You may have heard about the three characteristics of all phenomena. The other dependent character, the imputational character, and the fairly established character. The imputational character, what's that? Our fantasies, any particular type of fantasy. It's the fantasies we impose on the other dependent. It's not just like thinking of going to Disneyland. Well, it's not just like having an idea of going to Disneyland. It's, for example, thinking that when you get to Disneyland, thinking that Disneyland is your idea of Disneyland.

[01:06]

It's that kind of fantasy. It's not just a belief, it's the belief that — not the belief, it's not a belief, actually. It's not a belief. The imputation is not a belief. It's an image or an idea that you impose on things, and then you can believe that that actually applies to them. But that imputational self isn't a belief. However, when it's imposed upon things, it looks like that's the way they are. I often like the example of if you look at how, particularly if you don't have, if you're kind of nearsighted and you look out at the landscape and you can't see whether it's trees or shrubs or what, and you put glasses on and so it seems to be trees. But once you have the trees on, you think, once you have the glasses on, you think that actually it really is more true that it's trees out there rather than a vague picture.

[02:11]

And also you can't see what it looks like with the glasses off when you have the glasses on. Do you understand what I mean? If you take the glasses off, you can see what it looks like without the glasses on. But when you have the glasses on, you can't see what it looks like with the glasses off. Plus you think when I'm on is more the way it really is out there. Right? We think that. That's like the imputational. When things seem clearer, we think in some sense they're more true. But that's not true, that they're more true. But we think that. That's a belief, that we think they're more true. The actual clarity is more like the result of the imputation. So the advantage of imputing images on things is that in some ways they're more clear and more graspable.

[03:15]

So you look at a hillside, you can't exactly tell what you would grasp out there. because I could grasp the whole scene. But in terms of like the details of what's out there, it's hard for you to grasp because there isn't some sharp definitions of where things start and end. But now I'll give you a more detailed definition of the imputational. The imputational is that which is imputed in terms of essences and attributes as names and symbols. That's the detailed, more detailed definition of the imputational. That which is imputed as essences and attributes

[04:19]

in terms of words and symbols or words and conceptual images whereby conventional designations of whatever kind can be made. So it's actually the full definition tells you that this imputation is so that we can make conventional designations upon phenomena. And in order to be human we have to do that. We can't participate in human society if we can't do the conventional designation activity. And what is the other dependent?

[05:21]

It is the dependent core arising of phenomena. And in the sutra it says, the basic definition is, when this exists, that exists. When this does not exist, that does not exist. That's the basic principle of dependent core arising. And all phenomena are basically, all phenomena are dependent core arising. If something isn't a dependent core arising, it does not exist. And everything exists in this dependent way, completely dependent, not at all independent, not at all independent. Nothing about things is independent of other things. However, in order to make conventional designations, we impute an essence on things, and so they look like they're independent.

[06:27]

So then we can put a word or symbol on it and talk about it. And what is the thoroughly established character? It is the selflessness of phenomena. Those dependent core risings, all phenomena that are dependent core risings, their thoroughly established character is their suchness. And their suchness is their emptiness. And their emptiness is that they're empty of the imputations upon them. The imputations are actually not present in the phenomena. They're superimposed. But they never actually get down in the phenomena. That's the way the phenomena are, which includes that the way this includes that the way dependent co-arising works, the way the process works, another way to say this is that nobody can put an image onto the essence of the way causation works.

[07:37]

Everything is the fruit of a causal process, but not only can't you say what that thing actually is by itself, you can only say what it depends on, but also you can't even say what the process, you can't even put a self on the process and say, this is what the process is. No concepts will reach the process either. So this thoroughly established nature of things their established character, not only says that things are selfless, but also says that their other dependent nature is selfless, which is the same thing, that the self doesn't reach the other dependent nature. But that also means the other dependent nature is selfless, which means the causal process is selfless. Now how is the imputational character known?

[08:41]

Do you remember, Mike? Do you remember how the imputational character is known? So is that the way you know imputational things? In reliance or independence upon names and symbols, the imputational character is known. Is that the full definition, do you think? I mean, of how you know it? Yes. Would be nice, wouldn't it? In reliance on... In reliance, he said maybe there should be some essence there. But it might not be necessary to get into the essences in order to know that what you're up to is the imputational. Just the words might be enough to find it. But, like if you're looking for any imputations, the first place, the easiest place to look is where there are words.

[09:48]

Okay, so Craig? Craig? See, there's Craig, right? So then... Maybe there's an imputation around there of some essence. And actually you can kind of, when you say, Craig, or you say, Dave, in reliance on that you can know the imputational. And is there some imputation of essence there too? It's there. You see, it's there. So that's how you can know the imputational. How do you know the other dependent? I'm asking Mike because he's been studying this at Tassajara with me. How do you know the other dependent, Mike? Well, you know, you forgot your lessons. He was saying this every day and he forgot it.

[10:51]

Got to go back to Tassajara right now. Go on. Anyway, the way the independence upon strongly adhering to the imputational character as being the other dependent or independence on strong adherence to the other dependent as being the imputational, the other dependent is known. Now that is a You said, no wonder he doesn't remember. And I was just about to say, isn't that fabulous? Okay, so. Now can you say it, Mike? You're rephrasing it.

[11:52]

In dependence on strongly adhering to the other dependent as being the imputational, the other dependent is known. The sutra says it that way. You could reverse it, too, though. In strongly adhering to the imputational character as being the other dependent character, the other dependent character is known. But the sutra says it the other way. You adhere to the other dependent as being the imputational. What sutra? It's the Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra. You're in the kitchen. Yeah, you're in the kitchen. So you haven't memorized the sutra yet, have you? Everybody else has. But just think about what an amazing thing that is a saying. They're saying the way you know the other dependent character phenomena... is to take it for something that it isn't.

[12:57]

That's how you know it. Isn't that fabulous? What it's saying, basically, is saying, how do you know A? You know A by strongly adhering to it as being B. That's how you know A. All right. That means grasping at your idea of it is how you know it. And your idea of it is not it. So the only way you can know the other dependent is wrongly. That's a tough situation, isn't it? The only way you can know the other dependent is falsely. Good old other dependent. the wonderful other dependent, the way things really happen, and everything that exists must exist that way.

[14:01]

The way you know that is through this false modality by via your mental grasping of it. That's how you know it. Yes? Yes? Probably not. You know it's there? Well, I don't know if I said that, but that's fine to say that. I'm not saying the other dependent isn't there. It is there. It's all that really is there, actually. But isn't that the way you know it? The other dependence, all there is, really, that's there, is other dependent things. That's all there are. Yes?

[15:03]

Isn't that the way you know it, then? If you're getting calm and you feel more present? I know it's there. I understand that it's there, but is that the way you know it? Well, I don't know if you know it. What are you knowing when you know it's there? What's the phenomena you're talking about that's there? Well, like, for example, see me? Hi. I have another dependent character. You're looking at me. You see me? I'm another dependent phenomena. I'm a fleeting, changing, other dependent phenomena. I exist in dependence on things other than myself. I'm an example of another dependent phenomena. So is Mary. Dave isn't, but... Lillian is, and... And this cup is an other-dependent phenomena. It has an other-dependent character, and it's an other-dependent phenomena.

[16:07]

Both. That somehow things are real. So other than it is not reality. Other-dependent phenomena is not reality. Other-dependent phenomena... Other dependent character phenomena is the way that they dependently co-arise. So now I'm looking at the cup. The cup's another dependent phenomena, I'm another dependent phenomena, but I also have other dependent character. So I'm both another dependent phenomena, and so are you, and I have also, I have another dependent character, and my other dependent character is that I dependently co-arise. Okay? You've heard about that? Okay. So, and I'm just saying that the way you can see my other dependent character, the way you can know my other dependent character or my other dependent character is known in dependence on taking my other dependent character as the imputational character.

[17:08]

The way you know me and the way you know my other dependent character is in terms of some imputation upon me. me, plus thinking that I actually am your invitation. That's how you know me. That's how you know me as an interdependent character, and that's how you know my other dependent character, which means you know me falsely. It's the truth that I have another dependent character, but my other dependent character is not exactly the truth. It's what we call a conventional truth. But it's kind of false, because the only way you know this other dependent character, which is a character of everything that exists, you can't avoid that. Anything that exists has this other dependent character. But the way you know that is in conjunction with this projection upon it.

[18:13]

Without the projection upon it, you don't know it. You can't really see it, because it's not really out there. But the funny thing is, you can't see it because it's not out there. But the funny thing is, once you do this projection on it, it's out there, and you can know it. Other dependent phenomena are not out there. You're not out there, I'm not out there, nothing's out there independent of the person looking at it. You're not independent of looking at yourself. So in order to know yourself or know something else, you have to put this thing on it and then you have to take this thing you put on it as it. And then you can know it. And then it's out there. That's how you know it. And that's a conventional truth or a conventionality.

[19:16]

So me as a conventional phenomena, as a conventional truth, okay, You don't see me truly. You don't see my dependent core arising. You see me by taking me in my other dependent nature. You take my other dependent nature as my imputational nature. That's how you know me. And that's how you know me falsely. But my other dependent character is not false. It's just the way you know it becomes false. And then one more step. How do you know the thoroughly established character? How do you know the way things really are? The suchness of things. Now Mike remembers that one. Yes, Mike? In the absence of... You may not get it word for word. In the absence of a strong way of hearing, you choose the intentional character as being the other dependent character, the thoroughly established character. Yeah, pretty close.

[20:18]

Independence upon, strongly adhering to the other dependent character as being the imputational character. The thoroughly established character is known. So the way you know the other dependent character of phenomena, the way you know it, is by adhering to them as being the imputational character. That's how you know the other dependent. And the way you know the thoroughly established character of phenomena is in the absence of strongly adhering to the other dependent as being the imputational. By seeing the absence of that... Well, first of all, by not having that strong adherence to the other dependent as being the imputational. And when you don't have the strong adherence to the other dependent as being the imputational, then you have a chance to know that the imputational is absent in the other dependent, which it is.

[21:23]

If the imputational wasn't absent in the other dependent, then it wouldn't be false to hold to the other dependent as being the imputational. But it is false. But we do that so we can know things. And we use the imputational also in order to make conventional designations. And we know the imputational is operating because we're able to make conventional designations. And we can see the essences being imputed around our conventional designations. And then our conventional designations upon what? Upon other dependent phenomena, because that's the only kind there are. I shouldn't say the only kind. It's the only kind that exist. The imputational characters are also phenomena and they're also something, but they don't exist. The imputation exists, but what's being imputed doesn't exist.

[22:26]

So, I just want to say before I go further, before you ask questions, so the key thing in practice, I mean the key, the final key in practice is to somehow stop strongly adhering to the other dependent as being the imputational because then you can see the ultimate truth. And so So a big part of the teaching, especially Zen teaching, a big part of Zen teaching is to help students of the way somehow stop strongly adhering to the other dependent as being the imputational, because then they can see they're thoroughly established. And so part of what we can play with in the rest of the retreat is look at how Zen teachers try to help people stop strongly adhering to the other dependent as being the impotential so that they can see ultimate truth in that process.

[23:30]

But maybe do you have any questions about what I went through before? Yes? In taking thoughts, I'm going to propose thinking about thoughts as sentences. So is every thought that I have that I can identify as a thought, every thought that you have, which may be sentences we're exchanging or thoughts in our own heads, are those all other dependent phenomena? Are all thoughts other dependent phenomena? Yes. But what is thought of, but you can think of, you can think of something. The thought can be, it's another dependent phenomenon, the thought, but the thought could be about something that's not another dependent phenomenon. You can think of something that's not other dependent. You can think of an essence. The thought is an other dependent phenomenon, but what you're thinking of is not.

[24:33]

In other words, you can think of a self. A self is not another dependent phenomenon. A self is just an imaginary thing that has no existence, doesn't exist at all. Because self, by definition, doesn't dependently co-arise. It's self-produced and self-existent. But we can have a thought like that, and the thought dependently co-arises. A mountain is another dependent phenomenon and a mountain also has another dependent character. But in order to know the mountain, good old dependently co-arisen mountain, in order to know it, like see it out there in all its glory, you have to project the imputational on it to know it. Because mountains, as wonderful as they are, or as un-wonderful as they are, they're not out there, separate from you.

[25:41]

They're interdependent with you. And that's one of our famous Zen sayings from our lineage, is that Seigen Gyoshi says, when I first started practicing Zen, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers. After practicing for thirty years or so, mountains were not mountains and rivers were not rivers. Now that I've gone even further, mountains are mountains again and rivers are rivers again. So for most people, mountains are mountains. And there's many ways to understand that, but one way to understand it is that mountains are quotes mountains, or mountains are your idea of mountains, or mountains are like how you can grasp them and know them.

[26:47]

That's what mountains are. But actually mountains are not mountains in that way. That's just how you just know mountains as mountains. Mountains are actually mountains, but not really. Just conventionally they're mountains. And you come to see, after long practice, you come to see that mountains are not mountains. It's not that there's no mountains. There are mountains. It's just that mountains are not mountains. They're not mountains. They're not this thing that you impute to mountains called mountains. So you can watch how that imputation works. That's when the mountains are not known. Well, first when you understand how the imputational works, you get ready to see how it works and then to see if you see how it works to make it possible for you to know the mountains as the imputational.

[27:52]

But then you actually start looking to see if you can actually find the mountains in the mountains. and you sort of know what you mean by mountains, and you look and you don't find it, and then you realize that mountains are not mountains. It's not that there's no mountains. There are mountains, plenty of mountains. It's just that they're not mountains. They're perfectly good mountains. It's just they're not mountains. Was he saying something about fairly established character in the last phrase? I think in the last phrase he was saying that you can come back and designate, you know, and see mountains as mountains again. But you no longer believe it. All names become a working definition? Yeah, right.

[29:13]

Right. You realize that what you're looking at is a conventional truth which exists for you because of this imputation upon it so you can know it. Conventional truths exist, and you can know them, but you know them falsely. And you know that you're knowing them falsely, but you do know them. When you look at the ultimate truth, you don't see any conventional truths there. You just see the absence of the way you know other dependent phenomena, which is the ultimate way conventional things are, is that they actually don't have, they're empty of the imputational character. So on one side, you don't see any mountains anymore. When you're looking at the mountains, you don't see mountains. Now a Buddha can simultaneously look at the mountains and not see them, at the same time look at them and see them as conventional things and know that that's a false representation of them, but still see them.

[30:22]

And they look just the same for the Buddha as they would for an uneducated person. But then the Buddha doesn't believe and the Buddha knows that they're this is conventionality and that they're false. He doesn't believe that they're actually that way, but still can see them. And actually can see them simultaneously with seeing the absence of the imputational in them. which is to see basically not to know anything. There's nothing out there then. There's no mountains. So first of all you see mountains are mountains, then you see mountains are not mountains, then you see mountains are mountains again, and then finally you see mountains are mountains and mountains are not mountains simultaneously. But the ancestor didn't get that far. So, any other questions about this? Yes? If the imputational view is false, doesn't that mean that... The imputational view is not false.

[31:28]

We mistake it for... Yeah, it's false or it's a mistake to think that it's the other dependent. Doesn't that mean the other dependent is ungraspable? It is ungraspable, definitely. That's exactly what our other dependent character is, is that our other dependent character is ungraspable, and our other dependent character is that we are ungraspable. The other dependent character of every little experience you have has this character, and that is the ungraspable character of every little experience. And you and I have that character too, and that character is ungraspable, but that's our basic character. Our basic character is ungraspable, and our basic character is that we are ungraspable. Can you know that? Can you know it? Well, that takes us back to Carolyn saying, well, when you know that, you feel calm.

[32:30]

So somehow, so there's two meanings of know. I guess one meaning of know is you understand that. When you understand that, you will be very, you'll be calm. But actually, you can even understand that, anyway, when you understand that, you'll be in good shape. You'll be calm, you'll be fearless, and so on. But you can't know it. Because, again, so what we mean by know in this case is know dualistically. Know like you usually know things. When usually the way you know things, that's why it says in the, what do you call it, the self-receiving and employing samadhi, that which can be met with recognition is not realization itself. A realization that you can know is a realization that has had an imputation projected on it so that you can know it. So it's not the actual realization. And in emptiness, you can project onto the other dependent character, you could also project onto the thoroughly established character, and then you could know it too.

[33:38]

So to some extent, in our conversations about it, The only way for you to hear about the other dependent character, I mean the thoroughly established character, and kind of understand it, is in some sense to put the imputational on it so it's something out there you can know. But you have to get over that. Yes, you have to start taking... You have to see that that idea doesn't reach these phenomena, that it doesn't reach them. That's a mistake. I think that it does. You have to get to a place where you... You have to get to a place where the... the basis for conventional designation is taken away so the conventional designations can't reach the thing. And when they don't reach it, when you're beyond the conventional designation, then you've loosened that strong adhesion of the imputational which allows the conventional designation. You've eased that strong adherence so then the door to the other dependent, the thoroughly established opens. So you actually meditate

[34:43]

You're meditating on the other dependent before you stop strongly adhering to it as being imputational. So you're still looking at people and knowing them. And the people you're looking at, they have another dependent character. But the way you know them is by imputing this false existence upon them. But there are other dependent characters, the basis upon which the imputation sits. If I just imagine Dave when he's not in the room, that's very different than when I imagine Dave in the room. So the actual Dave, actual living, breathing, changing Dave, the beautiful Dave, is the basis of the imputation Dave. Okay?

[35:47]

So now, basically, I see the imputational Dave, but I hear the teaching about the great other dependent Dave, even though I still see the imputational little Dave. That's what Dave looks like. Otherwise, I wouldn't know where Dave was if I didn't impute that to him because he wouldn't be out there. Would he be on top of me, behind me? Where would he be? He wouldn't have a location. He wouldn't have a... he wouldn't have a time, and he doesn't really have a location. So where would I find him? I can't find him. He's unfindable, ungraspable, unlocatable, actually. But anyway, I don't let that stop me. I just zap a little imputation on him, and there he is, and I can say, there's Dave. So I see that and you all see that. Now you hear a teaching which says, Dave has another character which is the basis of this one you know. Or rather, he has another character which is the basis of this way that you know that other character.

[37:02]

That other character is other dependent character and you know that through this other, through the imposition. And that other way I'm listening to the teaching that he has this other nature which is not like he looks. And I hear about how he is which is not the way he appears to me. And I keep listening to the teaching about the way he is which doesn't appear. I hear about the way he is that I only know through the filter of a graspable version of him. And I listen to that teaching, [...] and my relationship to him changes. But I still have not gotten to the point of not seeing him that way. But I'm listening to that teaching more and more, and that teaching starts to change me and change me and change me. Through the meditation I become a different person, and therefore I respond differently to him, more and more virtuously. And finally, I never respond to him when that teaching really sinks into me.

[38:04]

I never respond to him inappropriately. There's no more wrong action from me towards him anymore because the teaching about the way he is has sunk into me. However, I'm not completely free and completely free knowledgeable about what he is until I also stop strongly adhering to him as being the imputational, which means I'm going to loosen up now on the way I know him. And as part of that process, as you start to loosen up on the way you know him, there'll be a break in the knowing. Because the way you know is by taking him to be that superimposition. As you loosen it up, There's a time when you don't know him. You're looking at him, as usual, but you don't know him because you're not adhering to him as being the imputational.

[39:06]

And that's how you know him. So if you loosen up the adherence, you lose the knowing. But then you get to see thoroughly established. And when you see the thoroughly established, You've seen the ultimate medicinal object. You've seen the object which will purify your mind of any obstruction to perfect wisdom. Then, if you have that, then you can look back and when you see, when you know him again by taking him for the imputational, you don't believe it anymore. You're not fooled. You've been cured of the illness of believing false appearances as being real. This is a very brief picture of a complex process. But I'm just partly leading up to just tell you about the necessity for the loosening of the strong adherence between the conceptual clinging and the dependent nature.

[40:14]

So loosening that is part of what is on the sort of in the program of developing full understanding. But as I've been telling during the weekend, is that you're not ready to have things loosened unless you're well grounded in meditating on the other dependent. Which again, when you meditate on the other dependent, even before the loosening starts to occur, you already start to change your relationship with things. or rather your relationship with beings and things has already started to change prior to the loosening. So that when the loosening occurs it was a well-established space of virtue practice which you will continue while you're doing this loosening process. Otherwise you will not have the integrity to withstand the process of the loosening, which, you know, opens you to situations like mountains are not mountains, which doesn't sound that bad, you know, unless you're like right on a ridge or something.

[41:32]

But if you're like sitting in a cafe, mountains are not mountains, hey, cool, you know. But what about good is not good and evil is not evil? That's why I was saying before, you have to be really committed to good and committed to not getting involved in evil before you start loosening the projection of evil upon evil and of good upon good so that you can see the thoroughly established character of evil and thoroughly established character of good and realize that evil is not evil and good is not good. And then you can go back and see evil's evil and good's good without believing that evil really is evil and good really is good. And then you can take care of good and evil for the benefit of all beings because you're not hung up on the false appearance of evil. The false appearance of evil as being out there and the false appearance of good as being out there.

[42:38]

They're not out there. They're interdependent with everything. Any questions? Yes? Yeah, of course. Yes, that's exactly what it's about. This includes, you know, self as a person. Oh, by the way, does this feel like you're going down into a cave? Without a light. Let's turn the lights off. Yes? I have a technical question. What is a other dependent meditation that you can do? What is the technique to get started? Well, one is just, well, one is, I said, you can be creative about this.

[43:41]

One is everything you look at, say, great. I always think of, like a Chinese person would think of the Chinese character for great. And they would just study that character and think about that character all the time. And everything they see, they would remember everything is great. I didn't understand that earlier. When you said great, did you mean beyond knowing, like great? Let's see, beyond knowing, it's kind of like beyond knowing, yeah. It's kind of like... If you look at my, if you're looking at me, you're actually seeing an other, you're actually, the way I am really, the way I actually appear in the world is through my other dependent nature. But the way you know that is by projecting this image on me. So then you make me into a knowable other dependent nature. You know my other dependent nature through this mental grasping. But the way I actually am other dependent is beyond the way you know me, even though the way you know me is based on me.

[44:43]

So beyond knowing, beyond the way you know me, that's part of what great means. And great means, I would even say it doesn't even necessarily mean bigger or smaller. It just means, you know, sort of beyond. Other than... the delusional thought I might have of what you are, who you are? Well, you can say other than, but maybe that's getting a little too specific, you know, it's making it a little bit too graspable, like other than. It's not exactly other than, because it's not exactly other than because the delusional version you have of me is based on that other-dependent nature. So they're not exactly other, Just like I said, the way you exist for me and the way I know you depends on you. Because if you're not here and I just think about you, then it's just an image of you, which also arose having had seen you at one point.

[45:52]

But I can tell the difference between thinking about you and visualizing you, even if I was really good at visualizing you, and actually when I can actually see you. and see that the movements and everything, that it's actually you, that you're there. You're not just my idea. And yet my idea is the way I know you. So again, one way to meditate on the other dependent is just think great. Have this great mind with everything you meet. Another way to do it is to just listen to the simple instruction. Other dependent character, other dependent nature. whenever you look at anything, or not producing itself whenever you look at anything. And you will notice, part of what you'll notice is that what you're listening to and what you're seeing are not in harmony, that things look like they're making themselves happen.

[46:54]

Things don't look other-dependent. Things do look substantial, and you're listening to a teaching which says they aren't. It says that they're interdependent. It says they don't have any self-nature. They don't make themselves happen at all. That one makes sense to me, not reducing oneself. Yeah, so you can listen to that one. Just put it right in your ear and just turn it on and have it go all the time as you move through the world. Unless you want to do tranquility meditation. and then you turn it off for a little while because you're going to give up discursive thought. But you're actually using your discursive thought to think about that Buddhist teaching rather than other uses you put your discursive thought to. Or if your discursive thought's going on, you put this discursive thought, you apply this discursive thought to your discursive thought because your discursive thought also dependently co-arises. But the way you know your discursive thought is by taking it to be your image of your discursive thought.

[47:55]

Your discursive thought isn't actually just your image of your discursive thought. But that's the way you know your discursive thought. That's the way you can grasp it. So there it is. It's being grasped. It's being confused with an idea of it, which doesn't reach it. But you can apply a teaching which says, it actually isn't reached by this idea by which I'm grasping it. And you are not reached by the way I grasp you and know you. And the way I know you is false. But I say, okay, it's false, but at least I know you so I can talk about you. That's the price of knowledge, right? That's, you know, original sin. That's the price of perception, is in order to grasp things, you separate yourself from them. Original sin.

[48:56]

Yeah, original sin. You're living in paradise, right? Paradise means garden. You're living in this nice garden, bopping away, you know, having a great time, but you don't know you're in the garden. You don't have any knowledge. You just happily live in the garden. Somebody says, would you like to know where you live? Would you like to know who you are? I mean, you could be somebody special. Wouldn't you like to know who you are? You know, you just, you know, like a kid playing in the garden. You don't know who you are. You don't know you're white or black, a girl or a boy. Would you like to know what gender you are? Would you like to know what that's for? Would you like to know? Oh, yeah. Well, come on right over here. Now you know. Now you know. Well, thanks. Excuse me. Get out. Get out. You can't be here anymore.

[49:58]

Bye-bye. Well, at least I know something. However, I've just been, I know it, now I know what the garden is, but I got kicked out of the garden because I know it. So that's the price of perception. That's the price of knowing, is that you get separated from what you know. Whereas before you knew, you weren't separated. And separation does not make the heart grow fonder. It makes the heart just hurt. Because it's false perception. But you say, okay, but still I know something. Yeah, right. So now we have to have spiritual programs to help people get back, get back to get over and not believe that they're out of the garden. You're not really out of the garden. It's just that by knowing the garden, you're kicked out of the garden. So then you have to listen to the teaching,

[51:03]

that the way you know things separates you from them, but that's not real. You listen to that. And you listen to that everything in the garden is, everything that appears to you when you're out of the garden as separate is unreliable, changeable, not worthy of confidence, because it's false. You listen to that and you start to develop a better relationship in your exile with these things. And you develop virtue. And as you develop virtue, you build a virtue base which will make it possible for you then to meditate on loosening up your beliefs in falseness as trueness. And then you can start seeing, hey, Actually, there's nothing to this me being outside the garden. It's not really true. It's not really true that those things are out there separate from me. Matter of fact, they're not even there anymore. It's not that they're not there, it's just that they don't appear.

[52:11]

So now I know that the appearance is just something that is conjured up by this imputation. And then you stop believing the appearances as reality. But you can imagine this is kind of a tricky process. But the first step is actually not so tricky. The first step is pretty easy. That's what I was dwelling on this weekend. It's pretty easy and gives you some good results quite within, you know, it doesn't take so long to get some good results when you meditate on the other dependent character. because you do stop being so wrought up about things. You stop getting super excited about people that appear really cool, and you stop being really depressed about people that appear to be not so cool. And you start to be able to take care of cool people and uncool people.

[53:14]

And so that's good. It's good to not be like, not taking care of some people too much and taking care of some other people not enough. Like somebody was telling me about their teenage child, you know. Teenage children are really that way. They really don't take care of everybody equally. They really are highly specialized on certain people. Like they're super concentrated and really excessively involved with this person. And like their parents and their grandparents and their brothers and sisters are like, maybe, maybe, later. You know what I mean? Because this guy or this chick is so cool. It's not healthy. It's actually quite unwholesome. But they have to do it. But then they get a little older, they see how actually it's quite a miserable way to live to be so focused on this guy or this girl or this sport or this computer screen, you know.

[54:25]

Even though they get rewarded for that stuff, you know. That's why they do it. You get rewarded for this really disproportionate excessive involvement. Our society rewards that. It's not a healthy thing, but we do. And then you see the suffering that comes from that. And then you hear about, well, how can I now sort of like not be so excessively involved with this person, be appropriately involved with this person, and not excessively uninvolved with this person, but be appropriately involved with this person. And this teaching will help that. So that you can see quite quickly with this teaching if you apply it on a steady basis. And that builds this virtue base by which not only can you take care of various beings even-handedly and in a balanced way, but you can meditate on different topics even-handedly. Because that's what you should be doing.

[55:27]

You should be meditating on everything, because this is about everything. So you don't just turn your meditation on at certain times. Does that make some sense? Yes? One way of meditating on that is everyone else is creating that experience but you. Well, you could say that. That's one way. But you also could say that the experience is not creating itself, too. Because actually, when you're looking at the experience, actually you are sort of contributing to the experience, but the experience isn't making itself happen. If you're looking at yourself, you aren't making yourself happen. But an experience, part of what makes an experience happen is your nervous system.

[56:30]

So the experience that you're looking at, the apple you're eating, the thoughts you're having, person you're talking to, the foot you're manicuring, whatever you're relating to, that itself, that thing there, has other dependent character. It's unstable and so on. Okay, but I have something to do with that, but I just don't have anything to do with it. You don't make... Right. Everybody else does. Everybody... Everything else does but you. You don't make yourself at all. But your part, but... And actually you don't really make your foot, but your mind makes your foot the way your foot is for you. And so you say everything that's coming at you is you. That's another meditation, is to realize everything that's coming to you is you. In other words, everything that's coming to you gives you your life.

[57:33]

That's another meditation of this type. Just meditate on, watch everything come up in a moment and then notice that you're born in the coming up of all those things that aren't you. Walk into a room and notice that the room, that in the coming of the room when you open the door, that then there's you. Rather than that you're already here and you're going in the room. Try to open the door and see what's there and notice that what's there gives you life. That's just another way to meditate on this. Yeah. That's awakening to dependent core rising of yourself in that moment. And then notice the other way of you already got yourself outside the door and you drag yourself into the door and then you have yourself go and talk to the people. That's the usual way and that's delusion. You're holding, you're carrying yourself everywhere. Carrying yourself over here to talk to Dave, not carry yourself over there to talk to Leonard, not bring yourself over here.

[58:36]

You know, it's like, that's the usual way. You're already here and then you've got to carry that with you everywhere you go and have that self do all this stuff. So the self does all this stuff with the people and with the walls and with the ceiling and with the windows rather than the windows, the walls, the ceiling, and then there's you. which is the pinnacle rising of you. But we overlook that. We think the self is already there and it's permanent. So it goes with us everywhere. That's delusion. And that makes it nice and easy to find the self, because it's always right here. But, you know, it's false. It's an imposition on you. You are a perfectly good human being. It's just that you're not a self. You're another dependent, dependently co-arisen human being.

[59:37]

So it's not that you're not here and not that you're not a person. It's just that this self that you put on top of yourself, that's an illusion. And then because you put the self over yourself, then your self relates to all these things, acts upon all these things, self does all these practices. Rather than when the practices are happening, then there's you. So that's another way to meditate on dependent core rising, that particular instruction. There's many ways. And again, if this teaching is correctly transmitted and correctly understood, you can test number one to see if you got it right, plus number two to see if it's sunk in, to see if the behavior that's emerging from your body and mind is more virtuous. You can watch and see if it seems like more happy, skillful activities are rising through your body, speech, and mind.

[60:47]

Because it should. It should become more virtuous. And you can also spot, I think you can spot, excessive involvement. You can tell when you're getting overheated about things or getting underheated about things. You can tell when you're cold towards yourself or others, cold towards humans, cold towards animals, cold towards plants. If you are, that's probably you're not in touch with the pinnacle of rising. And if you're super hot about plants and animals, you're probably not meditating on dependent core rising. And usually you check and say, yeah, I haven't thought of it for hours, and now I'm in quite a state. And then you go back to it and you start cooling off if you're overheated. And if you're freezing, you start warming up to get back to 98.6 approximately. I myself am usually at 97.4.

[61:48]

But still, it's pretty warm, don't you think, relatively? To ice. Funny thing is, although I have a low body temperature, I give off a lot of heat. I'm actually quite warm to the touch because I'm cooling off. Some people have a high body temperature and you touch them and they're quite cold. But their body temperature is on average above 98.6. And as you know, birds have, you know, over 100 most of the time. Yes? Can I ask just a little question about everything coming at you? Yes. So the way you are talking about it is different than the way I've always understood it, which it is. At least it sounds different. The way I've understood it is everything that's coming at you is your projection.

[63:02]

The way everything that's coming at you, the way that everything that comes at you is appearing is your projection. But the thing that's coming at you is you. But the way to... Yes. And that's why, because we are caught up in the appearance, that's why we don't think what is coming to us is us. That's why we don't think that. Because it appears to be out there separate and not, in your case, not Carolyn. That's the way it appears. It appears not Carolyn. So then you think, well, you believe the appearance, so it's not me. But actually, it is you. It's one of the things that's contributing to your present existence. It's influencing what you are. Everything that comes to you influences you. Things that don't come to you don't have much influence.

[64:05]

But things that do come to you influence you and make you what you are. But the way they appear is a projection. But still, believing and then believing the projection, that's also something that comes to you. The belief in the projection comes to you. That also makes you the way you are. That makes you more or less unhappy and makes you more or less unskillful. But the belief in the projection isn't you. It's just something that makes you the way you are. And not believing in the projection makes you who you are too. That makes you more, well, pretty enlightened. even while the projection is going on, to not believe it is pretty enlightened. But usually you have to have a break from that. In other words, see the absence of the projection, which is a thoroughly established character, the absence of the projection in what's happening, in order to not believe it.

[65:05]

Otherwise we have a habit of believing it. Well, time flew, didn't it? It's already like 11.30 or something. Teresa, you look depressed, are you? No, no. Yeah, it's my imitation, but I didn't believe it. I didn't believe it. That's why I said it. I didn't say you are depressed. I said you look depressed, and I was checking whether you are. Are you? No. Are you frolicking in the dragon's cave? Huh? Great. Okay, well... as a bedtime story, I'll give you a story for bedtime.

[66:16]

And you can dream about this all night if you want to. Or perhaps not go to sleep. Sorry if this keeps you awake all night. But it's for a good cause. So I propose that this might be a story, this is a story about the story now, this might be a story of a Zen teacher and his great disciples trying to help a monk loosen his strong adherence to the other dependent as being the imputational. This is what I think, what I imagine might be going on in this story. Okay? It's kind of a little bit of a long story, but it's not that complicated in a way. So the teacher in this case is the great master Ma, Matsu, great master Ma. And he had many, he had lots of enlightened disciples, and two of his most outstanding, one was named Jertzong, and the other one was named

[67:27]

Waihai, Baizhang Waihai, the great Zen master. Both of them great Zen masters, Jertzong and Waihai. So a monk asked the great master Ma, apart from the various permutations of assertion and denial, please directly point to the living meaning of the Buddha way. And Mazu says, I'm tired out today. I can't explain it to you. Go see Jurtsang. The monk went to Jurtsang and said,

[68:30]

The same question. Beyond the various permutations of assertion and denial, please directly point out the living meaning of Buddhism. And Jirsang said, why don't you ask the teacher? The monk said, the teacher told me to come and ask you. Jerry Tsang said, I have a headache today. I can't explain it to you. Go ask Brother Hai. So the monk went and asked Hai the same question. And Baijian Waihai said, when it comes this far, or when I come this far, after all, I don't understand. The monk related this to the great master, went back to the great master and said, you know, I went to this disciple, he said he had a headache and couldn't explain it to me.

[69:51]

And then I went to, he told me to see the other disciple. And he said that when, you know, when he comes this far, he doesn't understand. And then Master Ma said, Jersong's head is white. By John, Weihai's head is black. Do you remember the story? You basically got it, though, don't you? No? You don't? Not at all? Not at all? No. You can't tell the story over? Yes, would you tell? That's what I meant. Can you remember the story? Would you tell me the story?

[70:53]

Yeah. He wanted to know the living meaning of Buddhism. Yeah. And the teacher wouldn't tell him. The teacher wouldn't tell him. He was tired. Yeah. Yeah. Right. [...] No, he went to one more. Yeah. He went back to the teacher. All right. These guys had shaved heads, right? Right, that's the story.

[72:06]

You remembered it. I didn't ask you if you understood it. just if you remembered it. So that's the story. And I propose to you that this is a story about the teacher and his disciples trying to help this monk see the living meaning of Buddhism, which you can see if you loosen up strongly adhering to your projections upon the other dependent as being the other dependent. And then so, would that instruction work on you? Even though you thought the first part was pretty reasonable. It's not unreasonable that you would go to ask a big important question and the teacher would be too tired to tell you, right? But it's not just that the teacher was too tired to tell you, but that the teacher was too tired to tell you as the way the teacher was being the Buddha at that time. This is the great Buddha, the tired Buddha.

[73:12]

Teach the tired Buddha, the tired Buddha, teaching the monk by telling him that he can't teach him. And this is also a setup for the next story about Master Ma. This is a tired Master Ma. The next story will be about a sick Master Ma. which is where the original image for the dragon's cave comes from. But now I want you to see a tired Master Ma teaching. See if tired Master Ma is good enough for you. Or anyway, good enough for you to think about. Okay? Thank you. May our intention equally penetrate every being and place.

[74:15]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_87.03