It releases me from the stories that they're committed to, which gives them tremendous energy and possibility, but at that point they might lose input too. But then it releases them from that so they can get back interested in helping people that don't exist. Because the story that creates them was empty. Well, and not, first of all, not the story they're creating is empty, but they're created by a story, and they're nothing but the story. Therefore, they're empty. There are not really any people there. They're just the results. They're non-existing things that are caused by non-existing things. Non-incarently existing things caused by non-existent causes. They're called conditions. How could you help people? You can help them because you've helped always also people. And you can embrace them. But now, you can embrace them without believing that what you're embracing is real.

[01:02]

So with that, let's look back on that. I think it's not so much that the awakening, in some sense, that one is the release, and the other can be back. and converting beings. So that whole process of realizing the emptiness of a thing and then realizing the emptiness of the emptiness, those two together are kind of a description of the process of enlightenment. So what's your enlightenment? Exactly. Except stay enlightened. That's a big question at the moment. What's your enlightenment? I'm going to play it for you. Enlightenment, what it does is, once it's attained, it's not hell, and it's gone beyond. The nature of enlightenment is that it isn't hell. It's empty also.

[02:02]

And because it's empty, it doesn't have to stay being the way it manifested in a given moment. And particularly, once a person, once a being who was in darkened or in delusions, Once they have what we call the Samantabhadrayaya, or the cause of enlightenment, is that the delusion is seen through. But then the person gains awakening by understanding emptiness of the delusion. But the nature of that process is, especially for a Buddha, which is the Bodhisattva, is that we go beyond that, too. And that going beyond that means that what happened to other beings are transformed. So you come back into the darkness and transform the darkness. The darkness put back up into relief. And the release transcends itself into the back of the darkness. So that cycle happens. They seem to be stated, but also they're simultaneous, because you can't have enlightenment at a different stage. That's what's called the of enlightenment, is that enlightenment coexists with delusion.

[03:08]

You say, before the donkey leaves, the horse arrives. That enlightenment doesn't wait for delusion to go away. It would happen. It happens right in the middle of the delusion. That? That? But, you know, you people and I could spend the whole time on this, and then we'd never learn the rest of the chapters. So let me go forward and ask questions before, you know, just rather than questions endlessly on where the place we are right now. So there'll seem to be some understanding of Karaka 4, Karaka 5. Only as entities are uniquely related and originate can they be described in terms of relational conditions.

[04:09]

Four, how can a non-relational condition, how can non-relational conditions be asserted for entities which have not come into being? OK. You have to say, for example, you have to say that you got these. You have to say these. Or those. You have to specify something. You have to uniquely specify some entities. And then you have to say that these that these give rise to those, or given these, you have those. You have to get . And in fact, if these give rise to those, or if when you have these, you have those, or given these, you have those, or whatever one you want to say, then these are conditioned.

[05:19]

And as long as those do not come from these, we can call them nonconditional. But as long as when you don't tell the story that this comes from that, then that's called nonconditional. But if you say this comes from that, or when this arrives or that arrives, even when that arrives or you arrive, then that's a condition. That's all the more there is for it. Again, saying that the conditions are infinite. So, you know, what is it, you know, again, people say, well, what is it about the some causes, what is it about that some causes give rise to the thing and other ones don't? It's just the fact that that's the way you see it.

[06:28]

And that's the story you tell. And that regularity, that's all there is to it. If the regularity changes, it isn't that somehow somebody goes over and sucks the, calls the power out of the thing. It's just that that story has changed. That's all there is to it. A non-relational condition means a non-condition. Yeah, something that's not in the story. A condition, it's not even a condition, so it's called a non-condition. Anyway, it's not in the story. That's all. Yes? Are they?

[07:41]

No. I mean, well, I wouldn't say that it's not random. I would just say that when you tell a story, stories are not random. It's not much of a story if it's random. So dependent co-arising is a description of a non-random version of what's going on. But I'm not saying that things aren't happening. I'm not saying that things are not happening randomly. I don't say that. I just say that when you tell a story that's not random, and you don't get essence to the story, then you have just told the story of the pentacle arising. So if you write a story, you have to write a fictional story. And then if you would actually have that same attitude about describing your life, then that would be the pentacle arising.

[08:53]

But you would know. when you did that, that it was empty, that you made it up. But not just made it up to be mean, you made it up because you thought it was a good story. You thought it would work, or you had to get through the day, and you thought other people would probably understand maybe, or some would, and understand in the sense that they wouldn't hurt you for telling that story. I think it's a reasonably good story to tell for the day. Now some people, of course, tell stories and they do get hurt for them, right? And then they keep telling stories and they keep getting hurt and finally they get locked up for it. It's a terrible situation when you tell a story, you know, that people really get upset with. It's very sad. But in some ways, you know, these people are better off. than people who tell stories and get by with it and think that the stories are true. Because the people who tell stories and get beat up for it, it isn't that they think, oh, my story's not true, but they consider the possibility.

[10:01]

How come they're beating me up if my story's so true? Well, maybe I'm a messiah. So then they start thinking that. Maybe that's it. Maybe I'm unfolding the next leaf of evolution and they don't understand it yet. That's another possibility. But they also consider, well, maybe I'm wrong. The other people who aren't being tortured that way, they go around thinking that they're right. So the people who are getting in trouble for the story they're telling, some way they're luckier. There's a possibility that there's some school that you can go to. Awesome. And also to say that there is randomness in the universe is another story. To say that there is randomness, that's another story. It's a very short story, the way I just told it, but it can be told in a longer and more interesting way. That's another story. It's a story, basically.

[11:10]

And not everything we have is a story, because some descriptions are so short that people just say, that doesn't qualify as a story. like glasses. It's not exactly a theory. But if you think about it, you can kind of say, well, yeah, I can think of a theory. But it's not a good one. It's not going to just say glasses. It's not going to get you to the day . So then we're starting to elaborate the story. Now it's getting a little bit more useful. I'd say a little bit more to get through the day. You know, we're both on the same planet. There's another story. Planet, both of us, same, you know, English, you know, England, you know, Shakespeare. Anyway, all that stuff started coming into play, and we think, now this, you know, now we're getting the causation for it all. Is that random that that happens that way? It may be, but how I come to tell the story might be random.

[12:17]

Who knows? But the story I'm telling doesn't seem to be random. It seems to be useful. And it's speaking to, it's definitely describing not necessarily the universe, but a universe has some order with describing that universe. Or describing such a universe, which may not exist, But the story itself definitely doesn't exist inherently. It's just proposing conditions. So that's why, in some way, it's nice to be a novelist, because you can say a certain thing, and people say, what? It's a novel, but they've already said that. If you think, this is just a fictional story, then you can tell people, and they don't get offended. People don't be angry about it. No, they do. But sometimes it gives you a little bit more space to give people a little lecture when you're putting it in the mouth of a lunatic. In terms of mouth? Mouth over ear.

[13:17]

So we have this. Yeah, well, this is to tell you about how the fact that you are constantly writing a novel, but when you realize that, then you're not distracted. You're facing the novel that you're writing and watching how that feels to write that novel and to watch how when you know it's a novel, you feel much different than when you think it's real. But there is a tendency. Let me do number six. Relational condition does not validly belong to either being or non-being?

[14:22]

If it belongs to being, of what use is it? And if to non-being, for whose use? If it belongs to being, for what use? And if it belongs to non-being, for whose use? Okay, so, an existent thing. Okay, when they say existent thing, they mean, he means, you know, a being. A being, something that actually exists. All right? Something that actually exists, not something that exists dependently. Because if it exists dependently, it doesn't exist by itself. Something that exists inherently, what use does it have for a condition? Things that exist don't have conditions.

[15:26]

Now, things that exist inherently don't have conditions. Things that don't exist don't have conditions either. Wait, I thought the second point of five was how can non-relational conditions be asserted as not to be seen? That sounds an awful lot like things that don't exist don't have conditions. It sounds like you were asserting that... No, no. It's saying that the things that don't relate to an existence, they're non-conditional. It didn't say that things that don't exist don't have conditions. Things that don't exist, what conditions could they have? Do you have any conditions for things that don't exist? And things that do exist can't have conditions. Because if they have a condition, they're dependently co-arised, so they don't exist. They're dependently co-arisen. They don't have independent existence. They don't have being.

[16:33]

They just have dependent being. They just have a story. They have no additional existence other than their story. If they don't have a story, what story could they have? If they don't have an existence, what conditions could they have? If something already exists, what good could a condition do? If it doesn't exist, what good could a condition do? If it doesn't exist, you can't help it. Nothing can do for it. You know what I mean? But if it does, it doesn't need any help. But does it exist? No. Well, then conditions don't apply. If it does exist, conditions don't apply. So for existing and non-existing, conditions don't apply. What do conditions apply for? In what case do conditions apply? Hmm? They apply to dependently co-arisen things.

[17:39]

Dependently co-arisen things aren't inherently existing things. They're dependently co-arisen things. So conditions apply to things that dependently co-arise. Conditions apply to fiction. Conditions apply to what we tell stories about. But those things are not existent. Because you wouldn't have to tell a story about something existing because no story applies. It doesn't make any sense to tell a story about something that exists. And also, you can't tell a story about what doesn't exist. That's number six. So this is also, again, number six, rejects salvation. Because if you don't have something that doesn't exist, then there's nothing to talk about. If it does exist, then there's nothing to talk about. But there is something to talk about if things depend and co-arise. And what you have to talk about is the pentacle arising. So you tell the pentacle arising, and then you get the thing.

[18:39]

But before you tell the story, you don't have the thing. And if you can join in that process, this is the bit of the game. And then, if you join in the process, and see how, by telling the story, you get the things, then you also see how the storytelling is empty. And then you see that the emptiness of the thing is also empty. You have to empty the emptiness. And that's what this school is particularly venerating with, that it not only showed that things are insubstantial, that the insubstantiality is insubstantial, She said there are things that are existent and things that are dependent on co-origin. If there's things that are existent, OK, you've got an existent thing, show me an existent thing. If you show me an existent thing, you're going to have trouble showing it to me because an existent thing doesn't have any conditions.

[19:53]

How are you going to show it to me? Um, how would I know if it's not an existing thing? Because if they're not, they have no conditions, so what can I say? Yeah, because people think they're an existing thing. Don't they? That's right. Yeah. But see, her question was interesting because she said, well, then there's a dependently coalescent thing and an existing thing. No. They're only dependent on co-existent things. That's all . What kind of things are dependent on co-existent things? Otherwise, it's delusion, for example. I've got an existent thing, OK? Got an existent thing? Well, tell me about it. Tell me the story. But you can't tell me the story, because if you tell me the story, it's not an existent thing. An existent thing, something that's already happening doesn't need some conditions to happen. Something that is doesn't need anything.

[20:55]

So what are you telling me the story for? But you can't show me an existent thing. Or then, are they co-existent or non-existent things? We can't talk about them either because they have no condition. There's no way to describe existing or non-existent things. In fact, our life, for all practical purposes, is not in the realm of existence and non-existence. Our life, as we feel it, as it seems to happen, the way we see it in any way at all, is a story. The actuality is just, you know, robbery is not just whatever. You know? Bob is not just whatever. There's a difference between robbery and robbery. There's an orderly kind of thing about what you tell one from the other. That's our life, you know? It's not a big deal. What is it you're throwing at us? Who said you don't have to pray to us? We have a companion called the storyteller, too.

[21:58]

Pardon? The storyteller is part of the story. The storyteller is part of the story, yeah. That's called, you know, that I have, let me call it, it's part of the poppy, poppy stuff, right? The storyteller. [...] Number seven. When a factor of existence does not evolve from being, non-being, nor from both being and non-being, how can there be an effectuating cause? Thus, such a cause is not permissible. Now, so if neither existent nor nonexistent nor both are produced, in this case, how would there be a productive cause?

[23:19]

If it exists, how would it be appropriate? What is the factor of existence? What is the factor of existence? Something that, what do you call it, something that exists. The factor of existence is something, an existing thing, a being. An existing phenomenon. An existing phenomenon or a non-existing phenomenon or an existent non-existent. which is the same as both existing and non-existent. An existent, non-existent, or a non-existent and existent. If none of that is produced, suppose that. So this is basically saying, if you say, if you eliminate all these possibilities, like you say, they're not an existent thing, and neither is there existent, then this first condition doesn't make any sense.

[24:41]

Now he's going back and talking about these conditions, these four kinds of conditions. Let me do them all and then you can see what he's doing. The next is, number eight is, it is said that a truth factor of experience does not have an appropriating... or objectively extending relational condition. So if something exists, it doesn't have an object that it appropriates. It doesn't need it. It doesn't need that condition. And if it doesn't exist, then what sense would something that doesn't exist need an object for it to exist? Because it doesn't. Existing things don't need objects. They don't need the object condition. Non-existing rainbows don't need it.

[25:51]

And existing rainbows don't need it. What's an existing rainbow? Yeah. How can you have an existing rainbow, you see? Because if you had an existing rainbow, it wouldn't need you to know about it. It would just be an existing rainbow. An existing rainbow wouldn't need you to see it. This is a wonderful example. Look at that one. Take an existing rainbow. If it is a rainbow, it doesn't need you to see it. Is it such a rainbow? No. Right? There's no rainbow that's existing someplace in the universe that doesn't need anybody to see it. There's no such thing, right? You got it? Except for that special one they're building in Hungary, right? Now, how about a non-existing rainbow? Does that need anybody to see it? Well, even if it needs somebody, nobody can see a non-existing rainbow.

[26:54]

So for existing rainbows, the condition doesn't hold. the condition of being an object of awareness. That doesn't hold. And for non-existent one, it doesn't hold either. So again, if things exist or don't exist, then this condition doesn't hold. What does it hold for? It holds for things that depend on the color of the light. Since the rainbow depends on the color of the light, in other words, you've got to have certain colors and water and light. And then you've got to have an observer. Thus, that rainbow dependently co-arises. There's a dependently co-arisen rainbow, and that needs condition. But real rainbows don't need, don't have any condition. And they don't need, and they don't, first of all, I said they don't have any, right? Now I'm telling you specifically how they don't need them. And then, then the next one, number eight.

[28:00]

Number nine. It is not possible to have an extinction where factors of experience have not yet arisen. In the extinguished state, for what use is the relational condition? Thus, the sequential or contiguous relational condition is not applicable. Since things are not arisen, it is not acceptable that they cease. An existent thing doesn't arrive. Therefore it can't cease. Therefore an immediate condition is not reasonable. If something has ceased, how could it have a condition? So that one also doesn't hold. Okay, now here's a big one.

[29:07]

Number 10. An entity without self-nature have no real status of existence to statement from the existence of that it become if not possible. If things did not exist, without essence, the phrase, when this exists, so this will be, would not be applicable, would not be possible. The phrase, when this exists, then this will be, or from existence of that, this becomes, that's a definition of a condition, and that's a definition of dependent co-arising. It's the basic phrase. From the existence of that, this becomes.

[30:09]

Or depending on that, this. That's the basic, that's the great basic of reading. In other words, depending on this, you have that. Or depending on that, you have this. This depends on that. It does not depend on this. It does not depend on this. It does not exist at all. It is dependently hundred of things that they did. That's . Now, if things did not exist without essence, then why? If things couldn't make this without essence, then it wouldn't apply at this and then that. If they had to have ethy, then it wouldn't apply that with this and that. And the basic ingredient of the pinnacle of rising wouldn't apply if they couldn't exist without ethy. So there it is, that big, big, big one.

[31:21]

is all now that you're talking, OK, so far. He's just talking straight. And then after this now, we've made all these points a new final point, which is the main one. Now he can imagine traits with that position. So again, if things can't exist without essence, then dependent polarizing wouldn't work. If things can't appear without essence, then dependent polarizing is pretty poor. Let's put it the other way. If things have essence, then dependent polarizing is pretty poor. couldn't exist without it, it could have. Well, I wouldn't say it's not true. I'm just saying, I'm not as you're saying, that Buddha's teaching of dependent core rising wouldn't hold if things had asked. No, it said if things could not exist without asking. What? Everything.

[32:21]

This translation looks like what? As entities without essence have no real status. No real status means do not exist. As things without self-nature, without essence, have no, do not exist. OK? Now, this says that entities without self-nature have no real status means that entities without self-nature do not exist. There are no entities. existing that don't have self-nature. All the things that exist have self-nature. It's the same as saying that entities without self-nature have no real status of existence. That's right. So this statement is saying if you don't have self-existence, If you don't have self-existence, if you don't have essence, then you have no status of existence.

[33:34]

If you don't exist, you don't have essence. If you don't have essence, you don't exist, okay? If that's true, then the teaching from this warrior, from the existence of that, has become, that would imply, right? In other words, if it's the case that only beings that have essence exist, then Buddha's teaching of dependent colorizing would imply. If it's the case that only beings that have essence really exist, if all the things that really are there have essence, if that's the case, then Buddha's teaching of dependent co-writing doesn't apply. As things with essence, as things that don't have essence have no real status of existence, the statement, now this doesn't look to me like the clinical writing, this looks to me like an indication of probable power, but even this piece of that has become awful. It sounds to me like what you're saying is that as things without essence don't have any real status of existence, you can't say that they either remain out of other things.

[34:42]

It's sort of a denial of causation, not a denial of the pinnacle, right? Well, that's what I'm telling you. That's why I say quote, okay? Because that quote, Nagarjuna quoting Buddha, okay? I see, okay. Buddha, that's because he had this key kind of like module turn in the pinnacle, right? I get it. I'm not saying that, but you can flip this over and make it into the new position. if you want to. This is not saying in the other position, but it's taking the other extreme. It's saying, actually, this is in the other position. You're saying that if things don't have essence, they have no real status. So if you say that one interpretation would be things don't have athletes, therefore, nothing has real status.

[35:54]

There's nothing that has real status. You know, it's not saying that one. It's not saying this is real at all. This is... No, it's not saying that. It doesn't mean the word real. It's just that this is what's happening, and that's it. I think it's apparently quite right. All it says is, when you got this, you got this. It doesn't say this has the power to cause that. It doesn't say that. It says, at my end... Because if you say this has the power to cause that, then this has some kind of essence. Okay? And then if this has essence, then maybe this has essence. Okay? And then you've got the essence thing. And if they've got essence, then they don't need, then this wouldn't need to cause it. And if it had essence, it wouldn't be going around causing things. Because it wouldn't need to. THINGS THAT EXIST DON'T LIKE TO DO STUFF.

[36:57]

THEY JUST EXIST. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY JOB. AND THEY DON'T REQUIRE ANY SUPPORT. EXISTING THINGS DON'T GO AROUND CAUSING STUFF. AND EXISTING THINGS AREN'T CAUSED. IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY AREN'T CAUSED, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD HAVE HURT THEM AND THEY DIDN'T NEED IT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF THEY DID NEED IT, THEY WOULDN'T BE EXISTING THINGS. SO IF THEY DON'T NEED IT, Why would that happen? Well, they don't. So then we don't, if that's the case, if they have existed, we don't need dependent colorizing. So dependent colorizing doesn't get necessary and doesn't apply. It's inapplicable and not appropriate. That's the big character here. And now I get the tactic. But in the attack, it gets clearer. We're going over here. What time is it? 10, 10, 10 o'clock, 10, 20, almost. OK.

[37:58]

So I think we have a chance, maybe tomorrow night, we can sort of cover the chapter. And then once we cover it, then you can ask. I'd like to get through it, but you've got a little bit on all of them, so you understand a little bit of all of them, and you can ask questions. But I think we have three characters of what is objectively brave. And then he calls it the kirti. And then with this chapter, under your belt, then you have, I think, you go on to 24, with the revised understanding of the universe.

[38:37]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_77.32