In the chapter of the Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra that has been chanted in morning service recently, it says that the Buddha taught the own character of the aggregates. and the own character of, for example, the foundations of mindfulness and the own character of the Eightfold Path and so on. In other words, he taught all these different analysis ways of approaching practice. in analytical way and that he taught the own character of these different aspects of the analysis as an approach to understanding.

[01:09]

And then it says, and the Buddha also taught that all dharmas lack own being, are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start and naturally in a state of nirvana. And then Bodhisattva asks, well, what were you thinking of when you taught that all dharmas lack own being? And then the Buddha analyzes that by saying, I was thinking of three types of lack of own being. So the chapter starts out by saying, first the Buddha taught all these analytic ways to approach dharma. the path of enlightenment. Then you taught kind of a non-analytic way. And what were you thinking of when you taught the non-analytic way? And then he said, well, I was thinking actually of an analytic, I had an analytic thing in my mind, but I didn't teach it.

[02:12]

So, the part of that pulse or dynamic of the presentation of teachings is that sometimes they're taught in a way that they're unpacked, in other words, analyzed, examined, so that you can get some intellectual or conceptual grasp on them. Sometimes they're presented, of course, when they're first presented, they're presented conceptually, but basically the conceptual presentation is give up conceptual approach. And the Zen school also goes back and forth in this way. In some sense, Bodhidharma's instruction to hueka is, you know, give all conceptual activity a rest

[03:21]

breathe through all conceptual activity, cease all conceptual activity, cease involvement with all circumstances. And as you can see from this sutra, circumstances means the circumstances as you imagine them, the circumstances as you conceive of them, because there is this conceptual element overlaying all circumstances of our experience. So give all that conceptual activity a rest in this way, and this is the way to enter the way. And Wang Bo says over and over, give up conceptual activity. Give up conceptualization. Give up conceptuality. Give up being involved in concepts. You'll never be able to... The approach to the enlightenment is not through concepts. So the Prajnaparamita... is represented by this non-conceptual approach or this approach of giving up all conceptual ways, all analytical ways of practice and entering into the immediacy of emptiness and then testing whether you have realized this emptiness by practice.

[04:57]

by practicing giving, the precepts, patience, enthusiasm, and meditation. So he's just immediately realizing freedom from concepts and then testing it in practice, and round and round. In a sense, this looks like the story of Bodhidharma and his disciples. However, it is always possible when transcending, there's always the possibility in the process of transcending all conceptual approaches to Dharma practice to slip into nihilism, to slip into actually a conceptual kind of grasping that there's nothing and that things don't matter. So, again, the Prajnaparamita approach is to test, to see if you've slipped into nihilism in practice.

[06:03]

This sutra is partly trying to give some conceptual approach to help us not slip into nihilism in the first place. So again, this sutra is analyzing things, presenting an analytic approach to practice. But it's still in accord with this, I think, realization which has transcended conceptuality, because the ultimate object in this sutra for purification of all obstruction to enlightenment is the absence of conceptual overlays on dependent phenomena. So this sutra is heading for that same non-conceptual place where no words reach.

[07:08]

It's just that it's willing to use a little bit more analysis to get to that place than the Prajnaparamita Sutras are, than the Heart Sutra is. Chapter 7, the questions of Paramartha are talking about this vacillation of approach. Chapter 6, the questions of Vinakara don't explain the method so much, but more just actually analyze phenomena. in this way that you're somewhat familiar with, which starts out by the bodhisattva asking the Buddha, Bhagavan, when you say bodhisattvas are wise with respect to the character of phenomena, just how are bodhisattvas wise with respect to the character of phenomena?

[08:16]

For what reason does the tathāgata designate a bodhisattva as being wise with respect to the character of phenomena? And so you've read this chapter a few times. So then the Buddha talks about the character of phenomena. And then he says, basically, when bodhisattvas know these three characters of phenomena as they really are, Then what? When they know these three characters, the imputational character, the other dependent character, and the thoroughly established character as they really are, then what? Yes? Pardon? Yes, and what else do they know? Go ahead. You can say it. It's all right. Don't be afraid to show off. They know afflicted phenomena as they really are.

[09:23]

And when they know afflicted phenomena as they really are, what do they know? Huh? Then they know purified phenomena as they really are. When they know purified phenomena as they really are, then what's possible? Huh? What? They abandon the phenomena of afflicted character. When they abandon phenomena and afflict the character, then what? Then they realize phenomena of purified character. And then what? Huh? Then they're wise, yeah. Then they're wise. In other words, now they're actually meditating on reality. And then when they meditate on reality, what happens? Now that they're wise and they're meditating on reality, then what happens? They go out for a beer. Yeah, they go out for a beer. And what else?

[10:29]

While they're having a beer, what happens? Huh? Yeah, they liberate us. They go through all the paths, all the stages up to Buddhahood. While they're wise, and they get wiser and wiser. They're wise and then they start with stage one of wiseness and go up to stage ten of wiseness. All the while, testing the wiseness by liberating beings to see if they can... Because to make sure they're not getting off track, they work with beings all the way to Buddhahood. So that's basically what this chapter is saying. That's how bodhisattvas are wise. Does that make sense? Can you say it? Can you say what we just said? I don't think so. Can you? What you said?

[11:31]

Yeah. My questions and the answers to the questions. The question was how bodhisattva arise. Yeah, so like for example, when they know the imputational characters it really is. Yes. Then what do they know? Then what do they know? They don't know. They don't know. Okay. How about you? You know that one? They know the imputational is not the other dependent. They know the imputational is not the other dependent? Mm-hmm. And when they know the other dependent, what do they know? When they know the other dependent as it really is, what do they understand, what do they know?

[12:31]

No. They know what? They know the afflicted character. And when they know the other, the thoroughly established as it really is, what do they know? A purified character. Yes? The other dependent is C, so that's a good thing. like what's really there and not there, et cetera. So I was a little confused by this association between the other dependent and the afflicted character. What is this afflicted stuff? Do you identify it with the other dependent? In some opinions, maybe you've addressed it. Can you hold that question in the air for a while? Can you hold that question for a while? I'd just like to sort of see if people got the basic pattern here of what bodhisattva's why, how a bodhisattva's why is, before we get into the details. In other words, we're trying to find out what do they accomplish when they're wise, and then you go back and then you will accomplish them that stuff. I just wanted to give an overview of this so you see that this is what Buddha means by wise.

[13:42]

By the end of the chapter, we realize that wise means they know these three characters. First of all, he teaches you the three characters. Then you understand them as they really are. And when you understand them as they really are, then you understand, in a sense, three more things. And when you understand those three things, you become free of the afflicted character and realize the purified character. And then you're back to the beginning of the chapter where it's said that the thoroughly established character is the suchness of fall phenomena. And by meditating on this, bodhisattvas go to work, enter the way. So meditating on the thoroughly established is like what Bodhidharma was trying to teach And then when Huayka understood this, then he entered the way. I was wondering if you have a picture of this. This is actually kind of just a basic thing about the shape of the chapter.

[14:44]

Three characters, and then it tells you about them. And then when you understand them, you understand these three other characters, which are really not the basic characters, but realizations about the first three characters. And then when you understand these three, then you become liberated from the afflicted character. And then you're wise. And then you go to work. So I just want you to have that basic picture of that chapter. The second thing, our character that's afflicted and hurt her? They're not exactly the same as the first three. They're things you understand about phenomena by understanding the first three, which are characteristic of all phenomena. So that's the basic overview, and then we can go back and look in detail. I have a question, too. Yes. Do you have the chaplet here? Yeah.

[15:46]

At the end, when the Buddha is speaking in verse, I think there is something that I'm not sure if I understand well, when they say that they talk about contraction at the very end. And I don't understand that point. It means people who don't understand these natures? No. They say, weak regarding stable and they are object of compassion. Yes, people who are weak in this understanding, they are objects of compassion. If you see someone who doesn't understand this, then compassion should... They are object you apply compassion to. Yes, I didn't understand if what was object of compassion were the phenomena, but the people is... It's a person who doesn't understand this teaching. In other words, most people don't understand this teaching and these people should be meditated on with compassion because they don't understand what's happening.

[16:54]

Yes. I heard that I didn't hear at the beginning of the class that the abhutya character is when the other dependent is taken as the imputational. But if you perceive your imputation as the other dependent character, there's abhutya. Well, affliction arises from that. That's what you're told about in chapter 7. You find out that when you take the... when you grasp the other dependent as being the imputational, that affliction arises. And I'm confused about where the characterlessness, where does that arise? Characterlessness is when you study the imputational, you would see that it lacks its own character. It doesn't even have its own character. It's totally imaginary. When you understand the imputational characters, it really is you understand characterless phenomena, which is similar to what you hear in the next chapter, is when it talks about the three kinds of lack of own being, that the imputational character, it says, is a lack of own being in terms of character, right?

[18:35]

And it explains how, there it explains how it lacks own being in terms of character. In other words, it doesn't come to exist by way of its own character. It doesn't exist like its character. Whereas the other dependent does exist like its character. And the thoroughly established also exists like its character. Do you understand that? Would you explain? How does the other dependent exist like its character? Or by way of its own character? The other dependent is always being produced, like it's... the production of it is dependent as other dependent, so it's... It's thoroughly established in that way? Not thoroughly established, but it exists. The other dependent exists like its character. Its character is other dependency, and that's how it exists, by depending on other things.

[19:38]

So it exists according to its character. But the imputational doesn't exist like its character. It exists just as a total fabrication. But that's not what it is. It doesn't say, I'm a total fabrication. It says, I'm a this. It doesn't exist that way. So that's related to understanding in the previous chapter that the characterlessness of phenomena. And that's related to understanding the imputational. But then the sequence that you went through at the beginning of class, how does that... What sequence? That's what you asked me to do. Yes. Yes. I don't... My understanding is weak in that area, because I think the feeling of what you just described, that seems... For some reason, I understood it a little bit better, John, than what you wanted to make sure we really understood at the beginning.

[20:43]

First of all, I wanted to see if you understood the overview of the chapter, and then we'll go back and look at the three characters. and see how they're described, how they're known. And by looking at those and the metaphors, you can start meditating on these three characters. And it's possible then that you would come to start understanding them better and better by listening to the teachings about them. But I just wanted you to see where the chapter's going at the beginning. that what wise, what he means by wise, he says at the end, but then he starts out by starting to teach you about the three characters. So he means wise, he means wise about these three characters, which involves learning three kinds of lack of own being, which is further developed in the next chapter. Okay, I see, I think I see all the hands. I don't know if you guys were before Greg.

[21:45]

Matt, you're done? I was just going to say, the other dependent character doesn't care what you think about it. It just does what it does. Is that right? No, it doesn't do what it does. Others, other things do what it does. But the imputational thinks it does what it does. That was the imputational you told us about. Huh? Pardon? What you think about it. What about what you think about it? The imputational character. Are you talking about the imputational character? Yes. Yes, what about it? That's what matters. The imputational character is what matters? About what you think. The imputational character is about what you think, yeah. And the other dependent character is not about what you think. It's not about what you think, but it's the basis of what you think. Right? That's also stated in Chapter 5.

[22:45]

But the other dependent is the basis of what you think. I see you. Yes? Okay. Yes? Yes? I was wondering what, maybe you'll get to the players, but the difference between knowing the Purified Character Phenomena and realizing the Purified Character Phenomena, we want two different lengths. Yeah, well, let's do it when we get there, okay? Yes? It seems like what we've studied so far is going through explaining three types of lack of own being, but where we've gotten to, at least at the end of chanting, it seems to be explaining this stage of realizing the lack of own being of the other dependent, but that there are two more lacks of own being that have not been realized yet, or?

[23:46]

That's right. That's right. That's right. However, you're in Chapter 7 now. Jumping ahead. You're jumping ahead, but what you said is true. What you've read at Chapter 7 so far, you're talking about, you've gotten to the point of understanding the first type of lack of own being. The Buddha says, I first teach the lack of own being in terms of production. And then you understand that, in what you've read so far, and you've come a long way. in what you've read so far, but then he says, but you're not completely liberated. And then he says, so in order to go for complete liberation, now I have to teach you the other two aspects that pertain to the other dependent, the other two types of lack of own being. Okay, and would it be... And then when you understand those, then you're completely liberated. But again, that's the next chapter. But you're right about your understanding there. Yes?

[24:49]

I just heard you say that the imputational, lack of one being of the imputationalist character does not have a character. But you also said it doesn't exist. Well, in this sutra, this imputational that they're talking about, I think, is an imputational that doesn't exist. There are some kinds of imputational that do exist, but the one that they're talking about in the sutra does not exist. The one they're talking about in the sutra is the essence of this stuff, is the essence of the other dependent. That doesn't exist at all. There's no essence to the other dependent, but we imagine that there is. Well, but on the level of names and symbols, I mean, we have to deal with it. So what is that? The names and the symbols are not the imputational character. Well, but... Names and symbols are other dependent phenomena.

[25:54]

It says the other dependent, the imputational character appears in dependence on names and symbols... Conventional designation is not the imputational character. Conventional designation, the way of using language, depends on the imputational character. The imputational character is not the imputational designation. The imputational character is like totally non-existent. It doesn't exist. The total zip on that one. However, based on zip, we build a conventional world. That's not zip. That has another dependent character. Yeah? Well, if it would not exist, we wouldn't have to deal with it. If what would not exist? Imputation. If the imagination of salt did not exist, we wouldn't have to deal with it? No, we're dealing with our imagination of something that does not exist.

[26:59]

Yes, but it exists in form of that imagination. The imagination exists, but what is imagined does not. And the imagination is not the imputational character. The imputational character is what is imagined in the object. Imagining a self is a phenomenon. You can imagine a self, but what you're imagining doesn't exist. Me imagining that you have a self, I do imagine that you're a self, that has conventional existence. But what I'm imagining, there's no such thing. The imputational character is not the imagining, it is what is imagined. For example, there are some imputational characters that do exist. For example, space is an imaginary thing. But it exists. But the imagination of space is not space.

[28:03]

And the imagination of self exists, but what is imagined does not. So in the case of space, the imagination of space is an other-dependent conscious activity. What is imagined is not consciousness. It's space. But it exists. But the self does not. And the self is what's being talked about in this sutra, in this chapter, and in the next chapter, and all the chapters. It's one type of imputational character. And it's the type that's the basis for conventional designation. Okay? Hmm? That is the basis of conventional designation? Well, I mean, when we say it, we imagine space. Isn't that also an imputation? I don't understand. Yes, it is. It is an imputation. But what you're imagining does exist. But not in the way that we imagine. No. No. But you're not imagining something that doesn't exist at all.

[29:07]

Space does exist, a little bit. But everything else doesn't. Huh? Everything else doesn't. Everything else doesn't? I mean, is space unique in what you just said? No, other... Other things like... Like chairs, cables... No, chairs and tables are not imputational characters. They're other dependent characters. No, I know that. The words, the idea, the essence of it is the imputational character. But if you said, you made a contrast between we imagine a self that doesn't exist, but we imagine space that does exist. Right. Where do chairs and tables... chairs and tables do exist. No. They exist also as dependent, like they have parts, you know, they depend on conditions. Space doesn't. So, and also, we do not imagine space and project it on people to make conventional designations on them.

[30:08]

We don't impute space onto cups and laws and Houses and people, we don't put space on them and then put our word on top of the space. We don't do that. We put a self on the person. We make the person into a graspable thing and then we put the word on that graspable thing. a self on space in order to stay with it? Yes. But the word, the conventional designation on space does not depend on space, on projecting space on it. It depends on projecting a self on the space. So in order to talk about space, you have to use the imputational character that we're focusing on in Buddhism. Namely, you have to put a self on space to make a conventional designation of it. But you don't have to put space on space to make a conventional designation of space.

[31:13]

You use the word space and project this essence of space onto space. Otherwise, we think, well, why put space on there? You know, we're reasonable people. Yes? I'm thinking about relationship between the invitational character and the other dependent character. The invitational character is characterless. It has an essence. Nothing has essence. When we act on what we assume. When we what? When we act on things that we impute, that are imaginary. We project our self out there onto something. Yeah. We project a self onto things? We project what we imagine to be a self onto things. Yes. And we act according to what we perceive as our imagination on the other dependent characters. Yes. The other dependent things are also going to respond to the way that we act.

[32:19]

Yes. Even though the way that we are acting may not be based on the way the other dependent characters are. Right. Is it that kind of back and forth thing that's going on? Is that where the afflictions come up? Yeah, that's where they come up. And then if we didn't believe our projection of essences onto beings and things, then the way we interacted with them would be different. It would be free of affliction eventually. So then the other dependent character, when the unificational character is removed from that, It's not so much removed, but we don't believe it. We don't hold... When we see the transparency of the invocation character and get a closer glint of the other dependent character, that's not affliction anymore. That's what? That's not affliction anymore.

[33:22]

Or is it still? At that moment, it doesn't sound very afflictive. However, that's not the end of the story because we have to actually not just for a moment not impute the imagination of a self onto things just for the moment. And it's true at that moment that's not very afflictive just to look to be facing the other dependent nature of things and not imputing this. That doesn't cause much trouble at the moment. However, unless you understand something more profound than that you can easily slip back into doing it again. So we actually have to see something more than just take a break from that. We have to, like, even while looking at the imputation, not believe that it applies to the other dependent. So there's a little bit more work to do there, but you're getting close to it. But, you know, I kind of feel like maybe it'd be good to look at the text a little bit, because I think not everybody, well, you know, Not everybody is like scintillated by this conversation and is like on the edge of their seat because of understanding so well and looking for the next realization.

[34:34]

So I think it might be good to look at this. At least that's the way it looks. So I guess you probably already know what the imputational character is, right? You do? Could you say it? Well, it's what we, as we look at whatever we think is the world, we conceptualize. So we've got, this is a distinct microphone existing with some right, you are, and you are, and the door is, and so on and so forth. And that whole screen of conceptualization is not in those opinions at all. Right. That's right. The imputational character is that which is imputed. It's not the process of imputation, it is that which you impute as names or symbols in terms of own being

[35:50]

or attributes of phenomena in order to subsequently designate any convention whatsoever. Does anybody have the compendium of chapter, in this chapter? Huh? Want to read the other translations of what the imputational character is? is entirely imagined refers to the establishing of names and symbols for all things and the distinguishing of their essences, whereby they come to be a depressing language. OK, one more. The merely conceptual characteristic of kanahana as red refers to the differences in the identity of a thing as provisionally defined by name in order to talk about them. So that's the imputational character. And to me, that definition makes clear why we need it. We need it in order to actually be human and have language.

[36:58]

We have to use this thing. Now, there are times when humans don't have to be human. In other words, we don't always have to be using language. So we can take a break from this sometimes. At that time, we won't be able to talk. But in ordinary life, we are able to make designations and talk, and we need to use the imputational character. But what is possible is to be using the imputational character while simultaneously not holding to it, not believing that it really does encompass the other dependent character. However, it's pretty tricky to do that because you have to put it on some other dependent character in order to make the designation. So to be able to do that is the course that the sutra is, this big course that the sutra is proposing. So I'd like to read now the other dependent character, which is pretty simple. That's an easy one. What is the other dependent character?

[37:59]

It is simply the dependent origination of phenomena. The basic Buddhist teaching. Yes? Pardon? Well, before it says 12-fold chain, it says a more basic principle. It is like this. Because this exists, that exists. Because this perishes, that perishes. And then it ranges. For example, 12-fold chain describes how suffering arises. This is one of our main issues. how suffering arises and how suffering ceases. But aside from even the process of suffering arising and ceasing, all phenomena follow this principle. All phenomena follow this principle. There are no phenomena that do not depend on the co-arise. So they all have this character. That's the second character. The third character what is a thoroughly established character of phenomena, it is the suchness of phenomena.

[39:04]

It's the way they actually are. And this suchness is not the same and also it's not really different from the dependent origination. because suchness is the ultimate and it transcends sameness and difference from dependently co-arisen phenomena and compounded phenomena. So that's one of the great subtleties of the Buddha Dharma is how the ultimate transcends being the same or transcends being different or non-different from compounded things. What phrase? The earlier chapter in the sutra which goes into detail about whether the ultimate is different or non-different from compounded things.

[40:12]

And the chapter simply states that the ultimate transcends, suchness transcends. Suchness transcends. Emptiness transcends. The ultimate meaning transcends completely. Being different from or non-different from compound phenomena. No. There are some other dependent phenomena that are not compounded. such as suchness. Emptiness is not compounded, but it's a dependent co-arising. Almost everything we ever otherwise experience in space is also not compounded. Pardon? Pardon? Pardon? Can suchness be seen as non-conceptuality?

[41:24]

Well, in a way, but when you say non-conceptuality, Do you mean the actual state or the actual fact of being free from concepts, or do you mean understanding that? So emptiness is not exactly the same as prajnaparamita. Prajnaparamita understands suchness. And so the non-conceptual nature of suchness is what's understood by perfect wisdom. I see you, and you had your hand in the Bible, didn't you? Do you remember what it was? Right. So those are the three characters, and now I think you've got them somewhat, so now would be time for just sort of like work it. And let's see, Sonia has not, and Connie has not, and Joan has not, and you come next.

[42:32]

And yours, if you remembered it. What do you mean by self? Because I'm thinking what I understand is not what you understand. So is it the same as ethos? Yeah, self, self, essence. In other words, self is... My self. Huh? Just self thing. Yeah, self is basically something that exists independent of other things. So it's emotive mind. It is the object of the dualistic mode of mind. Between what? I think it's important to understand the difference between knowing and what is known. Usually, the way we know things is we think that the things we know are out there on their own, separate from the knowing.

[43:39]

What will that help me do? It will help you give up the belief that what you know is separate from your knowing. Ah, so if I put it in terms of seeing, my usual understanding is that there are things out there. Yes, separate from your knowing of them. That's a normal kind of, that's one of the types of self. Seeing is actually invisible to me. My experience of seeing could be... I just wonder if that was thoroughly established, what you were talking about. Yes. After we're talking about thoroughly established, other dependent, and imputational character. So I was thinking yesterday about this thoroughly established. You were okay. And I was just checking out with Rody Banas. How I did it for myself is that the thoroughly established is more like a state of being or perception that kind of didn't turn into a thing.

[44:54]

It is a state of being. It is the way things actually are. It's the way, it's the final, ultimate way that everything is. And it is the way, ultimate in the sense that when you see things being that way, your mind becomes purified of any obstruction to supreme enlightenment. So it's like a big thing. It's like what you need to tune into as soon as possible in order to save the world. Your perception isn't purified. Your perception isn't purified and your conception isn't purified too. Your whole mind gets purified of anything that interferes with enlightenment by meditating on the thoroughly established character because the thoroughly established character is the way everything finally truly is. And there's some debate about what that thoroughly established character is, and that's part of what we have to study too.

[45:57]

It's a big, difficult topic to have a correct understanding of ultimate reality. And understanding that includes understanding its relationship to lesser profound realities, which also has some reality. but don't have the reality of, they don't necessarily wash away all obstruction. Even though you understand correctly, and Buddhists all have maybe the same understanding as you do about some things, those understandings do not purify your mind of all obstruction. But understanding this thing, which also Buddhists understand, does purify your mind. And again, the Prajnaparamita literature just teaches the ultimate, and it doesn't exactly explain and analyze its relationship to the conventional and the imaginary. This sutra does.

[46:59]

That's why this sutra is a nice supplement, a nice partner to the Prajnaparamita literature. Okay, let's see, Kani. Yeah, I remember you. I definitely remember you, yeah, because you haven't asked a question so far today. Yes? Is anybody over there asking questions they didn't see? How about you? Yeah, I remember that one. I remember. When we say educational character, the definition was that which you impute as names. That which you impute? Mm-hmm. The imputational character is that which you impute as names, as names. You impute it, but you impute it as a name, you know. In terms of, as names and symbols, and in terms of selves or essences, it's that thing that you impute using words as essences.

[48:12]

In other words, you impute essences or selves. Those words and symbols are not necessarily imputations. Those aren't imputations. Well, like, Connie's not an imputation, it's just a word. But the idea that there's an essence there, which Connie refers to, okay? Connie does refer to this person over here, right? We're not arguing with that. The imputation was that there's an essence there, that this word Connie refers to is there's something about the character of Connie that makes her the referent of the word Connie. We actually impute that normally. That's the imputational. So, if I were to describe the process of imputation, as I'm walking along... Yes. I see you. Yeah, you didn't have to go any further. You could say walking. Okay, you're walking.

[49:13]

You are walking, it's true you're walking, but you're imputing to walking an essence and using the word walk. And then you can make it as an eventual designation of I'm walking. So that process of I'm walking is that thought arises in my mind. The process of I'm walking arises in your mind. Right. Yes. I experience movement in my body. Well, again, that's another conventional designation you're making, which also there is movement in your body. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that you impute something to the movement in your body and then you use the word movement in the body to express this essence of movement in the body which you imputed to this movement in your body. But the movement in the body doesn't have a self. but you put a self on it so you can say movement in the body.

[50:17]

You actually are moving. Your body's moving, yes, but it's not really the movement in the body that you're talking about. You're talking about the essence of the movement in the body, even though there really is a movement there. The movement in the body is the basis of you saying movement in the body. But the self is a conventional designation of this body. No, no, the self's not a conventional designation. The word self is a conventional designation, but the self is not a conventional designation. The self is a totally imaginary, non-existent thing. The self of movement in the body, there's no self of movement in the body in the movement of the body. There is movement in the body, it just doesn't have a self. It's like there is an ocean, it's just there's no circles of water in the ocean. But in order to talk about the ocean, We make a circle of water and then we say, there's the ocean. And in order to talk about the movement of your body, you make a circle of water in the movement of the body, make a little self on it, and then you can say, movement in the body.

[51:24]

But there is no self in the movement of the body. The putting the self on it is that self, that thing you imagine on the movement of the body, that thing, that you put on the movement of the body or the people you meet, that's the imputational. And it's based on the people you meet and based on the movement of your body. It's not baseless. Because the imputational character is not floating out by itself, it gets applied to phenomena. If the imputational character is not being applied to phenomena, this sutra doesn't care. And taking the incantational character and not applying it to phenomenon, that doesn't cause affliction. If you've got some things that aren't happening and you apply imaginary things to them, that doesn't cause you any problems. Like imagining something that's not happening and put a self on it, that's not going to hurt you. It's when you're imagining something, a self, onto what's happening, that's what causes, that's, you know, that's painful.

[52:32]

I see you. Can you say that again for me? And that projecting a self onto what's happening, on the happening of things, that's holding to what's happening as being a self of them, the imputational character, that's the source of affliction. But the imputational character by itself is not affliction. It's when you hold to it as being the other dependent. When you think your life is your idea of it, That's what's painful. But just to have an idea of your life is not a problem as long as you don't apply it to your life. You know? Like, think, I have a happy life, but just don't apply it to your life. It's a thought, just an idea. Oh, I'm super happy. It's when you hold to what's going on in this thing. Even though it's a happy self, a self of a happy life, it still disturbs your vitality, because you're holding to a self that's not there.

[53:37]

Yes. We're talking about the invitational character now? This seems like it's... Maybe it's starting to be appropriate to text where we are. Yes. This is a good spot for me because I realized that when I was studying on this free character, I found myself Yeah, I think that's right. We don't want to say one's better than the other. Because, again, a thoroughly established character, although it is the final medicine for the meditator to take in, it is the medicine for the other things.

[54:40]

It's the medicine for the other dependent. So the other dependent can be, you know, lived, you know, without believing that it's the impotential. So it's not, thoroughly established by itself, it's not all that hot. What's wonderful is the other dependent phenomena called Prajnaparamita and the other dependent phenomena called Buddha. So Buddha's an other dependent phenomena. Buddha has an empty character, has a thoroughly established character, but if all Buddha had was the absence of the invitation, we wouldn't have a Buddha. There's an actual pulsing Buddha. That's the basis of our projection of self on Buddha and the basis of the emptiness of Buddha. So when we realize the emptiness of Buddha, we can realize Buddha. The other dependent is really what's happening, is really our life. The other dependent, thoroughly established, is what purifies us from any obstruction to understanding our life.

[55:43]

But our life is not just the absence of the imputational So we don't want to make a hierarchy. There's just a hierarchy in terms of learning. We start... Well, that's the way you test your understanding and actualize it by practicing your understanding of all three characters. Well, in the Prajnaparamita you understand emptiness and then you test the emptiness by practicing the other paramitas. You develop Prajnaparamita and then you test the Prajnaparamita. You validate the Prajnaparamita by practicing giving and precepts. In this sutra, you understand these three and then you would test them by practicing. As you see later in the book, they show you after you understand this stuff in Chapter 8, then you put that understanding to work in the rest of the book. So now, new people still.

[56:46]

So Laura, Lauren, and Marco. Do you have to go soon? No. OK. Lauren? I guess I just wanted to see if, I've been thinking of it in terms of maybe, do we learn like a plot, computational plot? No. Pardon? Yes, we are born into another dependent world. Yes. It's innate. It's innate. And not just humans do it. It's just that we particularly need it for our language thing. But other animals impute self, too, according to the Buddha. And it's innate. What do you call it? You come by onset. If you're a human, this comes with the territory.

[57:48]

And then as your perceptual process evolves in this spectacular way that it does for babies, this projection of self is going on all along. It's pre-verbal. The projection of self is pre-verbal, and then when you get words, then you really go to town. Because babies are putting the self on things before they know how to put the words in. You can see them putting the self on and trying to figure out which words to put on. They're making landing pads on everything and trying to put the words on and finally it starts to work and then they become fully human and really start to suffer. I'm wondering if you could talk about these three characters in terms of the things that matter in addition to the apparition of the elephants. I think I find that really helpful to talk about the intersection of the elephant and so forth in terms of what the invitation was like.

[58:50]

OK, so in this chapter, we have two other examples. I just want to say we have the example of the fart in vision. And then we have the hares and insects. And then we have the unerring referent to correct in vision as the example. And then we have, you know what I mean? So in this chapter, the fault in vision is the invitational character. So, like, we see things, and we see a self, we put a self on them, and that causes them to appear a certain way. So, in the sutra it says, insects, net of hairs, and what else? Sesame seeds.

[59:52]

Sesame seeds. Huh? What? Sesame seeds. And then the way the thing looks when you don't have the error... Is the... To say the way the thing looks or to say the unerring vision. What is it, sir? The unerring objective reference. Yeah, so what actually is out there is that there's nothing in the thing which justifies the reference. That's what's really established. So in the case of the elephant and the snake are two other examples. So tell the elephant story. The magician conjures up the calculation using, I think he's using a walk of words. Yeah. He speaks pebbles or stones. Why took he three years when he gave 15? Son of good lineage. For example, a magician or a magician is able to be standing at the coffee of four great roads after gathering grasses, leaves, twigs, pebbles, and stones displayed as various magical forms, such as a herd of elephants.

[61:01]

The audience sees the magic trick. What they see is the elephant. Right. They see the elephant. No. Seeing the elephant is not the imputational. The imputational is the projection on what's happening there such that they see the elephant. There's something happening there. you know, what's happening is a magician and blocks of wood and ointments and mantrams. They're seeing that, but then he depends on them projecting an essence on it. He kind of knows, or she knows, that if they put an essence on this, they'll come up with something interesting. So he puts his stuff out there that he knows people will probably, like, don't just sit there and see blocks of wood. They'll make something more interesting, something they can talk about. And so, elephant. So they see the elephant, and the elephant is not the imputational.

[62:10]

The elephant is more like the net of hairs, insects, and the sesame seeds. Because of what they do to what's happening up there, they see elephants. Because they put the self onto this thing, and it precipitates elephants for them. And they believe it. The audience does. That's why they pay. The magician also sees the elephant because he has to make sure it worked. He can project. a self under the situation, too. So he sees the elephant, but he doesn't believe it. But he's understanding, he's starting to understand what? He understands that the afflicted nature of the other dependent, because he doesn't believe it, but he sees how affliction works. He knows that they believe it, he doesn't, but he still sees it. actually see the reference, to see the blocks of wood, he can do that too.

[63:11]

But when he sees that, he's not doing his job. He has to make sure he's done it properly. So if he can see the elephant, they can see the elephant. But the way it actually looks, with no projection, that useless way that it is, That's the unerring referent. That's the thoroughly established. Yeah, the other dependent is the stuff. Right. But it also says in this chapter, the way you know the other dependent is by adhering to it as the thoroughly established. So in a sense, the only way we know the other dependent is by this projection. Adhering to the other dependent as the imputation.

[64:12]

What did I say? Adhering to the other dependent as the imputational is the way we know the other dependent. But that's not the way we understand it. That's just the way we know it or grasp it. By depending on grasping, we know the other dependent. That's our basic mode of knowing the other dependent. But it's possible. And when you study that process, you come to understand the afflicted character of the other dependent by understanding how we do this to the other dependent. That sort of begins to talk to your question. But some other people ahead, yeah. Anybody ahead? Yes. The story with the elephant sounds like a Rorschach test. Would that be, like, kind of close to what you're talking about with the indications that people will put into the inkblots? Yeah, I think in a Rorschach technique, you definitely have people, what do you call it, imputing stuff to it, but even before they get an image out of it, they think it's an inkblot.

[65:26]

Most of them think it's inkblot first, right? And then they ask him actually to work it a little bit more for various reasons. But I think that in the Rorschach process, you are testing people's imputation of various things to the inkblot, but I don't think you're always testing the self I don't think they're working on the self in that case. I'm just, you know, I'm just, I'm new to this question. What also came to mind for me when you were talking about the elephant, you're constructing something that looks like an elephant and there's, from what I understand, the Rorschach buses images, there are kind of images set in there that people are asked to just Or is that so I thought they were just random and that people, they found out that people often come up with, often think it's this, often think it's that.

[66:34]

I didn't know that they made them to create stuff, but by using them, maybe they find out that people often think this is their mom or this is the monster or whatever. Is that right? Does anybody know about this? Yeah, you're right. Yeah, so, and I think you find out things about people's process that way, and they do too, right? But this is in some sense more basic than that, it seems to me. Namely that we're focusing on the projection of some graspable version of what's happening so that our mind can grasp it and know it. And so that's how we know the other dependent. However, We also know the other dependent directly in another way, without grasping it as a self, but we can't notice it.

[67:37]

We need to train ourselves to notice our actual ongoing relationship with the dependent core arising, because we impose this imputational character on such a basic level. that we have to train ourselves to see what it's based on. And it is based on, the imputational character is based on the other dependent. It says that in chapter two. I'm trying to reframe it another way at this earlier. Excuse me. The word assimilate keeps coming in. Yes. For me, it's like we're constantly working assimilate. Yes. Do imputations, would that be accurate? That we're working with simile? That's essentially what if you think it is the simile or simile is imputation. Simile is saying something is like x or something is like y. So if I throw back the horse, that looks like a dog.

[68:43]

I don't think so. In this sutra it's particularly emphasizing that we think that there's something in the thing that the word for it refers to. So that we think that phenomena actually have a character which is the referent which is the referentiality, they have a referentiality to the word which refers to them. We think that. In other words, that they have something about them that's cut off from conditions. That particular thing is the imputation that we're focusing on in this text. And there's another kind of projection of self, which is a projection of a separation between knowing and known. which is connected to this school that uses this text as their basic text, but it's not so much the type of self that this sutra's talking about.

[69:52]

The sutra's talking about, as it says, as reference to words and terminology, or words and concepts, that projection of referentiality onto things. And it's not so much that the things like the word, however, that's part of it, because we're doing conceptual activity. Conceptual activity is, in some sense, singular, because we're saying people, all these people are like people, so we can use the word people. We also project onto the people that there's something in them, which is the reference to the word people, but there isn't. In other words, we can say that since I think that there is something, I didn't know. I didn't know. I didn't know. In the thing which the word refers to, again, the word needship does refer to you.

[71:26]

There's nothing in you that the word refers to. But I think there is. Or a good person. That's very apparent. But there's nothing in there that a good person refers to. Right? We all think he's a good person. We agree that that applies to him, that it refers to him. But we also think that there is something in him called good person, but there isn't. But if I think there's something in there, I'd want to find something. If I put something in there, then I want to find some word for it. And you can find various words for it. But basically, we know that if we can put something in there, that some self in there that we know we will be able to use words on it, and then we can be human. We can make conventional designations. Any people that are... Oh, Kathy. I think I heard the word explained. The secret explains the three characters and how they interact.

[72:28]

And I've had this thought studying Buddhist teaching about the way languages used that seems to be geared not to explaining, but more to deconstructing or taking apart. And so studying this sutra, when the word explain comes up in my mind, there's a tendency to try to grasp what's in the sutra as something which the mind can conceive and live together. And so I just wanted to suggest that maybe something more like the sutra points to the way we understand the world rather than explain. Somehow it feels more comfortable to me because my mind is so... somehow the word explains seems to lead me right into the suffering of the man.

[73:38]

And at the same time, I guess I have a firm conviction or firm faith that anything that I can, if it could really explain, if it could really explain the way things worked, it wouldn't satisfy me. It would be fundamentally, it wouldn't be capable of satisfying me. Well, working backwards, If it could explain the way things were, it wouldn't satisfy you. Okay? I can dig that. Because that's the way Dharma is saying, that's the way God is saying, words don't reach it. If words reach it, it's not going to be really satisfying. Okay? Working backward further, when you told me about the suffering that you get thrown into by the word suffering, explain, I thought, ooh, that's a nice word for you. Because that will show you, that will help you understand the afflicted character of the dependent core arising that just happened there.

[74:39]

Then working back further, I thought, well, if you're more comfortable, I'll say point. Why not make her comfortable? She's got enough problems. But when she's comfortable, I'm going to toss, I'm going to give her a few explanations. because when you're in a comfortable state you'll see oh there's the affliction that we've been talking about oh yeah because my mind is like when he says when he says point I feel comfortable and I'm kind of like relaxed and my imputation is like kind of cooled out but when he says explain my hackles get raised and I like go for the kill so we'll just point for watching classes is that enough for today one more There's different kinds of sutras. Like if you read the Lotus Sutra, it really is pointing towards something. It's trying to metaphorically talk about some way of looking at what's real.

[75:40]

And then there's this, which is a very definite, very analytical. So I think that the word explained is actually what it's trying to do. Well, this sutra seems a little bit more like a manual, an instruction manual, whereas the Lotus Sutra is like vision, [...] vision. Enter these big visions, you know. Avatamsaka Sutra is also visions. And this one is more like nuts and verts in a way, especially when we get into Chapter 8. It's like actually gets into the nuts and verts of meditation and the nuts and verts of talking about the different faiths. It analyzes the process by which wisdom develops. Whereas the Lotus Sutra, the analysis is not so clear what they're doing there. They're just throwing all these wonderful visions, and if you enter those visions, wonderful understandings will occur. And then after that, you swim over to Samdhinirmuchana Sutra.

[76:43]

So we have this huge ocean of Buddhist teachings and the different sutras are opening for different people in different ways. The Lotus Sutra is, of course, not of course, but the Lotus Sutra is a vision center that somehow has been able to embrace and stimulate and encourage many more people than the Samgya-Narachana. So Lotus Sutra was translated into English in 1896. And by the 1950s there were many translations of the Lotus Sutra because the Lotus Sutra is, although very bizarre in a way, it also puts some effort into it and puts some more effort into it and some more effort into it. Almost everybody, without much assistance, If you're just in the right mood, you can enter the visions. Whereas this sutra, it was translated in the 90s.

[77:49]

But three translations in the 90s. Because I think there's a ripeness in Western Buddhism that we can look at this aspect of the Buddha Dharma. But yeah, it's a different type of a sutra. Yes. Well, basically, I'll just say right now, ripening continuums applies to, in the chapter that you're chanting now, When you start meditating on the lack of own being in terms of production, meditate on that, meditate on that, be mindful of that teaching and that part, your continuum gets ripened.

[78:52]

Your consciousness. Basically, that you have a consciousness and what you know now is the basis for the next moment. What you understand now, what you've understood so far, you still understand. Like now you're studying for this test, right? And you understand some things, and before you understand them and you didn't, And then when you did understand them, you did. And then there's a kind of sequence of states of mind following that understanding where the understanding goes on for a while. That's a continuum. And then as new insights happen, the continuum ripens. The same with studying Dharma. As you get new insights, the continuum is ripening. So as you study the lack of only being in terms of production, as you meditate on that, you start to change.

[79:55]

You start to become, well, you start to like give up wrongdoing and practice virtue because your continuum has changed. You no longer like get too involved in things or too little involved in things. you develop more and more appropriate relationships. So in that sense, your continuum, your consciousness, is maturing in relationship to what it knows. Because you're incorporating this Dharma teaching and churning it around in your consciousness, then that leads to a positive evolution. That's basically what this sutra gets into. This is a sutra about how we evolve, how the consciousness evolves. Prajnaparamita Sutras don't even talk about that, because that's another kind of analysis about how you evolve. It just says, get in there, understand emptiness, and then come and practice. This one says, if you meditate in this way, these things will happen. And then that will take you so far, and then you get to meditate on these things, and then these things will happen.

[80:59]

So that's the type of sutra this is. I just knew people, because it's getting late. The sequence at the beginning? The sequence at the beginning, so the Buddha introduces these three characters of our phenomena, and then towards the end he says, and then he tries to help us understand with these examples what they are and meditate on, and then as you understand through this meditation and this teaching about these three characters, as you understand the imputational character as it really is, you understand characterless phenomena. And when you understand the other dependence as it really is, you understand afflicted phenomena. And when you understand the thoroughly established, you understand purified phenomena. When you understand purified phenomena, you abandon afflicted phenomena.

[82:07]

When you abandon afflicted phenomena, you realize purified phenomena. You realize emptiness. It starts to become integrated in your life. And that's what I mean by bodhisattvas are wise with respect to phenomena. It's not just that you understand it, but also you actually abandon certain misconceptions. You understand the nature, which means you stop doing certain kinds of mistakes, stop believing certain mistakes that you used to do. Yes, Ren? Well, first of all, you're imputing the imputation onto the other dependent, and then you believe that that's actually with the other dependent. Is there a connyness?

[83:31]

There's no connyness, no. Then what about the thoroughly established character? The thoroughly established? The thoroughly established is that conny is free of any connyness. That no connyness reaches conny, and of course no connyness reaches wren. No, no words reach it. The way things ultimately are is that they're completely free of any conception. No conceptual grasping finally reaches our nature. That's why we can be. If concepts actually reached us, we'd be frozen and then nothing could happen. If concepts are permanent, they're general characters of things. But we need to use concepts to get things so we can talk about them and have human society and teach dharma to free people of this whole process.

[84:32]

A way that has seen me be helpful to think of invitation and so on, and I wanted to check that out, is that When you're seeing nature, for example, you're really seeing the inside of it. You're not seeing things. When you conceive of somebody as a group of intentions, of talents, of several, as a person, that concept is not in the person. So in a sense, you're just seeing your own inside of you. Usually, usually that's the way it is. We have to recognize that that's usually the way it is. We have to understand that process. But it is possible, actually, to see something besides the inside of your head. But then, you wouldn't be able to talk about it. No, no. You wouldn't be able to describe it to anyone. No, you wouldn't be able to. You would say, no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. But you have to be looking at it and seeing its emptiness.

[85:43]

and by seeing its emptiness, then you could understand its dependable arising. And its dependable arising is not just in your head, actually, but you can understand it. Yeah, but not as a concept. Not as a concept. That way you already know how to do. We already do fine, most of us, understanding whatever's happening as concepts. And that's in our head. It's not out there. It's in our head. The way we conceive of things is not in them. Our ideas of things are not in the things. But we think they are. Not only do we have ideas about things, but we think that our ideas are in the thing. Again, the ideas about them aren't the problem We think that our ideas are actually in the thing, don't we? Oh, God, we do. We think our ideas about other people are actually in the other people. But we think something in our head is in the person. In our head is in us.

[86:46]

We think that. That's the imputation, that way of thinking. Not just in your head. In other words, that's not in your head. Then you understand the way they are, even though it's not in your head what you understand. So yeah, you can't really say anything about it. You need to do the imputational again. And then you can talk about things again. A Buddha could talk, but you realize what you're doing. You're just using the imputational now in order to talk to people about stuff. But you're not caught by it anymore, so you're not afflicted. So you use the process, which is an affliction process for most people, to educate people how to become free of the affliction process.

[87:47]

But all the while, you're not getting caught by believing that the thing we're imputing in order to make the conventional designation, you don't really believe it's in the person. You can see both things at once. The concept of emptiness isn't there. Also, yes, the concept of emptiness isn't emptiness. That's right. We can use a concept of emptiness to help us understand actual emptiness. Just like we can use a concept of dependent goal arising and a concept of afflicted character and a concept of characterless phenomena and a concept of purified. We can use all these concepts to understand the reality of these things. Yes? What do you mean understanding? How do we understand Pardon? What do you exactly mean with understanding?

[88:51]

Well... Because you can't understand intellectually, you can't identify bodies. Is there somewhere a part in us that understands the non-conceptual reality of things? Is there some part of us that does already, you mean? Yeah, I think already there's a part of us that understands non-conceptually, but it's very unavailable to us. But it can become more and more available through meditation. So all of us have a present understanding of the Dharma at this moment, I would say. And based on our present understanding, we act. As our understanding develops, intellectually and physically, our behavior is transformed. And sometimes when we learn a Dharma teaching, usually we learn a Dharma teaching, first of all, intellectually, verbally. Then, as the sutra explains, we go through studying it, reflecting on it, and we learn it deeper, but still conceptually.

[89:58]

And then finally we learn it non-conceptually, which means we take our understanding into a state of concentration where conceptuality is really subdued. and then our sort of non-conceptual body inherits the teaching, which tells the body about things it was already experiencing but couldn't get at without some kind of word from Buddha. Because right now you're swimming in reality, but it's not available. Somehow you have to get the teaching into your body so that your body can awaken to it and realize it. We have to get it, we sort of have to get the message down into our body. So that part of what we're doing now is we're trying to get the message clear and then gradually realize it as best we can conceptually and then continue our basic meditation practice by which it sinks into us. And basic meditation itself is good.

[90:59]

in terms of like tranquility meditation, has lots of benefits. It promotes wholesome activity. But it doesn't necessarily uproot this belief that there's something in people that the word we use for them applies to. That innate misconception needs some deep, deep, deep massaging to be, you know, dropped. And so we start superficially massaging it by reading the sutra and discussing the sutra. Then we massage it more deeply by meditating on it, by seeing how it applies in all kinds of nitty-gritty daily situations where you see yourself actually thinking that the person is what you imagine them to be. And you notice how that can be very afflictive. And then you understand that better and better and better and better. And then finally you get it. You understand conceptually as best you can, as best anybody can.

[92:04]

You understand conceptually that they're really established. You understand conceptually as it really is thoroughly established. And then you take that into your body in meditation and realize it in the deepest way. free of conceptuality. But we have to start conceptually. The sutra is a start. And the same with the Prajnaparamita. It's saying, give up conceptuality. Wang Bo says, give up conceptuality. Bodhidharma says, give up your stories. But when we first hear that, it's a story. So you hear the story, hear the story, hear the story about how to give up stories. And you try to practice it. So that instruction, I think, is, again, more like the Heart Sutra, Bodhidharma's instruction and Wang Bo's instruction. Just give up all conceptuality. This sutra is to make sure that when you give it up, you don't become nihilistic.

[93:07]

this sutra is not so tempting to become nihilistic. But even in this sutra, as you meditate on more and more, as you approach meditation on the fairly established, you can slip into nihilism. And there's a discussion in the later part of chapter 7 where it talks about people who do understand it in that way and slip into nihilism. So if you look at the later part of the chapter, you'll see that. And that's another reason for the sutra says, and that's why we're here to offer this sutra, is to protect people from slipping into nihilism. So it's kind of quieted down here. Want to do a time check? It's not urgent yet. It's a non-urgent time. In one minute. In one minute things start getting more urgent, yes? Yes. Well, I've got a really important distinction that I think we made today, which I was listening very carefully for in previous discussions, and I think was not enunciated through.

[94:13]

And you just bring up the tension that I think really exists in some of the things we're reading. And that is the thing about the institutional not being the process of imagining, but rather being what is imagined. And I even wrote down something you just said, that that way of thinking is the educational. And there's a lot of statements of that nature in some of these texts that could lead people, and have led me at various times to believe that there's a mind state called the educationalist, which is involved in the people they're thinking. But my next translation described the educationalist as the pattern clinging to what is imagined. And that seems to me to be, so it seems like one could easily first tell me what I'm saying. you know, totally off the wall, but things like that could be easily interpreted as, like, there's three kinds of thinking, one of which is the imputational, which is the wrong kind of thinking, as opposed to the imputational being the object of that misled, other-dependent thinking. The mind can evolve to do this kind of misconceiving, but is the misconception that the imputational, not the misconceiving.

[95:23]

The misconceiving also can have an imputational character. But it is not actually... It's just like other kinds of conceiving. It's just a mental process. It's not the imputation. Was there another point? I would just suggest that if someone reads that other translation, the pattern of believing for what is imagined, maybe even more environment of what you're saying would be that which is cloned to by imagining. No. No. I don't think so. I think it is actually the pattern, you know, that's projected, that we cling to. What's the pattern? Not the pattern of thought. Yeah, not the pattern of thought which clings. It's the way the mind grasping, that way of grasping, that is the same as what is grasped. Everything exists, and this is not just the sutra, but everything that exists depends on mental grasping, on mental apprehension.

[96:35]

There's no appearances without grasping. Reality is not an appearance. The way things ultimately are is not as... The way things ultimately exist is not as appearances. But it's also not as nothing. It's a way of being that's not appearances. But in order to make appearances, the mind has to grasp. And the way of grasping, what is grasped there, is the imputation. In other words, the image, and in particular, the image of it being cut off from its surroundings, which is the way we have to do in order to grasp. We have to cut it off. And that doesn't exist there. We just cut it off so we can have grasp on it. You say grasping is a repetitive thought that is incomplete, inaccurate, and does not allow new information?

[97:40]

Is grasping a... Repetitive thought. Repetitive thought. Well, usually it is, but usually grasping is something you've done before because Usually you grasp categories that have already been set up. So it's probably usually repetitive. And what else? Incomplete. Incomplete, yes. Inaccurate. Yes. And does not allow you information. Yes, right. The process by which we create appearances is kind of negative, because it negates the whole causal situation around the grasping. But it's extremely useful in negative activity, because then you can do conventional designation. And so it's cut off from conditions, which means it's permanent. It's not touched by change, because it's cut off from its conditions.

[98:42]

In other words, you're imagining something that isn't cut off from its conditions, that depends on its conditions and therefore is impermanent, you're imagining it as cut off and therefore permanent. When you think the concept is a thing, you think the thing is permanent. Because concept, you put permanence on it. Self and permanence. So now we're listening to a teaching which starts to erode this. If you just be mindful of this teaching and apply it, it starts to get eroded. Now it's getting close to the urgent time. Mako? We don't want to fall into conceptualization? I think we have to be willing to fall into conceptualization in order to learn dharma. I feel like, well, so what?

[99:53]

You're in conceptualization anyway, so why don't you just switch your conceptualization over to Dharma conceptualization? It's not permanent falling into concepts, because we also understand that even a correct understanding of something, a valid understanding of something, is still not the thing. Conceptual understanding is still not the thing. We want to actually understand the thing directly. But As an approach to the direct realization, we need to use concepts as an approach. Even the practice of giving up conceptual activity, you need to hear somebody say that to you. Bodhidharma and Wang Bo say that, over and over and over. They say, give up conceptuality. They keep saying those words to people who will hear those words, and then those people try to practice them, and then they say, no, that's not it. No, that's not it. That's not giving up conceptuality. They're talking to the person conceptually about the misunderstanding of how to give up conceptuality. So they're using conceptuality to help people transcend it.

[100:58]

We use the imputational to help people transcend it. We temporarily have fallen into conceptuality. Now, in the world of conceptuality, messages come into us. Little conception bombs are being dropped into our conceptual world, which are trying to let us become free of conceptuality without becoming nihilistic. So we both have instructions to give up conceptuality and instructions about don't become nihilistic. Give up conceptuality, don't become nihilistic. And we'll understand that conceptually first, and then we'll understand it deeper and deeper conceptually. And then in the end, we want to let go of the conceptuality, the conceptual version of how to give up conceptuality. That leads to the full realization. Now we should stop, right? Is that right?

[102:00]

We should stop? Okay, Joan? Joan? Trying to grasp doesn't cut them off. It's when you actually get a hold of them, you cut them off. Yes. And how this is actually talked about in the sutra. Yes. And I'm wondering if you could say anything more about that. Not in the time allowed. It's too big a topic. Yes? Did you have your hand? Yes. So when you said that, is that similar to what Mo is saying or what Yama is saying? It sounds different to me. It doesn't sound like he's saying trot conceptuality. Well, to make a short story of it, I think he is saying that.

[103:17]

I think so. I think that's what terminating a mere concept means, is to drop conceptuality. But we can talk about it, and you can bring it up again, and we can discuss it more here. But I think Wang Bo is actually a reincarnation of Vasubandhi.

[103:36]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_84.12