Characters of Phenomena, High Seed, you can call it Imputational Character or Imaginary Character, ODC, Other Dependent Character, and TEC, Fairly Established Character. And I rearranged. ODC is in the center. because it's the central meditation on phenomena is dependent co-arising. Because it's the basis of the imputation. Imputations are superimposed on the other dependent quality of phenomena. And the absence of the imputation in the other dependent on top of the other dependent is the thoroughly established.

[01:03]

I read the expression dread of reality and I had with that expression and I thought Part of the reason why we have a dread of reality is that, I think, is that we also have a dread of delusion. And delusion and reality are closely related. Because as you can see here, Delusion is not actually the, I wouldn't call the imputational character. Rather the confusing, the other dependent with the imputational character is delusion. The superimposition of the imputational character upon

[02:19]

the character phenomena which is their dependent core arising. That's delusion. The taking the way things are happening, the apprehending what's happening as our idea of it, and particularly the taking of what's happening in terms of our ideas of essences and attributes, or the taking or apprehending what's happening in terms of self and other being different. That way of taking things, that's delusion. But just the idea that self and other are separate, just an idea, just a fantasy. It's the confusion that's the delusion. And there's a kind of a dread of... I feel. I think there's some dread at looking at how how confusion and delusion are manifesting.

[03:32]

So I just wanted to I'll just sort of say some different kinds of reality. One kind of reality is the way things really are. And the way things really are, ultimately, is that they're thoroughly established. That's their suchness, the way they're thoroughly established is their suchness. The way they are, the way events are, is that they're free of the imputation. Our life is actually free, really, of our ideas of our projections of essences and attributes on them. Really the way things are and the way things are happening is that they're free of this appearance that self and other are substantially different.

[04:49]

That's one kind of reality. It's called ultimate reality or suchness or the thoroughly established character. Another reality is that what's happening, namely the dependently co-arisen events, another reality is that they appear, they appear in a way that they're not. In other words, that they appear in a fantastic or imaginary way. That's another... It's a reality that things appear to be a way that they're not. It's true. It's true that things appear to be a way that they're not. Or it's true that things that don't exist are constantly being produced. There's a constant production of phenomena that fail to exist. Yes?

[05:53]

For example, you see that somebody's life... That's not what I'm talking about here. I just want to make clear that that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about here is that it appears that somebody's life is substantially separate from yours. or it appears that somebody's life, or somebody's tragic life, it appears that there's an essence to it, and it has attributes. That's the level of, the basic level, that I'm talking about right now. Later we... First step, the basis of all these other stories is this. imputation of essences and attributes, or imputation that the self, subject and object, mind and objects, are different.

[07:01]

That's the step I'm at now. Your example wouldn't apply here yet. There's other realities I'll get to in a minute. Yes? When I look at, you know, what's being called the amputational character phenomena, and... Excuse me. Can you wait on your question? Just let me finish this little list. Would that be all right? Is it really okay? Really? Okay. So another thing, another kind of reality is that things appear... And they appear as though they do exist. So there's an appearance of things existing that don't exist. But there is an appearance. That's the same one as I just mentioned. There's a constant appearance of things that don't exist. Like there's a constant appearance, ongoing appearance that we're separate.

[08:04]

There's an ongoing appearance of a separation between you and the world that is appearing frequently, and that that separation is not real. That's the second point. The third is that we believe it. In fact, there is this thing that we believe or we agree with this appearance. that the world is out there set off from us, cut off from us, and is at a distance from us. We agree with that. That's another kind of reality. It's a third, yeah. First is that, first is the way things really are, and the way they really are is things are not, for example, there is no separation of subject and object, really. Things don't have essences and attributes.

[09:07]

That's the first one. Events are actually free, dependently co-arisen events, which are the only kind of events, except for emptiness. But actually emptiness is not a dependently co-arisen event. It doesn't happen. So anyway, I take it back. Things that happen are free of imputation, really. they actually have assumptions, which is their freedom from repetition. That's the first one. The second one is a confusion of the two, that it actually appears, innately appears, as though subjects and objects are separate, or that objects have essences and attributes. That's the second one. We believe it. We believe the way things appear. We believe false appearances. We agree with them.

[10:10]

And the fourth one is, the fourth kind of reality is that when we believe in these false appearances, particularly the one that I just mentioned, then we feel painful emotions like greed and hate and jealousy, etc. That's another truth. That's the truth of delusion. painful aspect of delusion. And then another truth is, or reality is, that once we get involved in these painful emotions, we want to do something about it. So then we start to become involved in actions, again, based on this misconception that we're separate from others. And these actions are based on painful emotions which arise from these misconceptions. So it's defiled action. And this then leads to another reality, which is that these actions then create consequences, which are then the seeds to drive the circle around, this process around another crank.

[11:24]

Misconception, well, first of all, true conception is to see that the things are free of our imaginations. Misconception leads to emotional emotions, which leads to wish to do something about them, which is defiled karma, which keeps the process going. So these are various realities. So looking at reality is looking at ultimate reality, but also looking at the reality of the processes of delusion, which are really kind of dreadful. It's hard to look at them. This is why we encourage the practice of samatha, the practice of tranquility, so that you can be relaxed, develop relaxation in this dreadful process. and also not a relaxation which includes being kind of like bright and energetic and flexible so that you can come to these studies and the dread doesn't like demoralize you or discourage you in your study of reality.

[12:34]

In your study of the use of the discursive thought facilities for penetrating all this confusion. Okay. Now, did you want to say something now? I'm looking at what's been called the computational character of phenomena and how the process of imputation is of the essences and attributes projected by our mind, it seems to be more characteristic of phenomena than actually of phenomena. Character of mind rather than actually of phenomena? Well, you mean mind rather than objects? Right. But mind's a phenomena, too. Mind has a... It happens.

[13:39]

Mind's impermanent, too. So imputing's a dependently co-arisen process, and the objects that are imputed upon are dependently co-arisen, too. So both of them are dependent, have other dependent character. And you're saying that you think the imputation is more mind. Yeah, and I think a lot of disciples of Buddha, very great ones, would say, yes, there is a difference between mind and objects, certain objects anyway. If you're the object of my imputation, in some sense, you're not so different from me, because you can impute too. But certainly, if I'm imputing essences and attributes on the rocks, rocks are not able to impute essences and attributes. So there is a difference. But some people would say there's a difference, but there's not a difference in... a substantial difference between the mind and rocks.

[14:49]

There's not a substantial difference. However, we don't put the imputing on the rock. you put it on the mind. So are you saying that you feel like it's more the mind that's doing the imputing than the object? Right. I think that most people would agree with you. It's just that, I shouldn't say most people, but most Buddhist meditators would agree with you, both Buddhist, wise Buddhist meditators. However, they would quibble a little bit about about whether the level of difference between mind and object. Some would say there's no difference. Some would say, well, there is a little difference, but none of them, I don't think, would say that there's a substantial difference. But that subtlety between, the duality between mind and object is, you know, two great schools of Mahayana Buddhism are, you know, in a very subtle argument about it.

[15:53]

But they would agree that nobody's saying that the rocks doing the impure essence is an attribute. Now, did you want to make any more comments now, Elena, about this? OK. Yes. Yes, Lee. So as you're presenting it, I don't want to make a statement. I want to make a question, but I have to preface it by a statement. It seems to me to be an overall understanding of the process of the picture. And then I see in that picture, it seems that these afflictive emotions which come from computing are confusing the other dependents with the imitational. We all have these emotions that come from that. is to go the other direction, not into action, but go forward into some .

[16:57]

And so is that a different kind of insight study than that kind of study where we could see the dynamics of what's going on? Would you see that dynamic? Well, let me try to see if I've earned you. Did you say that in this picture you see that when you're at the options of greed and hate, that rather than go into action based on that, you would turn around and study the greed and hate and see where it came from? That would be more relevant to the insight process? Yes. Is that what you're suggesting? Maybe you thought it would be... Is that the insight work that we are involved in? Well... How is that done? If, in fact, you're, like, aware of afflicted emotions... and then you actually look at them and you notice them, and then you would perhaps wonderfully notice that they were based on some misconception, you would be doing insight work.

[18:08]

If you notice, if you just notice the afflictive emotions, you're actually doing insight work. That's called mindfulness. That's one of the foundations. is to notice that it's actually sort of the third and fourth foundation of mindfulness, or to notice, for example, if you notice, this mind is infested with afflictive emotions. There's a lot of painful emotions in this consciousness we have here at this seating area. That's mindfulness mind. Then if you would actually see in detail what afflictive emotions, what painful emotions were there, That would be getting into the foundation of mindfulness of Dharma. And you would be doing insight work. Now, if you could see what it was that was the conditions for the arising of those, then insight work would be now penetrating, starting to penetrate. And then if you could see that, you could study then these misconceptions. In other words, how these misconceptions are being mixed up with what's happening, and then you would penetrate deeper.

[19:17]

And then if you could see how absent in what's happening, you would be penetrating deeper. And at that level of penetration, the source of the arising of the afflictive emotions has been cut off. And therefore the source of contaminated action has been cut off. The process of binding you to the process of misery has been cut off. So you're liberated when you start to see thoroughly established. So that is insight work. So actually, I was going to say a little bit more before we get into the questions. Is that okay? Shoho said something about practically applying these teachings, so I thought I'd give you a little, maybe some practical advice about how to work with these teachings, and then we can have questions if you want. So again, I already talked about one of the practical ways of working with

[20:19]

is to listen to them. Listen to the teachings of the sutra. Listen to it. That's part of the way, practically speaking, you work with them. And then after you hear them, you might have a question like, well, how do you practically work with them? But first of all, you're asking that question about practical application of teaching because you're listening to the voice. And asking questions like that is also how you practically work with them. Does that make sense? Mm-hmm. Asking questions when you hear a teaching about how do you practice it, that's part of how you practice it. And expressing your lack of understanding, that's part of how you study the teaching. Another way that you practically apply these teachings is to take a break from practically applying these teachings and take a break from listening to them. That's another way you practice them. In other words, One of the ways you practice this is not to get too excited about studying insight.

[21:23]

You can spend some of your time... Now, if you're super calm, like, you're just like... You know, it happens to people, like, they're like... They get into states of tranquility and, like, they can run all over Green Gulch, do back... high-speed conversations, and, you know... they, like, stay flexible and calm and relaxed and alert, and they can really attend to what's ever happening very carefully and, you know, etc. So if you're already really calm and you can study this stuff and you don't get the slightest bit excited, you don't have to do any of the other quality work. But if you start to notice you're getting excited, not to mention discouraged, depressed, and thinking that you're stupid or whatever, that kind of stuff, when you start thinking you're stupid, it's probably time to relax. Usually that's a sign of... I mean, not just that you think you're stupid, but you think maybe that's true. Et cetera, right?

[22:29]

I'll stop at the et cetera. The other thing is... So one of the ways you practically apply these teachings is to practice a different kind of meditation than... because practicing tranquility helps you do insight work when you go back to it. So I guess, so the practical application, the next practical application is to see if you can notice or identify the appearance that objects are out there How often can you identify that appearance? Can you get a feeling for that, how it seems like that's the way things appear? And like, without ... they appear that way. As soon as you wake up in the morning, does the ceiling appear? Does the dark appear to be out there, separate from you? Like, I'm here and there's the darkness? So can you notice that appearance?

[23:32]

So catching that appearance is also insight work. It's not noticing the emotions, it's doing it somewhat deeply. Maybe sometimes when you wake up in the morning, you don't immediately feel angry. It's possible. Have you ever had that happen? You don't immediately feel lustful, like, oh. You wake up kind of like, objects. I'm aware of something. What is it? And at that moment, you know, the afflictive emotions haven't kicked in in a way. You're just like, cool. How early do you have to get up? Approximately. Try it. Four-fourteen is good, too.

[24:38]

A specific standard time. But sometimes on the days when we have, you know, on the four and nine days, or zero and five days, actually, six is okay. Something like that will also work. But just when you wake up, mindfulness practice is to be aware And then see if you can catch that what you're aware of seems to be out there on its own, really. And it does all night, might. If not, well, we've got something interesting here. But, wow, where did the separation go? Now we're talking, you know, that might happen too sometimes. I think it does sometimes happen. They lose it. They lose the delusion. Anyway, catch that, and then Da-da-da-da-da-da. If you believe it. If you can catch what?

[25:46]

See if you can catch and you believe that those objects, people, your body, you know, trees, see if you can catch that they're out there separate from your awareness of them. See if you can catch that. It's possible that you could catch it. And that's insight work, too. It's a little bit more subtle than the other one. But I think you might be able to catch that you believe this appearance, which is the imputation. You actually now are seeing the character of the moment. And you're seeing that you believe it. This is pretty good. And this can be done quite often. You can start when you get up, and you can continue maybe all the way to brushing your teeth. And then forget it. And you might also notice when you, if you are able to catch it, you might notice when you stop catching it.

[26:47]

And when you notice, I have spent quite a while not noticing, hey, I believe this. One time, a long time ago, I was having an argument with someone who I'm not allowed to mention who it is. And this person was really angry at me, and I said, oh, you believe that I'm actually here. Actually, she regained her presence in me. They worked quite nicely. Because I was genuinely surprised. I sort of got it, but she thought that I was actually out there, and that was really bugging her at the time. The next point, after you believe this misconception, that you believe this appearance which is not really true, the next step would be to notice, identify, confess how, as a consequence,

[27:55]

they take a notice and catch how as a consequence of... painful emotions arise, like hatred of him or her. See if you can notice that. It actually is supposed to sometimes happen that we are confronted with this appearance, that our nervous system and so on, our history, confronts us with this appearance. We believe it, and then we have painful emotions. See if you can notice that, catch that, admit that, that you believe it and there's consequences, and there are painful consequences. The sutra here says, there will be afflictions when you confuse the imputational. When you let the imputational blur over the way things are happening and apprehend it as what's happening, afflictions will be generated. See if you can catch those. And this again, you're getting pretty deep now.

[28:58]

This is good. Then, That might be the end of the story for a lot of you in this process. You just keep catching the painful, catching the delusions, catching that you believe them, catching that you believe delusions, that you believe misconceptions apply to something. It's true that the conceptions are there. That's not a delusion. but that those delusions would apply to the way things happen, that we, ordinary people like us, would fall for that. We believe it. And it's painful when we believe it. See if you can catch that. This is a practical application of how to apply them. Then see if you can notice the next step, which might or might not happen if you're successful at the step I just mentioned, partly depending on how well you're able to catch and admit and notice this level of the painful emotions, if you don't stay mindful of them, then sometimes the impulse, when the impulse to do something about this terrible situation arises, that you might then stop noticing painful emotions and then get into, like, trying to get rid of them or something.

[30:17]

Do something to make them go away. Get new things. Yeah, get busy. But this is the busyness based on afflictive emotions, based on believing and so on. So, at that point, notice how karma starts to come in, and notice how this is more difficult. It's not so difficult to notice, but what is difficult to notice, and probably at this point you won't be able to notice it for a long time, is to notice how that karma propels you back into the process again. That next step The vision of that is not usually available. The insight work, usually you can't see at the consequence of keeping you in a cycle. So we're told that it does, but usually only a Buddha can see how that works. But you can see the karma. So that's part about how it turns. At each stage, you could turn the process around by mindfulness.

[31:19]

If you're at the karmic level, if you're going to town, based on afflictive emotions, based on belief and so on, if you start meditating on karma, that starts to get you back into the karma. And as you get more into the karma, you start getting back into the afflictive emotions, and as you start to be mindful of them, that backs you into the belief, that backs you into the misconception. We have to be able to analyze deeply the misconception and talk to the misconceptions and talk with others about the misconceptions. So that's what we're doing here. We're talking about the misconceptions. So in that sense, our conversations are very deep. We're getting close to the root problem here in these conversations and these teachings here. But we move away up into these grosser levels very quickly. And then when we're running around doing karma based on all this, it's hard to turn around, but it's possible. And then each step, you could turn the process around by this. So this is a... Maybe you can hear this as a practical at whatever level in the process you discover yourself to be.

[32:24]

And basically, we're in this process of dealing with... We're actually, like it or not, we're in the process of dealing with reality all day. We're like reality junkies. to it. Because, in fact, reality is unavoidable. Bob? How do you overlay relative versus absolute? Pardon? How do you overlay the relative versus the absolute in this framework? Well, actually, the first type of reality was the... I don't like the word absolute too much. I prefer ultimate. The first kind of truth that I mentioned in reality was the ultimate. The other ones were conventional. Actually, really the conventional one was the second one. And then believe is not exactly conventional. It's that you believe conventional to be ultimate. But you can catch yourself at believing that conventional is ultimate.

[33:30]

So if I go up the driveway, up to the road, and I find myself on a broken leg, and there's a car stop there, and my leg is broken, there's a dent in the car, this thing called car. So, I mean, those things exist. It's on one level. But then, At another level, there's nothing substantial about any of that. Right. And I think on some level, cars are basically examples of other dependent character. And broken legs are examples of other dependent characters. And they do exist, and there's some debate about how they exist.

[34:34]

The mind-only school, which uses this sutra as its base, it says that these dependently co-arisen things, like cars, really do exist. And other schools say, no, they don't really exist. But they do agree... that those are the only kind of phenomena, other than thoroughly established, that have conventional existence anyway. The imputational, some of the imputationals exist and some of them don't. We'll get into that. But the imputation of essence to the car and attributes, the imputation that the car is separate from the broken leg, doesn't exist. None of the Buddhists say that exists. Well, none of the Mahayana Buddhists say that exists. The appearance of substantial separation between the broken leg and the car. But the dependently co-arisen aspect of the car is a dependent co-arising.

[35:43]

And they do exist, at least conventionally, according to most Mahayana Buddhists and all the earlier Buddhists would agree to. Now, the car is composed of other things, but that's what it means to be dependent on the core. The broken leg depends on other things in itself for its existence, and that's what it means to be a dependent core rising. It's not produced by itself. But this school... Char school and the Mind Only school does say that the leg and the car do come to be established by other conditions, but they're established by way of their own character at the same time. I'm with you up to where you say something like the broken leg and the car don't separately exist.

[36:49]

This may not be exactly your words, but something like that. Those substantially exist separately. They just appear to be. And so I guess that's why I asked the question about the absolute, where on one level it's like, okay, there's a car and there's a broken leg. But then on another level, okay, it's all energy appearing in different forms. Yes, so you're wondering, on a relative level, does a separation exist? Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're saying? Is that your question? It might be. What do you think? We hear that ultimately the separation between the leg and the car, and between the person with the broken leg and the car, that your sense of your body and the car, ultimately that separation is not substantially existent.

[38:12]

But I guess you're asking, well, is it conventionally existent? I don't think so. I don't think it even exists conventionally. I don't think so. Yeah. But according to conventional realities, it would exist in that reality. Yeah. According to the reality of where it appears to exist that way, there is a sense, there is an appearance that things are out there separate from you. Okay? There is that. And it's true that things appear that way, but it's not true that the separation is true. Conventional truth doesn't say that really there is a separation. It's just true that there's a sense that there really is a separation.

[39:16]

There's a truth that it appears that it does. That's true. It does. But we're not saying that it's actually convention, that there's a conventional existence to that separation. The person with the broken leg is experiencing pain, but the car is not experiencing pain. How is it? Yeah, so that seems to kind of reify in the conventional reality a difference, a differentiation between the two characters. That makes me think that they're separate. Like, if it was my broken leg, I would definitely feel different than the car. So therefore, it makes me think I'm separate than the car. Well, you mean... But does that mean that if you bump into somebody else and you both break your legs that you feel... Yeah.

[40:22]

No, no. I wouldn't feel any less separate. It doesn't matter what the object is, really. Because no matter what it is, I'm here by myself. I don't need you. Which means that I'm not looking at the other dependent. I'm distracted from the other dependent by the imputational. So we need to focus on the other dependent. We need to learn how to study that. And again, catch how we don't believe. that teaching that we're confusing the other dependent quality because of our imagination. Yes? When you said that, I just don't get this, but the intertational is permanent because it doesn't really exist.

[41:31]

I can't... because it doesn't really arise or cease. Essences and attributes don't arise or cease. The thought of them does. Right? Again, we don't think that rocks think of essences and attributes. That's the kind of dependent core arising they are, but the kind of dependent core arising humans are is that they can think and they can imagine, they can conceive of essences and attributes. They can conceive of that what they're aware of is out there separate from themselves. They're independent of what they're knowing.

[42:33]

People can conceive that conceiving is a dependent core arising, That's an impermanent thing. And that's the center of our meditation, is to watch our processes of conceiving and misconceiving and believing and all that. But the imputation of the essence, that imputation, that's not the imputing, that's the actual essence. That essence doesn't arise. Essences don't arise instead. If they arise and cease, they're not essences, they're dependent co-horizons. They're not, you know, they're not permanent things. But things that don't arise and cease are permanent. Conceptualizing is co-dependent. Yeah. But what you conceptualize are permanent. Because you're conceptualizing a permanence. You conceptualize something that doesn't arise. If essences arise... They're not essences. So we go ahead and think of things that don't happen.

[43:39]

And therefore, since they don't happen, they're permanent. Because if they don't happen, they don't cease. Can you give an example? I can. Can you give one? An essence is an example of something. What we mean by essence is something self-existent, that doesn't arise depending on things. So we sort of know that things arise in dependence on things, and yet these things that we know that arise in dependence on things, we project an essence on them, that they're out there on their own, rather than see things as in this arising. When you see how things arise from many conditions, when you see that, then of course you don't project an essence on them. When you see that you're arising from various conditions, you don't project essences on it. So the rock doesn't have an essence? The rock does not have an essence?

[44:42]

Right. It doesn't. But we... So essences, or another example of something that is permanent, is the separation... between self and other. It's kind of permanent. That doesn't arise. The projection of it arises, the imagination of it arises, but the thing you're talking about, you don't see that arising. If you saw it arise, you wouldn't believe it was substantial. Rockiness is permanent, isn't it? Rockiness is permanent? Yes. Rockness is permanent? Yeah. Yeah, rockness is permanent. Rock is the essence, rockness is the essence of rock. But there is no rockness. And all the things, all the attributes of rocks, that's why I said before, the funny thing is we project essences and then we project attributes. Kind of like to substantiate the essence, but why would you have something to substantiate something that doesn't need any substantiation because it's substantially self-existent?

[45:48]

So what do you, you know, again, what do you have that for? Well, because it needs it. but doesn't accept to fool us and our friends. So these imputations are permanent. Now some imputations that are some other imputations which are also permanent exist. However, they also don't arise or cease because they're permanent. space, uncompounded space. It's just an imagined thing. You can't perceive it directly. It doesn't arise or cease, but it does exist. I haven't heard that one. But the process of the general characteristic of all phenomena, that they arise, last for a little while, deteriorate and cease, that is

[46:59]

general characterization of phenomena, it's an imagined thing, you can't find it. When you look for it, all you find is phenomena. That's this type, the imputational type, is what we call the two types of cessation. And one type of cessation is the type of cessation of afflictions. There's two types. One type comes through practice, which Shakyamuni... It's a name for what happened to Shakyamuni. Part of what happened to Shakyamuni on the bow tree was he attained a cessation of... due to his yogic practice, due to his insight. He attained the end of outflows, the cessation of affliction. That happened. But that doesn't arise or cease. Huh? It's an imputation. It's something which we imagine. But it's not the imputation of essences and attributes.

[48:03]

And you don't have to, like, in the dependent co-arising world, we don't, generally speaking, confuse that with what's happening. We don't confuse the... What do you call it? Pratica... The... What's it called? Pratisamkhya Naroda. We don't usually confuse the cessation due to yoga practice or due to effort. We don't usually confuse that with a ball or a tree. So, the thoroughly established is not that we don't confuse cessation... another person. That's not a problem. Matter of fact, the cessation is a wonderful thing. It's just that it's imaginary because it's actually just that there's no more suffering. That's not a thing in the sense of something arises and ceases. It doesn't arise or cease. It's just realized. Another kind of a cessation which is called apratisamta-nirudha, or it's a kind of cessation of misery and affliction that arises when you don't have a body anymore.

[49:11]

Or, you know, you could say pari-nirvana, perfect nirvana. It's not actually something you can observe. You can't really observe, you can't reserve this absence or the end, the cessation, you can't really observe the cessation of affliction. Okay? And it does exist. So, sorry, but that's the way sometimes things are taught. It's on the list of things that are happening. Not things, not things that are happening. These things don't happen. Some things, some phenomena don't happen. And I've just told you some. And then there's one more that doesn't happen. It's called the thoroughly established character. It doesn't happen. It's permanent. So the impermanent phenomena are surrounded by permanent, in a sense, in this presentation. These two are permanent, this one's impermanent.

[50:17]

But the impermanent is the central meditation on the impermanent. We always stay here in the world of impermanence because this is where these other truths come, this is where people, you know, there's a dependent core arising of people who believe in misconceptions and suffer and so on. This is Buddha's home base. And this is what Buddha teaches. Meditate on the impermanent. Meditate on the dependent core arising. And then we can start looking at the one kind of permanent thing, which is these imputations. And we can also study the dependent core arising of the imputation, of the imputing. We can study the unreliable, unpredictable, uncontrollable process of imagining permanent things. And that will help you, but that's based on the imprintment. And then by studying that and understanding that, you can also see how, when the... of the imputational in the other dependent.

[51:25]

If we then look at that abscess, we start to undo the whole process. We can actually, like, change ourselves, who are normally built to believe our misconceptions and suffer. So then emptiness or suchness or the thoroughly established is a permanent phenomenon too. And we can actually perceive directly. But we can't directly perceive these sensations and you can't perceive space. But it's proposed to you that those are phenomena And they exist. But there's some things, some of the imputational things don't. So some of the imputational things do, and some of them don't. So a self doesn't exist at all. It's just completely imagination, and it's not an existent imagination.

[52:28]

But none of those thoughts are dependent upon arising. They don't arise and cease. But our imagining these things that don't arise and cease, that imagining doesn't arise and cease. Imagining is actually other dependent character. So this stuff is supposed to be happening, so you should be able to find it. Unless the picture's just kidding or misled. But supposedly, we're all involved in these processes. There's this line that says, independence upon strongly adhering to the other dependent character as being the computational character The other dependent character is known. It sounds to me like... That's one of the big surprises of the suture. I strongly adhere to the other dependent as the imputation of the other dependent is known. This is a big one. Another way to put that is the only way you can know the other dependent is by confusing it.

[53:39]

Imputational. So it's a dirty window, but it's the only window we got? It's a dirty window, but it's the only window we got. Yeah, right. Yeah, right. That's darkly, that's it. However, if you don't want to look through the dark glass, fine. Fine. but you don't get to see anything on the other side of it. However, I thought Helen's point was interesting the other day when she said, well, maybe it's by that you know the thoroughly established, and maybe in samatha, in a sense, I don't know what you said, but did you say no? Or understand? Understanding might be different from knowing. In a sense, prajna or insight, in terms of Buddhist psychology, is not exactly the same as cognition, although it's an actor that can pervade a cognition or an awareness.

[54:58]

So awareness can have objects. And, but prajna, in a sense, isn't necessarily like knowing something, but maybe just understanding the something. So you're looking at an object, but you have an understanding of it. So maybe when you're in a state of you have, what do you call it, given up certain processes of imputation, and therefore, in that way you calm down. So maybe when you meet objects in this state of tranquility, you're more willing to, like, you know, give up knowing them. In other words, give up using the imputation in order to know them. So in that way, maybe through... That's one of the advantages of the tranquility, is you can get closer to things in a way, be more intimate with them, without, you know, you give up...

[55:59]

the wonderful facility of the invitation which makes it possible for you to talk about what's happened. So in tranquility you're not so much like trying to make a living off phenomena anymore. So would that be like getting up early in the morning, tranquility? In a way, yeah. Yeah, so that's maybe what the sutra means, is that the price of knowing things Huh? What? Is what? What's somebody say? The price of knowing things is adhering to the other dependent as a... And the price, certainly the price of speaking about things involves this imputation. Otherwise we just really feel ground, we feel like ungrounded or unwarranted in talking about... if we don't really think we're talking about something that's actually there. We feel kind of silly when we think we're talking about something that we don't think is really there.

[57:03]

Right? But sometimes you can be with something without really thinking it's there, and somehow not talk, and yet here you are with it, but you can't talk about it. So you think, well, okay, fine. Is that enough cedar on that for now? Yes. I don't know who's next. I think you were next, Richard. I was wondering if you could address the relationship between imputing and discursive thought. And it sounded like in your last answer you... Imputing is not the same as discursive thought. You can impute, in a sense, without running around in your mind. Imputing is more like faster for you. When you disappear, just boom. So when you see a red ball that's already imputing, that's not discursive thought.

[58:10]

Discursive thought is more back and forth with that red ball. But when you give up discursive thought, you also start to like imputing. Although deep in your mind, you still have that proclivity, that disposition due to past karma. You still have that disposition towards imputing. You haven't eliminated it. You still may believe the appearance, that the appearance is out there. You still may be that sense, but you've calmed down so much, you're so relaxed with it. It's attenuated considerably. And then you're not going into afflictive emotions and karma. But you're not also going down and addressing that belief which is still there and uprooting it and being convinced that hold water.

[59:21]

And you really can't. It's not really, really there. You're not doing that work. However, this way of being, once you are convinced and have done that work, this way of being brings additional light to the situation. It brings you closer to the situation that you've had insight with. So it deepens the insight. But it doesn't really create the insight all by itself. So it deepens the insight. But it doesn't really... all by itself. It doesn't have to, so no problem. I don't know who's next, but... Yes? When you were saying about Helen's point that perhaps in shamatha practice you're not knowing the way to insight using this... What I thought of was in the Bodhisattva Sutra, it seems like the first chapter, he's basically, there's a clear crystal.

[60:28]

There's thus the realization of the Buddha. In the second chapter, skill and means, where they, the only reason to talk or enter a discourse of thinking is to help others. There's a motive for it. The only reason for Buddhas to enter into discursive thought is to help people. And they can do that. make conventional designations, not questionable. Those are Buddha's need to go through that same process of using, of checking in to imputation hotel so that they can have the ability to make conventional designations. And I would think that they have to, they have to sort of come and that they can do that, but they don't, but they also remember at the same time that this imputation is not confused with the other dependent.

[61:33]

They just use it skillfully in order to be able to talk to people who still have some confusion in their relationship to the other dependent. And then they can hear instructions about how to look at that confusion from the one who understands the confusion and has seen how to resolve it. Yes. I think I have a few things, and it's just a statement, but I think I wrote... So I'm just going to... I want you to give me feedback. Okay. Okay. When you see the other dependent through the IC, you see the GEC? So she wrote down, when you see the other dependent through the imputational character, you see the... Thoroughly established? No. When you see the other dependent through the imputational, you see a delusion.

[62:35]

When you see the imputational as the imputational, you see a delusion. It's not a delusion that the imputation is an imputation. It's the adhering to the imputation or to the projection of... It's particularly... And in particular, it's confusing the imputation of essences and attributes or substantial... That's projected onto the other dependent. That's delusion. What they're saying, to think that the clear crystal is of ruby, that's delusion. But just the red color in the cloth... The red color in the cloth is the imputation. In that example, the red cloth that the crystal is sitting on, the red cloth is the imputation, but the red cloth is a delusion. It would only be a delusion to think that that applied to the crystal. But it doesn't apply to the crystal. The crystal doesn't really have the red cloth with it, and also the... But when you confuse the red cloth, the imputation...

[63:44]

you lose track that the imputation is a red cloth and the crystal is a clear crystal. Now you have a ruby. That's how it works. So, no, when you see the other, you don't see that they're early established. Matter of fact, you don't see the other dependent or that they're early established at that time. You just see the imputation, and you think that's what's happening. However, looking at the imputational is different than looking at the imputational when it gets confused with the other dependent. So you see, when you look at the imputational, you see a red cloth. When you confuse them, you see a ruby. Rubies are more interesting than red cloths to some people, unless the red cloth is made of very high quality silk. Does that make sense? Yeah. I don't know who's next. Rosie? Good. You've got to go to work. You just said, when you see the other dependent through the imputational, but before you didn't say there's no other way to see the other dependent?

[64:56]

There's no other way to know it. I didn't say there's no other way. Because the sutra says, by adhering to the other dependent as the imputational, the other dependent is known. No other way to know it, but... It doesn't really say there's no other way to know it, but maybe that's the case, that in order to know it, you have to make that confusion. However, understanding that process, it says later, by understanding that process you understand the afflictive phenomena. You can have a sense? Well, this is in our chapter, right? No, it's in this chapter. So, if you study the way, sort of drawn into this confusion in order to know what's happening. We want to know what's happening, because what's happening really is the basic meditation. But in order to know what's happening, we have to also mix in this fantasy stuff. But then we also notice what's happening is affliction.

[66:00]

Affliction arises in conjunction with this confusion. So by studying this the dynamics between knowing and the holding to the other dependent as the impotential, by studying that process, we understand the afflictive character. You're saying that is the impotential? Studying the process... Studying how, that in order to know the other dependent, we must hold to it as something that it isn't. which I said before, it's like Rosie, I have to think Rosie as Carolina. That's the only way I can know Rosie is holding to Rosie as Carolina. But that's the way I can know Rosie. It's not right, but it gives me some access to Rosie in terms of knowing her. But again, it may be that although I don't know you, I actually understand you.

[67:04]

that when I meet you without that, I actually understand you, but I don't understand you the way I would understand you so I could talk about you and, you know, make a date with you or something. In order to do that, I kind of got confused in order to negotiate certain things. Yeah, I thought, talk to me first. No, no, no. I'm just kidding. No, no, no. Grace? Grace? It seems to me that there's another sort of imputation that's going on that we're not really talking about. For example, blue, and we do the crystals. And then we confuse that sapphire.

[68:07]

Sapphire is an other dependent process in all of our brain waves and discursive thought that's there by virtue of a long history of mind, or whatever we want to call it. So that's another... other dependent characteristic that's arising that then makes it possible. Isn't this correct for the imputation to be taken as the imputation? But here's the color, here's the crystal, here's the color, and then the third thing over here is here's this repository of images, experiences, history that is sitting just like the crystal over there. Mm-hmm. That repository, when things that arise from that repository, those are other dependent phenomena too.

[69:12]

However, it's possible that... Let's see. David. It says in the sutra, independence upon absence of strong adherence to the other dependent character as being the imputational character, the thoroughly established character is known. Right. And it seems to me... It seems to me, you said before, that the absence of the imputational... with the thoroughly established. Yes. But this sounds like it's saying the absence of the other dependent is the thoroughly established. Absence of the other dependent? Will you read it again? I want to read it. Sure. Independence upon absence of strong adherence to the other dependent character as being the invitation. Yeah, that's the absence. It's strong absence of adhering to the other dependent as the imputation, in the absence of that adherence, in the absence of the adherence of this as being that, is the thoroughly established.

[70:26]

No, it's not the other dependent that's absent, it's the adhering to it as something that it's not. So when you don't adhere to what's happening as what it's not, in the absence of that adherence, you're open to ... or the thoroughly established. But once again, I think there is circulating in the Buddhist community of people who are studying this teaching a view that the other dependent, in the absence of the imputation, that that's the thoroughly established. In other words, that the other dependent is the thoroughly established when it's cleaned up. Or some other people think that the essence of the other dependent is that it doesn't have, that it's empty of the imputation. They think there's an essence in there. Then you realize that through the other dependent is realized the third established, which is right.

[71:28]

The third established is based on the other dependent not having the imputation. So it's based on it, but it's not if. It's when you talk to the other dependent as being what it's not. So another place it says that the other dependent is not established in everlasting, everlasting time as the imputation. That's the thoroughly established. Putting it positively, the thoroughly established is established in everlasting time as the absence, as the imputation. The impotential. Either way I'll put it. It puts it in a non-modern way. Rick? So the absence is the belief that what you see, what you think you see, is actually what you see. The absence of that. The absence of that. Let's see. Allison, I think?

[72:28]

It's intimacy with what's happening. If you bring in insight, then I think you've brought in something that's not necessarily... But tranquility sets the stage for insight work. So I've recently been... I presented this scenario. Scenario is like kind of narrative or play, right? Not the whole play. So the scenario is trust, relax, play, Create, understand.

[73:34]

That applies to this process. So the relaxation part is the tranquility practice. The plane is when you start studying the nature of phenomena, start interacting with them, start probing them, and let them sort of poke at you and poke back and be kind of excited a little bit. But you're doing it in a relaxed way. And as you get into this play with phenomena, you enter into creativity, or you enter into actually enacting the other dependent. And as you enact the other dependent one more, you realize to what extent the potential is getting in there and causing suffering. And you find the mode in which the other is there in the absence. And then you see the absence and you understand. And then you're liberated, or liberated. So, trust. Trust is the foundation. Trust, relax, play, create, understand, liberate.

[74:45]

Or trusting, relaxation, playing, creating, understanding, and liberating. Or trust, relaxation, playfulness, creation, understanding, and liberation. That's pretty nice. Abstract nouns? Birds? And what else was it? Jerry. I was wondering if you could give us like a practical breakdown, an example of this, in terms of using the example of... Yeah, so I was talking to someone about that today.

[75:49]

So you have this phenomenon of war arising, or let's say, you know, actually you're meeting a war, a war is going on, and so you're aware of it, and so you want to practice insight with this war. That means that you would actually become aware that you catch this appearance that the war was out there separate from you. Or you'd actually catch the imputation that there was an essence and attributes to this war scene. You'd catch that. Then you would notice that you believe it. Then you would notice the afflictive emotions arising. Then you would notice karma based on those arising. Then you would notice that you start acting or interacting with this thing in such a way as to propel the process of misery in relationship to this phenomena called war.

[76:54]

That's what most people would do, right? Can we back up a little bit? Sure. Back up all the way to the beginning, and catch the beginning, and then you see the war, and you catch the imputation, and you snuff it. And then you don't go into this process of defilement and contaminated action and misery. So would snuffing it be believing that I'm separate from it? it would be not so much not believing that you're separate from it, but sort of that. It would be even more like that the belief that you're separate from it would now be absent, which is slightly different than you not believing it. But sort of like that. In other words, you'd be paying attention not to, you'd be noticing not so much that you don't believe it, but that the belief's not there. And also even the appearance is not there. then you'd be looking at the war and realizing emptiness on that occasion.

[77:58]

And then, in your liberation, if you then can, if you happen to be also practicing, for example, common thought, tranquility meditation, and patience, and the precepts, and giving, if you join your compassion practices with this You might be able to go and teach the people who are involved in the war something to help them also start to become liberated from their life of seeing war out there and thinking it's separate, seeing the enemy, seeing the non-combatants. So that's a possible response to war. In other words, it's possible to look at the war and look at suffering and be liberated while looking at suffering, your own or other suffering. Even looking at situations where people are, like, being cruel to each other. To meet these situations and be liberated is a scenario that's being offered as a possibility.

[79:04]

And when liberated, If you do the other practices, so we have the wisdom practices we're talking about now. If you do the other practices, which are the compassion practices of giving, precepts, patience, enthusiasm, and concentration. So those five culminate in tranquility practice. So tranquility practice, in some sense, assumes the previous compassion practices. So you bring the compassion together with it, And then you become actually able to be effective in relating to this ocean which has war and has some peace, but people are unhappy in peace, too. People are in a peace situation, but they're inwardly afflicted, so they take drugs and stuff like that, and then they start shooting each other. So anyway, it's this ocean of misery arising from misconception, from… And if you meet this ocean this war with that way, then hopefully you can make a positive contribution to a war scene.

[80:10]

Although you might not actually go in the war scene. You might go visit the generals, who are sort of like... You might go visit them and teach them first. But you might actually walk into the war scene, perhaps. Or you might be forced into the war scene. And then the way you behave in the war scene might contribute to some people waking up. If you're in a war scene, it's possible sometimes to be kind in a war scene. People who are fighting against the other side actually are kind to the other side. And it doesn't get them in trouble. And it's possible to teach compassion and teach wisdom in a war scene. I say that. but really more like, I think that would be wonderful if it were true. I hope that that's possible. I've heard stories of it. I love those stories.

[81:13]

I've heard stories of people being in war scenes and making it worse. Those are exciting stories too, but people being in war scenes and doing this very unusual thing, doing something good. But in a sense, you know, we are always in some kind of relative situation of conflict in this world. Can we meet these conflicts and do something good? The idea is that if we have wisdom and liberation and compassion, we might be able to make a positive contribution. And sorry to say, sorry to talk like this, but even if you can't make much contribution, at least you're happy and free and not causing any trouble. Until you get... My God, am I going to confess this now? No. I was wondering if you could, because I'm a little confused on the definition of absence.

[82:30]

Yes. And if you need to have something first in order for there to be absence, or if there can just be something without it ever being. Thank you. is in relationship to phenomena. And in particular, the suchness of phenomena is in relationship to actually three kinds of phenomena, or actually many kinds. But anyway, basically, the most important, I think, the two most important types of absence are the absence in relationship to dependently co-arisen phenomena, which are the center of our life. you know, birth and death, bodies, trees, trucks, people. These are dependently co-arisen things. That's our basic thing we pay attention to, we meditate on. The absence is in relationship to them.

[83:34]

It's an absence in them of the impotential. That's one kind of absence. Absence, if you take away that, the basic kind of absence has no meaning. The absence of the imputational doesn't mean anything except absence of the imputational in the other dependent. But there also can be the absence of the imputational in the absence of the imputational. It's a second type of important absence. Because once you find the suchness of phenomena, which is what we focus on in order to develop, once you find that suchness, which is the absence of imputational under the dependent, it's also possible then to project the imputational under the suchness. So we also have to then have the second type of absence, or suchness of suchness, which is that suchness doesn't have an essence or attribute either.

[84:34]

So those are two kinds of suchness, But they're both based on something. They both have a base. We're not concerned with absences, just free-floating. There's also absence of essence and attributes in these other, those other imputational factors. but in some sense they're not that important for most people. We don't have a big problem of attributing a feeling like the cessations are out there separate from us, because we almost never run into them. And space, too, it's not that big a deal. It would be good to see that you're not meditating on a dependent core rising, that you're meditating on imagination, and an imaginary thing. But that can also be, well, it's from mathematics to some extent, you know, that can also be productive. So we do that, too. But the two most important are the absence and relationship arising phenomena and absence in relationship to the absence.

[85:45]

So they're both based on something. So I don't know. So we have Max, I think, was next. You said that the The imputational character and the thoroughly established character are permanent. The imputational character and the thoroughly established character are permanent? Did you say that? Yeah, I did. I said you have these permanent things surrounding the impermanent. Phenomena are impermanent. Some phenomena are not impermanent. Space and the two kinds of... The two kinds of cessation are phenomena. They're listed on the phenomena list. They're phenomena. And they're permanent. But they're permanent. And there's one other thing which is a phenomena in a sense. It's the phenomena of the lack of the imputation in the other dependent. It's a phenomena too.

[86:48]

It's a permanent phenomena. Which is the thoroughly established character. Pardon? Which is the thoroughly established character. Right. The thoroughly established character is permanent. It's a permanent phenomenon. Permanent character phenomenon. It's established in everlasting, everlasting time. It's always the case that whenever anything happens, actually always, whenever anything happens, there's an absence of the imputation. So everything that happens... ...quality of being free of our ideas of it. So you don't have to worry, actually. You just got to get with the program. Which is hard, because we have this tendency to not be with the program, to actually... We actually think, it appears, that what's happening... ...imputations. But really... That's just occasional, and very common, but just once in a while. Less than always.

[87:49]

That's why all the imputation itself is a permanent thing. The imputing, you don't always, you're not always imputing. But always the imputation doesn't make it. There's always an absence of the imputation. So that's the suchness. That's thoroughly established. That's permanent. Okay? Thanks. Okay. Nellie? I was wondering if there are critical psychological terms to the restart of the imputation, or are they highly dependent? Sort of equivalent, and if you want to, you know, next class I'll bring it up. It's a bit much to bring it up at this point. I think it's a bit much to bring it up. But if you remind me, I'll speak of this a little bit more psychologically next time. This actually is, although it may not appear this way, this is psychological.

[88:52]

This sutra is teaching... This sutra is a sutra which is teaching about ultimate reality and psychological processes, but also philosophical, because some of these things are not... Some of the objects... For example, the absence of misery, the absence of affliction, isn't really a psychological process. It's the end of the psychological process. It's a sort of philosophical theory, but it's... I want to go back to the appearance that objects are out there, cut off from you, and separate from your awareness. Yes. So, and you can also say that objects co-arise with your awareness. Correct. Some Buddhists put it. that the awareness and the object come up together. It isn't like the awareness comes up and says, Okay, well, come on, what do we do?

[89:54]

When is something going to happen? You never have awareness coming up sort of unemployed. Awareness doesn't come up ahead of the object. And the object doesn't come up ahead of the awareness either. Objects don't mean anything without a subject. Phenomena aren't objects by their nature. They're objects only, not subjects. Trees are not objects without a subject. So anyway, when objects come up, subjects must come up. They come up together, and according to this school, they come up from the same scene. So there are... ...event. The scene's like two. This would also, question mark, be a way of describing how objects are not separate from each other. Exactly. It doesn't need to be the same as objects.

[90:55]

We're the same as the objects. We're in this dependent relationship. Right. Very good. Party? I just wonder if there's any more... Yeah, there's the rest of our life. You just made a good point, and now you can... ...and share with your friends for the rest of your life. This is a fact. She managed to come up with it. This is a teaching. Good teaching. Anybody who has not read the question, go ahead and call them. I think I asked a question. Okay. I was wondering, not the right time, the other day when you were talking about art, the image of Lego and some limbs, that artists might have that would still not be blistered, but would be somehow... Well, what I was referring to was a glimpse that's not yet wisdom.

[92:06]

It's some wisdom. It's something to say. In other words, what I was speaking of is that many people, some of you perhaps, have seen beauty Why didn't it happen so far? In this lifetime, have you seen beauty? You can see it, but you can't know it. Once you know it, what happens? You confused it with the invitation. So in some sense, we can, in a sense, see beauty, but we can't know it. And I was actually thinking that some people, in some works of art, somehow, the way causes and conditions work, when we meet them, in a sense, we go into a state of grace, where we actually like meeting the thing,

[93:16]

without the imputation, without the imputation. And so we're actually, like, impacted, you know, we're affected, we're transformed, we're moved by actually how things are happening, and we experience beauty at that time. And so, like my grandson kind of does, he strips away my imputations, and he's become a slave. A Zen master's slave, of course, but basically, there's something about this sense of separation that's kind of strange. It's like I can't hold up this thing to be intercepted. And some teachers are that way, some works of art are that way. You just look at them and suddenly you're stripped of the appearance that the art is out there. And sometimes some art is very upsetting, Because it strips you of this sense that it's out there.

[94:18]

And some people have to strip you of this sense that they're out there and you're over here.

[94:26]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_83.32