap because you have to study it because if you throw it in the trash heap then it's just you're unconsciously looking at it. Yeah.

[52:03]

No, usually we see it, but we see it as what the thing is rather than in a fantasy. When we look at an imaginary image, we look at something that's... We look at our imagination and think it's not our imagination. We're always looking at our imagination, except when we're looking at the absence of our imagination, when we're looking at suchness. We're seeing the absence of the imagination, but usually when we're looking at the pinnacle risings, we're seeing our imagination of them, but not thinking it's our imagination, we think it's them. For example, right now, I'm looking at you, the tendency is to look at my imagination of you and think that that's you. Right? That's our usual way. I have to learn to remember and be mindful that I'm looking at my imagination of you, and that you are the basis, you are the basis of my imagination. How you're appearing to me is my imagination, and my experience of you is based on you. Yes, what's going on?

[53:07]

Yes. Yes. Yes. In a case like that, how would you do it? Well, first we teach you dependent core arising. Of course we teach you that, okay? And that would tell you that Razi, you know, the power of things other than herself, therefore she is unstable, impermanent, not worthy of competence. Now, Diana, she doesn't like Diana and David right now, okay? So they're tempted to think that she is worthy of competence. Except for the teaching that would help you with this monster. So you have to, that teaching will have to remember that, that she's not worthy of competence.

[54:28]

Unstable. You can't even be sure that she's not going to bite you. You know, like, if you say, okay, I bet you she'll, you say, I bet she'll bite me, and then she doesn't. So anyway, you do that meditation first. Then you start becoming more skillful. She may keep rallying at you or not, but you'll keep responding more and more skillfully as you do that meditation. Pardon? It isn't so much that you meditate on her as if she were unstable and impermanent and unworthy of... It isn't... I wouldn't suggest to do it that way. Although some people do approach meditation that way. They say things are impermanent. Things are impermanent. Things are unstable. They think of that. This is the first thing that people think of, that things are other-dependent and that they do not produce themselves. And that be a focus, and when you realize, rather than being told and then remembering that, you realize that because they're that way, they're naturally unpredictable.

[55:32]

Unpredictable, unreliable, unstable, and so on. So then you start reloading them more appropriately. Example of skillfully? Well, like... Like, you won't be so worried about whether they should bite you or not, for example. You won't be overly concerned whether they should bite you or not. Because she just won't, what do you call it, as you approach things, you just won't have the expectation that they're not going to break on you or fall on you or kick you. You just won't expect so much of things. sets you up. Then you enchant yourself about things.

[56:32]

You come into the lull of words. Your conventional designations of things have a bigger kind of sleep. This teaching starts to wake you up to that things are really unstable. Every step you take, you could fall through the earth. Stores cannot hold you. Chairs might not hold you. Doors may not open or they may fall on you. People may bite you. All this stuff may happen. You're not enchanted by your view of things so much. So you start reacting more appropriately, more skillfully, more like a martial artist, but not stressed because you're sort of constantly that way with things. So you don't go to sleep with these people and get over anxious with these people. You're basically throwing your way through a changeable world all the time. So you're more skillful.

[57:33]

And based on that, then you move on to the next teaching, which helps you start to encounter. sense that you project externality on things, like Warazi and so on, and how that sets up... And then in the conventional designations that come with that projection of externality, they really are what catch you. And then you start to see that... Huh? You start to see how the projection of the self on things gets associated with conventional designations, and then how your mind becomes infused with conventional designations. And how that really is where your suffering comes from. So then you start to see the source of the suffering and you see where you believe. And then you have a chance to move on to the next meditation. But based on meditation on dependent core rising, whereupon you become much more skillful with things and less reactive, less enchanted, less asleep with the belief of permanence and so on that we project on things.

[58:36]

Yes. I sort of keep coming to a spot in this teaching, and I guess in almost any teaching I've heard, where it really feels like I have to let go of whether I care or not about it. particularly dependent origination called being, or dying. And I don't know what to do with that. Well, it may be that you have to let go some about the caring about living and dying. And you may even have to let go of some but you're concerned for the welfare of this crew while he's living and dying and being born.

[59:43]

You may have to let go of some of your care. Or you can even say you have to let go of all of your care, but that doesn't mean that you have to not care. Huh? It doesn't mean we have to live. It doesn't mean we have to be born. We have to do that stuff. But if you are doing that stuff... then we do sometimes have to let go of caring about the process. But that doesn't mean we don't care about the being. It means we let go of caring about the being, and letting go of caring about the being, we come to care about the being. The thing is to care about the being the right amount, and if we hold to caring about things, we don't care the right amount. We get caught by, being caught makes us care too much or too little. So we can't care the right amount because we're caring, we turn, we dial ourselves into this much care and we're stuck on that point, which is only appropriate maybe once in an eon is that particular setting appropriate.

[60:51]

But if you let go of caring, we naturally care because you are dependent core arising. And we arise naturally with care. Remember that the teaching that impermanent things are impermanent, the better we're able to relate to impermanent things. Otherwise, we naturally project permanence onto things and independence on things and externality on things, and then we get locked into caring too much or too little about things. So we do sort of have to let go of caring. And then through what kind of caring arises, because caring will arise. And if caring doesn't arise, we gotta accept that. Like, I don't care about anything right now. Now I care. Like that Humphrey Bogart movie, you know? Where this guy, you know, And he just squalls on or testifies against him untruthfully, and he gets sent to San Quentin.

[62:03]

San Quentin. So he lives in San Quentin, and he gets out of San Quentin, and he drives in a laundry truck, right? Out the gate, right by, you know. What is it called? What is it called? clean, well-laden place of books. Starbucks. No, there's no Starbucks. So he goes over the Golden Gate Bridge, and there's no cars on it. There's one car, two cars, and there's no toll gate. He goes back to San Francisco, and he's going to get this guy. So he has a first... He has a total remake of his face, and he goes and finds this guy to kill him. I think they've got the same bright story, don't they? And he goes to kill the guy and finds the guy. And the guy, like, totally doesn't care. You know? Doesn't care. He's come up and doesn't care. Says, no shit. Guy's totally depressed.

[63:03]

You know? He doesn't know shit. The guy was totally depressed. Like, well, go ahead and shoot me. Like, thanks. He doesn't care. Here I come. Thank you. I don't even go up the bridge. So he just can't. So what he does is he's like, he like makes this guy rich and gives him a beautiful girlfriend and, you know, he works his whole life so he starts to care again. You know, his film comes up, he starts to care too much. You're not following this, Danny? Now, isn't it curious? I mean, everybody in this room saw the Happy Bird guy movie. What? Dark Passage. Well, what's the story so far, Dan? In Black to Heaven, what's the story, right? Yeah. And I think that the guy, I think that the guy, a little bit's happy, made him go back, does he go back and kill him? Yeah. But anyway, he wants to do it to the point where he loves his wife and then he says, okay, now, now that you care too much, now you're going to know it was love.

[64:11]

So anyway, sometimes we care too much, sometimes we care too little, sometimes we don't seem We're not in control of whether we're a care bearer or not. But we do have the ability... Pardon? It's to let go of the idea that I don't care if I'm living or dying, and let go of the idea that I do care if I'm living or dying. Let go of whatever it is. Yes. Yes. Without getting into nihilism. And if you don't get into nihilism, you naturally care. You're like, Mr. I'm on Penicola Rising, so that I'll be, I want to be virtuous, but I realize that if I care too much about being virtuous, I'm going to be non-virtuous. If I make virtue into something, you know, that's out there, that's permanent, reliable, blah, blah, blah, then I'm not going to be virtuous.

[65:17]

I'm going to be too hysterical about it. I'm going to be to entranced by the possibility, I'm going to put myself to sleep by the conventional designation virtue. So this practice starts by disenchanting yourself about everything, all compounded phenomena, disenchant yourself, and then you start relating more skillfully, and that's going to make you want to keep disenchantment. You're going to be happy practicing skill without making that into a permanent thing. So we should. This should help us let go of compounder phenomena. And in letting go, we will be more skillful. And then we'll have all those good things will happen, like it says in the series. But they're not completely liberated. So then I teach them about the other two characters. And when they hear those teachings, then the process becomes totally turned around and you get to the place where you become, you develop a mind which is not bound by conventional designation. And then whether somebody's biting you or not, you're meditating on a certain bit, or you're getting kissed, or you're getting licked, or you're getting rosed or lowered.

[66:25]

No matter what's happening, you're meditating on suchness and you are evolving spiritually towards being a Buddha. So you're basically happy even though you are getting nipped in various ways. Because you're evolving, you're infusing with conventional designations. You're moving towards the plus which is beyond. linguistic approach. You're reaching the place of the ancestors. You're reaching the place of the self-fulfilling samadhi. And as you approach that place, when teachers hit you and husbands leave you and wives leave you and babies are born and die, all this stuff happens and it hurts and so on, more or less as you approach this place. And when you get to this place, you become released from all affliction and you also become released from all obstruction to benefit people. So, I kind of want to let you go to bed early.

[67:25]

I see Tova's hands. That sometimes means time check. Does it mean time check? Yeah. So, anyway, thank you. I feel myself that I... I'd like to clarify something that I wanted to clarify and it looks like it helped somewhat. And this might be the last class. I wanted to do one more thing now. I won't take too long. I wrote a letter today, which I thought was really a good letter, although I was kind of being funny, but... But I was also really not being so funny.

[68:28]

So this person wrote to me. And this person was saying that she kind of doesn't like being afraid of making mistakes. And she doesn't like to try to be a good girl, that kind of stuff. And she's trying to help. And I said, please forgive me in advance. They are rough. I think they come from a feeling that you are dear. And I said, I don't think you need to be concerned with being a good girl. Because you're already a very good girl. I don't need you to worry or be afraid of making mistakes. I say, good girls make mistakes.

[69:32]

And bad girls don't notice they make mistakes. We don't have any girls like that here, do we? Sometimes the reason those bad girls don't notice they make mistakes is because they're afraid to notice that they're making mistakes. So please learn not to be afraid to make mistakes, and then you will be able to learn from them. Please remember the kind words of this old man of the way, young lady. Buddhas are those who awaken and learn in the midst of making mistakes. Buddhas are not those who are so deluded as to think that they do not make mistakes.

[70:37]

Therefore, give up fear of making mistakes and learn more and more from them. You will not only continue to be a good girl, which you already are, But you will also become a Buddha. Was that too... Was that too... Was it okay? I thought it was really a good letter, but it was kind of also being all funny. But I also thought, I can actually say now, this old man. And I can talk to these... You can't take that away from me. You can't take that away from me.

[71:30]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_83.23