The food's so good at Zen Center, I usually think that, you know, meals are the most popular events, but there's more people here than there were at breakfast. This is the sixth talk, and so we had five before this, right? to six to subtract five, carry the one. And so this is the sixth talk and now I thought today, tonight, and tomorrow morning we could discuss a scripture which brings up another aspect, kind of a shift in the study of the Middle Way. I was thinking that the first sutra of the Buddha, in a way, is kind of like the heart, the heart middle way, or like the feeling middle way, to give up extremes and settle into the feeling of life.

[01:28]

face the pain in our heart and give up distractions, give up our devotions to two basic styles of distraction from our basic pain. In the next sutra, dealing with the middle way that I'm bringing up, almost could be called the heartless middle way. Like the Heart Sutra is kind of heartless. No eyes, no ears, no tongue, no body, no mind, no heart, no suffering, no path, no attainment. It's kind of heartless. But it's ultimate truth, too. Harvest may be too strong, but this could be called the thinking woman's middle way.

[02:32]

Or, you know, the middle way, the mind middle way. But in some ways I think, you know, what is it? In terms of our basic animal nature, I think feelings are first, and then we evolve thinking from there. So first we settle with feelings. Our feelings really are not our problem. It's that when we develop our thinking, our prejudices, our preconceptions, Our ideas are really where our problems start. So the Buddha doesn't say give up your feelings. Buddha says give up your preconceptions. Don't give up the way you feel.

[03:36]

Give up the way you think. Give up your views. All of them. So this next sutra, which is called the Kacchayana Gota Sutra, the discourse to a person named Kacchayana, is about view. But before I read it, I want to just say something about conventional truth and ultimate truth. Somebody told me that she was really looking forward to hearing about ultimate truth, excited about it.

[04:40]

So I just thought I would mention that we've been, in some sense, the first sutra on the Middle Way that we've been studying. is about how to settle into the conventional truth. As I said over and over again, we have to first settle in the conventional before the teaching of the ultimate will be appropriate. I hope it's okay to say that someone left Sashin And in some ways the reason for leaving Sashin was that she was unable to get grounded in the conventional truth and she was feeling drawn into the ultimate truth without being grounded in the conventional. So I suggested actually she stop sitting and go work in the kitchen.

[05:45]

But after talking more, she decided to leave because she was really drawn into like the ultimate and without proper grounding in the conventional world of suffering. If you're really grounded in the conventional world of birth and death, then when you open to the ultimate, you might not cling to it. You have a good chance of not clinging to it. Because settling into the conventional means settling. It doesn't mean clinging. You get familiar with it, and handling it as it comes and goes without holding on to this one and stopping that one.

[06:54]

If you're going to cling to something, it's much better to cling to the conventional than the ultimate. Because if you cling to the conventional phenomena of things that are born or die, if you cling to them, you suffer. You know you've got a problem. And if you know you've got a problem, you can be cured. If you know you've got a problem, you can learn. But if you grasp the ultimate, hold to it. Nagarjuna says, you are incurable. One who grasps the ultimate is incurable. Or another translation would be incorrigible. You can't be educated. So I don't know if I've been careful enough, but I've been somewhat careful to wait until the sixth day to bring up the ultimate. I hope you're rooted enough in the world of birth and death so you won't cling to these teachings, not to mention any understanding you get of them.

[08:10]

So the conventional world is the world where things are born and die, where things arise and cease. That's the conventional world. So anybody who doesn't see the world of birth and death, who isn't sitting in that world, should probably cover their ears. And if when things are born and die, or when you're born and you die, if you don't feel anything, You should cover your ears. Actually, probably a good idea to cover your mouth and nose, too, until you feel something. Now, the conventional world of birth and death is the conventional world of birth and death. It's not the conventional world of birth and death with preconceptions overlaid on it. It's not the world of birth and death with extremes added to it.

[09:19]

Just the regular world of birth and death. And if we can face the world of birth and death without any preconceptions, if we can face the world of birth and death forgetting about our preconceptions, if we can face the world of birth and death giving up our prejudices about it, then we can see that the world of birth and death is just the world of birth and death. And when we can see the world of birth and death is just the world of birth and death, we can see the ultimate. Because when birth and death is just birth and death, it's not birth and death anymore. And when a phenomena is born and is just born, the fact that it's not born is

[10:35]

inseparable from that. When a phenomenon ceases and just ceases, the fact that it doesn't die and is not eternal either, it's right there. If you can just let it be without any preconception, you can see the ultimate. It's right there. But if we overlay any prejudice on birth and death, that prejudice blocks us from seeing the ultimate, which is that there isn't any birth and death. That everything, all phenomena, is nirvanic. All phenomena is peaceful. All phenomena is unborn and undying. That's the ultimate. And that is revealed to those who face the conventional, which is that phenomena are noisy, painful, arise and cease.

[11:46]

And again, the ultimate's not better than the conventional. They're just inseparable aspects of all phenomena. All phenomena have superficial, conventional aspects, and profound, ultimate aspects. We must become intimate with the superficial in order to open to the profound. Anybody who's short on superficial, we've got to get them more superficial. Okay, so the Kachayana Gota Sutra starts out by Ananda saying, Thus I have heard. The Blessed One was living at Savati in the monastery of Ananda Pindika in the Jeta Grove, actually in Jeta's Grove.

[13:08]

At that time the venerable Kachayana of that clan came to visit him, saluted him, sat down at one side. So seated, he questioned the exalted one. Sir, people speak of right view, right view. To what extent is there right view? In the previous sutra, when the Buddha spoke of avoiding the extremes of addiction, of devotion to addiction, to sense pleasures, and avoiding the extreme of devotion to self-mortification, He said, this is the middle. And he said, what is the middle? The middle is the Eightfold Path, which is right view, right intention, and so on.

[14:16]

So now this sutra starts by the Venerable Kachayana asking the teacher, to what extent is there right view? People talk about right view. So what's the situation where there's right view? And the Buddha said, the world, kachayana, is generally inclined towards two views, semicolon, existence and non-existence. The world, Kachayana, is generally not upright towards two views.

[15:19]

The world inclines, leans towards two views, existence and non-existence. Suzuki Roshi said that the usual view of life is firmly rooted in the idea of existence. He didn't mention that the usual view is also firmly rooted in the idea of non-existence The usual view is firmly rooted in these two extremes. In other words, people generally lean towards one or the other. Some people generally lean in one way. Some people lean, switch back and forth. So if I am sitting, I work on my posture to sit upright.

[16:43]

And sitting upright, I'm trying to sit upright in body and mind. I'm trying to find a way to be in the middle of these inclinations. When I suggest to you something about your posture, I'm suggesting, try this. Maybe this is more in the middle. Sometimes people look like they're inclined in some way or another. And the Buddha said, to him who perceives with right wisdom the uprising of the world as it has come to be, the notion of non-existence in the world will not occur.

[17:51]

If you watch the arising of some phenomena as it actually happens, the way it actually happens, In that watching, the idea of non-existence will not arise in your mind," he's saying. You won't hold to that position. You'll just see the arising of something just as it arises. That's what you'll see, that's all you'll see, because that's all that's happening for you. You don't add any prejudice of non-existence to it. This prejudice of non-existence is also sometimes called the view of annihilationism. A kind of heartless word, but very important to Buddha's teaching.

[19:01]

Katayana, to her who perceives with right wisdom the ceasing of the world as it comes to be, the notion of existence will not occur. So if we can watch things arise and cease without, not just if we can watch them rise and cease uprightly, we'll see how they happen. If we see how they happen, that'll be it for us. That'll be it. There won't be any ideas about what just happened. there may be the arising of an idea, but there won't be an idea about the rising of the idea.

[20:15]

There'll be just the arising of the idea and seeing how it arises, how it comes to be. This is how we can see if we watch, if we perceive things with right wisdom, uninclined, Then he says, the world, and again he says, for the most part, up above he said generally, and he said, the world for the most part, kachayana, is bound, stuck in, approach, grasping, and inclination. Leaning. Not being upright. And I just want to mention that he said, for the most part. In other words, the world is not entirely bound by inclination, approach, and grasping.

[21:25]

This is important. Sometimes things happen in the world and there's no bondage to not being upright. In other words, it is possible in this world to be upright. It is possible when something happens to not be bound by approaching it, attaching to it, or being inclined towards or away from it. Usually that's the way the world is. Usually a person, and a person is where worlds come from, a person in the world that their mind creates is bound to not be upright and is not. But that's only for the most part. That's only usually. Once in a while somebody can be upright and that's what the Buddha is urging us to be.

[22:31]

to not approach what's happening. When something's happening, to just sit or stand and not approach it, to not be inclined towards it, to not grasp it. If we perceive something and don't go after it, don't grasp it and have no prejudice towards it, and also don't run away from it, don't reject it, and don't lean away from it, then we perceive with right wisdom. Or at least we're all set for right wisdom. We're ready to see. So one of my favorite Zen stories which many of you have heard before, and which it looks like I'm going to bring up again.

[23:53]

So for those of you who have heard it before, you see if you can stay upright and not lean away from it out of boredom. And those of you who haven't heard it before, because it's really a good one, see if you can not lean towards it and try to get it. And I'll try to tell it without having too much prejudice about telling it. Actually, I forgot it already. That's pretty good, huh? What was that story? You tell me. Somebody probably knows what it's going to be. Tell me what it is. Very close. Very close. That is, that is. And this one's also very close to that one. Does anybody else have a... That's a hint. Anybody else know what it is? What? That's another favorite. Very close. Actually, all of them are very close.

[24:59]

This one is about two monks and one sleeping boy. Two monks and a sweeping boy. Sweeping. The boy's sweeping. That's why Adam was very close. So they were in the Garden of Eden, these two monks. And one said to the other, I read in the Avatamsaka Sutra that the fundamental affliction of ignorance is itself the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas. That's quite a mouthful, right? Isn't it? I recorded this at Tassajara a while ago and people said, what was that? So what we did at that time is we had people say it. So you kind of got to say it yourself in order to get it. So say it, would you?

[26:01]

The Anybody not able to say that now? Who can't say that? Okay. The people who can't say it, say it. The other people be quiet. Okay? The people who can't say it, say it with me, okay? The fundamental affliction of ignorance is itself the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas. It's still a mouthful, yeah. Okay, so you've got the fundamental affliction of ignorance,

[27:04]

That's the conventional reality. Birth and death is itself the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas. Buddhas don't know something other than birth and death. They just know what birth and death is. Namely, no birth and death. But they don't, like, know something about something else because there isn't anything else besides birth and death. There isn't, like, birth and death and then there's just another world over someplace where everything's cool. It's that the world of birth and death is cruel. So this monk said, geez, the fundamental prediction of ignorance is itself the immutable knowledge of all Buddhism? Wow, that seems really difficult to understand and abstruse. And the other monk said, oh, yeah? Oh, no, I don't think so. I think it's kind of clear. Watch this. So there was a young guy sweeping the ground nearby. And he said, hey, you, to the kid.

[28:10]

And the kid turned to look at him. And he said, is that not the immutable knowledge of all Buddhists? Is that not the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas? What do you think a Buddha would do if you say, hey, you, Buddha's sweeping, you know? Let's say Buddha's did soji, right? Buddha's sweeping, unless perhaps Buddha's offering incense in the Kaizondo. But anyway, soji, so Buddha's sweeping. And you say to Buddha, you come up, sort of sneak up behind Buddha, off to the side a little bit, and you say, hey, you, what do you think Buddha does? Does Buddha say, oh, how insulting to address me that way? They should say, hey Lord Buddha. Okay, okay. Hey Lord Buddha. Okay. Wouldn't the Buddha just turn and see who is calling?

[29:22]

That's called perceiving with right wisdom. You hear a sound. You go, what is it? That's all. Does that make sense? Do you think immutable knowledge of all Buddhas is something more grandiose than that? Like, you say to a kid, hey you, and the kid turns. You say hey you to the Buddha and the Buddha like lifts off the ground and starts glowing. You don't think that, do you? Or maybe, you know, you say hey you to Buddha and Buddha turns and says, what do you need? Or, may I help you? But anyway, basically just an unprejudiced response. That's all. Just an unprejudiced response. Hey you, yeah? Hey you, yo? Hey you, yeah? Hey you, what? Like that. Isn't that the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas?

[30:24]

This is clean perception with no prejudice. And then he says, now watch this. And he says to the kid, what's Buddha? And the Buddha kid goes, uh-huh, [...] uh-huh. And stumbles off, you know, into the broom closet. And he says, is this not the fundamental affliction of ignorance? What's the difference? In one case, he just responded with no prejudice. In the other case, he thought, oh, the Zen master's asking me what's Buddha. Now I can see. Check this second. I'm going to check this second. Okay, where's my stuff here? Okay. And he couldn't find out what Buddha was, you know, because he had some kind of prejudice kicked in, and the kid was lost. This is ignorance. This is the affliction of ignorance. But are they the same thing?

[31:29]

They're exactly the same, it's just that one looks like what a Buddha would do and the other looks like what a confused kid would do. But look at each one, yourself, and respond without prejudice, there's no difference. And if you think there's a difference, that's an example of a prejudice. You just experienced a prejudice, those of you who said, ah, there is a difference. That's a prejudice. Of course they're different, but I mean they're not really different. They're just both just arisings. That's all they are. Just the turn of the head and the wander into the closet. They're really not that different. As a matter of fact, they're identical. But one is the manifestation of ignorance and the other is the manifestation of the knowledge of Buddhas. What do Buddhas know? Somebody says, hey you, what do they know?

[32:36]

Hey you. That's it. They don't know, hey you, and gee, this is a compliment, or hey you, I'm being put on the spot. Just, hey you, what? There's no, like, hey you and me. They're identical. Everything's the same that way. But this is the fundamental reflection of ignorance, and this is the immutable knowledge of all Buddhists, and they're the same. They're both just things that arise and cease. Pardon? You mean the mouthful? The fundamental affliction of ignorance is the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas? The fundamental affliction of ignorance is itself the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas. That's all Buddhas know about is ignorance.

[33:40]

But that's all they need to know, because their job is to liberate beings from ignorance. All they've got to do is know ignorance, and they're a successful Buddha. I mean, they know how to become a successful Buddha, and that is teach people about ignorance. Once people understand ignorance, they're Buddhas. That's why it says for the most part the world is bound by that. The world is not entirely bound by these approaches. Sometimes the world is liberated because it's not bound. So she who does not follow the approach and grasping, she who does not approach things and grasp them, who is not inclined, that determination of mind That inclination and disposition who does not cling or adhere to the view, quotes, this is myself, unquote.

[34:48]

One who does not follow these worldly ways of approach and inclination who doesn't have, you know, who doesn't cling or adhere to the view. And here's the view. Quotes, this is myself. Okay? This sentence comes up, you know, this is myself. Quote, unquote, this is myself. This is myself. They don't adhere to this. They don't reject it either. They don't go after it. They don't run away from it. For the most part, people run after this thing. This is myself. This is my seat. This is my money. This is my house. This is my boyfriend. For the most part, they run after that. For the most part, they're inclined towards that. This is myself. Or they are in so much pain about being inclined towards it that they run away from it.

[36:01]

I don't want a self anymore. Get me out of this personality. Get me out of this painful personality that's always trying to get it. No. This is myself. This is myself. No inclination. No prejudice. It's possible. And for one who's like that, there's no doubt and she is not perplexed. Herein, her knowledge is not other-dependent. In other words, you don't need some guru to give you a special kind of mysterious initiation of some kind of special knowledge to not be perplexed. What you've got happening

[37:03]

is sufficient information to overcome perplexity and doubt. Now you do need maybe some instruction about how to be with what's happening, but the knowledge, the actual information is not dependent on another. The stuff you're working with doesn't depend on your teacher. Your teacher helps you look at what's happening in such a way that you understand. Thus, Kajayana, there is right view. Or, thus far, this is right view. And another thing he said, which I skipped over to give you a simpler presentation, is one who does not follow this approach of grasping and so on

[38:09]

and who thinks, quotes, suffering that is subject to arising arises. Suffering that is subject to ceasing ceases. In other words, when you see suffering arise, you watch it arise. When you see suffering cease, you watch it cease. That's all you see. Suffering that is subject to arise is arising. Suffering that is subject to ceasing is ceasing. That way of viewing is the same as watching this is myself arising and this is myself ceasing. Watching things like that, you're no longer perplexed. You have right view. That's similar to like we're sitting here and you hear the you hear the traffic sound I say you hear the traffic sound but anyway sitting here there's traffic sound there's awareness of traffic sound and there might also arise the thought I am aware of the sound of the traffic.

[40:10]

There might be just sitting and traffic sounds arising of the traffic sounds and ceasing of the traffic sounds. But there might also be the arising of the traffic sounds which I hear or I hear the arising of the traffic sounds. That can happen too, right? If one can just allow the arising and ceasing of the traffic sounds and also the arising and the ceasing of the sentence, I hear the traffic sounds. Not take the idea of this is really true that I hear the traffic sounds. This is just i hear the traffic sounds then one is not perplexed by traffic sounds then one is not perplexed by hey you or what is buddha somebody says what is buddha you go the arising of what is buddha the ceasing what is buddha the arising of i hear the question what is buddha there is a ceasing of me hearing

[41:31]

You don't take the determined position, this is me and I have ears and I hear these sounds. The prejudice doesn't kick in. And you see, you see the arising of the sounds and the ceasing of the sounds, the arising of I hear, the sounds and the ceasing of I hear the sounds, you see that the I, you see that the I is not something really in addition to the hearing of the sounds. You see that. This is the end of perplexity. This is the Ultimate truth, seeing ultimate truth. Maybe that's enough since the kitchen left.

[42:38]

Isn't that neat teaching? Neat sutra? Yes? I'm a little confused. There's a rising of confusion and there's a rising of I'm a little confused. This has arisen, yes? So you said that the reaction of a Buddha and the reaction of a sentient being are the same. If I'm watching them, if I look at them, and see the two reactions, I see that the one, that the affliction itself, is the immutable knowledge of all the Buddhas.

[43:49]

But the way the boy reacted in two different situations, In both cases, the fundamental affliction of ignorance is still the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas. But the boy acted differently in the two cases. In one case he just turned his head, like a Buddha would. No preconception, holding to no idea about what he should do, what was right or wrong, just simple animal response. In the other case, he got confused. And that confusion he manifested was the fundamental ignorance, right? In the previous case, like a Buddha. So those seem different, right? In the conventional world, those are different, those two responses. And one's ignorance, and one's like a Buddha would act. How are they the same? They're both the same in the sense that they're both what's happening.

[45:05]

In the case of when they were happening, they were both what was happening. They both were risings and ceasings. In that way, they're the same. Right? But in each case, also, in both cases, in the first case, that was the fundamental affliction of ignorance and the way the Buddha would act. And in the second case also, it was the fundamental affliction and the way a Buddha would act. No, excuse me, it was the way someone who's afflicted by ignorance would act, and it also was the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas in the second case. The person was manifesting the fundamental affliction of ignorance, and it was the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas. In the previous case, it was immutable knowledge of all Buddhas, but also it was the fundamental affliction of ignorance, because there seemed to be something happening, which is based on ignorance. So in both cases, but actually the Zen teacher mentioned in the... But in both cases,

[46:11]

In the second case, the fundamental friction of ignorance was the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas, because if a Buddha looked at that, that would be what the Buddha would see, was this kid who's confused, and that would be their immutable knowledge. In the second case, first case, they were looking like just a Buddha would act. That's the way a Buddha would respond to being called. Okay? In other words, this kid can manifest the response of a Buddha. But also the fundamental affliction of ignorance was right there, too. Namely, there was something that seemed to be happening, and that's based on ignorance. So in both cases, both were there. It sounds to me like ignorance and wisdom are fixed positions, but... that ultimately there won't be any great stuff. Ultimately, yeah. There are fixed positions in the sense that the conventional world is fixed in being conventional, and the ultimate has to be ultimate.

[47:20]

But the conventional world is empty. That's the ultimate. And the ultimate's empty. That's the ultimate. But they are, you know, they are... both what they are. And they are inseparable. But it's not true that the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas itself is the fundamental affliction of ignorance. That's not true. It's that the fundamental affliction of ignorance itself is the immutable knowledge of all Buddhas. Emptiness itself is not conventional truth. But conventional truth itself is emptiness. Conventional truth is empty and emptiness is empty. But it's not that conventional truth is empty and emptiness is full.

[48:27]

It's not that things are empty and emptiness is a thing. Well, emptiness is a kind of thing, but it's a special kind of thing. It's not a thing, you know. Emptiness never did get to be like, you know, grasped. You never could grasp it. But until you understood things, you grasped them. And when you couldn't grasp it anymore, you realized emptiness. But grasping emptiness is making emptiness into a thing and grasping the thingness of emptiness, which is ridiculous. It's called nihilism. So anyway... That's why they're fixed, is that they're not just the same thing, but they're intimately related to all phenomena. All phenomena have their characteristics and have their emptiness. And all phenomena are empty, and emptiness is empty, but emptiness is not like, what do you call it, it's not graspable. If you think you can grasp emptiness, you're just grasping the idea of emptiness.

[49:37]

which is a phenomena of the conventional type that arises and ceases. But emptiness doesn't arise and cease. So there's a difference in that way. But they're inseparable. And the conventional itself is the immutable knowledge of the Buddhas. Now you're not confused anymore, right? Kind of clear, huh? Like a crystal? Yes, yes? It sounds like simple organisms would be less likely to be caught up in concepts. Much less. Yeah, and be much freer and more peaceful. Simple organisms, simple animals still, however, have a very, very deep, deep ignorance. They don't have the kind of ignorance that we're able to have. We have their type also. We have very, very deep ignorance and we have more superficial, artificial ignorance. But ignorance is very deep and animals have it too.

[50:42]

But they don't have, like, you know, the level of elaboration of ignorance that we have. And they don't have the... Their suffering in some ways is not as intense and elaborated and it's not as sophisticated as ours. But they also... Animals also... have an ignorance which is that they attribute, they have some prejudices in the face of their sense experience. Animal sense experience and our sense experience, as such, that's not ignorance. The idea that sense experience arises and ceases, that's ignorance. But life itself, in its unarisen and unceasing way, that's not ignorance. In other words, it's possible to be alive and not be caught up in having a prejudice about rising and ceasing of sense experience.

[51:48]

But little tiny critters, little tiny animals have some kind of like inclination or ignorance. There's some opposition to the simple or complex way that things happen. So even in sensory experience, one of the prejudices we have is that they arise and cease. But to take away your prejudice about the arising and ceasing and just experience what seems to be arising and ceasing shows you that there's no arising and ceasing. But other animals have some prejudice about that too. That's why there's some prejudice in Buddhism in some sense that human beings have a chance to understand this. Of course, little animals don't say, I have a self and I did this and I do that.

[52:56]

But they kind of act like that they had a self, that they think they have a self. Like little cells you know, if you study those little cells, they have a way to identify inside the cell and outside the cell, and like, those aren't, hey, that's not, you don't belong in this cell. And that's called the, you know, that's called the self, the way they identify that this is like not a member of this cell. Even in the same body, you know, you should be in the next cell. And cancer is when you can't do this self other thing anymore in some areas of the body. So these aren't animals, but the cell has that kind of ability, and animals have that too, of saying, this is the limit, this is as far as I'm going to go on this with you. So that's called a sentient being. And living beings that don't set up these boundaries who don't hold to these boundaries, this is my turf.

[53:58]

Beings that, sentient beings that don't do that are, you know, I shouldn't say, life that doesn't do that is not really what we call a sentient being. And they don't suffer the way somebody who sets these, this, a determined stance, this is my cell, this is my house, this is my turf, this is my country, this is my religion. And that's not But this is pre-verbal, this kind of ignorance. And so they suffer too. I won't go so far to say as those beings who don't do that, that form of life that doesn't do that is a Buddha. I won't go that far, but I'll say they act like a Buddha, like trees. to some extent, act like Buddhas because some trees, the way they act is they don't say, hey, this is my, this is me, and you're not me. They don't necessarily, they don't show signs of that. But people have told me that down in the root hairs, that there's some, maybe discovering some sense of self in the root hairs of redwoods, that they have some way of saying, get out of here.

[55:13]

But plant life sometimes doesn't seem to be doing that. It seems to be saying, hey, whatever, man, let's all work together here, you know? We're all one thing. That's more like reality. But animals, even these pre-verbal animals, they can be into like, no, no. So that's basically what we do. Taking a determined stand on self. This is my self. That finger is not my finger. This one is. I didn't say that. You did. A determined stand. This is our problem. And we won't do that when we see... those things subject to arising, arising. In other words, when you see those things subject to arising, you understand subject to arising means subject to arising based on certain conditions that make it seem like it's arising.

[56:24]

And when those conditions are met, there's arising. But when you see how it happens, you see there is no arising. There is no arising when you see how there's arising. there's no perplexity when you don't take these fixed positions. So that's why you know another reason why Buddhism is so inspiring because it's saying let's understand so not only can we be free of suffering but we can show other humans how to be free of suffering and we can even eventually convey this teaching to other beings in an appropriate way so they can evolve to understand that they're ignorant. OK? Yes? I'm wondering if the un-replacing of being can become un-replaced without engaging in a process of reason about

[57:36]

what that being observes, why it can cease, or does it entail that in the process of reason? If you're involved in reasoning, then you have to pay attention to the reasoning you're involved in. And then that will be kind of like reasoning. But if you're involved at the level where there doesn't seem to be any reasoning going on, then the reasoning would not be necessary in order to become unperplexed. Yes. I mean, as I said, you know, there's sometimes just being traffic noise. There's all this, this kind of sense of self that attached to it and different kinds of suffering maybe that attached to it or not. And I was thinking, well, okay, traffic noise can be, you know, like a palace or electric jewel. That's right. That's right. That's right.

[58:39]

That's right. This is reasoning, by the way, what you're doing here. Yeah, which is fine. If there wasn't reasoning going on, then you wouldn't have to get involved with reasoning. So, for example, if there's the arising of traffic noise and there's no reasoning involved in that arising, then you don't have to confront the process of reasoning. But if there is, which there often is, the thing of, at least subtly, I'm hearing the traffic noise, that's reasoning. That's a philosophical view you have. Then you have to confront that view and look at that view and see, hmm, But if the awareness is completely congruent with a process where the reasoning is virtually appeased or, you know, pacified, then in that case no reasoning is necessary, which is fine.

[60:03]

Then you're liberated in that case from that situation. from perplexity. But as soon as the self comes back in, as soon as some kind of idea like, I'm doing this, comes back in, then you have to face that construct that you think you did something. Well, since there is reasoning about phenomena, is there self involved in the experience of phenomena? Well, when we say reasoning, also I think we mean some preconception of inherent existence. If there's no preconception of inherent existence in the reasoning process, and the reasoning is going on, we're liberated from the reasoning. If there is preconception going on, even in some situation where you don't think it's reasoning, there's still reasoning.

[61:04]

It's faulty reasoning, though. I think at least at the level of some instruction has to come to you about how to meditate in such a way that you can free the system, the life, from this preconception. that instruction has to come. But if you're practicing that way, then something could arise which is not maybe a case of reasoning, but just a sense experience. And you don't necessarily have to get into reasoning in order to treat that without kicking in this preconception. You can let go of this preconception with this sense experience.

[62:06]

Just like this kid who you say, hey you, And he just says, well, what do you want? There wasn't a big reasoning going on there. But somehow he acted like someone would act if they heard the instruction about how to meditate. But when they said, what's Buddha, the reasoning came in, but he didn't know how to work with that reasoning. But it would be possible to work with that reasoning in a way that you wouldn't be caught by the reasoning. But that way would require some instruction and some reasoning about how to deal with reasoning, how to analyze reasoning so you don't get caught by it. Because it's only when you don't study reasoning thoroughly that you get caught by it. If you study it thoroughly, it falls apart. It doesn't hook you anymore. Reasoning is not a hook. Our tendency is to hook onto reasoning. Reasoning is just perfectly normal, just function of the mind, like smelling or something.

[63:09]

But if we bring prejudices into smelling, we can get hooked by a smell, right? Big time. Yes? I have a question. What is the difference between the difference between preconceived idea and knowledge gained from past experience is Like, then the knowledge comes up, like, if I sit this way, it might hurt me. You just don't cling to it? The knowledge, yeah, you just don't cling to it. The knowledge, if I do this, I might get hurt, that's just a phenomena. Okay? Can you look at that phenomena and just let it be, there's this sentence, if I do this, I might get hurt. You can have no prejudice about that. Like, for example, that's true or false or good or bad, or that's mine or not mine. Preconceived ideas are, for example, the main, let's start number one.

[64:16]

The main preconceived idea is this thing exists inherently. This thought, if I sit this way, I'll get hurt. That inherently exists. That's the basic preconception. The thought arises, you don't deny the existence of that thought. Is that what you said? Right. That's what the sutra is about. when some thought arises like this is dangerous you don't attribute inherent existence to it. It means you don't say it really exists and you don't say it really doesn't exist. You don't do either one of those things. Those are the two extremes that this sutra is talking about, saying the world is generally inclined towards two views, existence and non-existence.

[65:19]

Those are two varieties of attributing inherent existence. Possibilities of actions are wider. Yes. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. So we're sitting here driving down the street. Somebody's turn signal goes on over on the left side. The left turn signal seems to be on. Okay? It does not mean they're going to turn left. It does not mean they're going to turn right. It does not mean they're going to stop. It does not mean they're going to go. It means that you see this light going on. And you say, I see the light. You don't attribute inherent existence to that light going on. and you're ready. The reason why you didn't attribute inherent existence to it is because you're ready, and hopefully you continue to be ready now. Something might happen. You're ready. Your foot might step on the brake. Many things can happen. Yes?

[66:22]

That thought can come up too. That's fine. That's another one. First is the turns left first left turn signal then is in the past you know I know that 77 percent of the time when they that happens they have turned left my wonderful old calculator has told me that so this might be one of those 77 percent but it might be one of the 33 percent anyway all the information is just popping up and you're there ready for that information, which means you're not inclined towards it. You're not grasping it. You're not approaching it. You're not leaning away from it. That's being upright with it, and that philosophically is that you don't say it really does exist or it really doesn't exist. In other words, it isn't eternally existing and it isn't annihilated.

[67:28]

But people usually do, you know, sort of ordinary people are little philosophers running around attributing eternal existence to things and annihilation to things. People do that, you know. They don't, they don't, if you tell them that, they say, who, me? Me? I don't do that. But if you analyze what they're saying, that's what they're saying. They're saying this eternally exists. And this is actually annihilated. And these are the basic extremes of the world that are derived from this fundamental attribution of inherent existence. Those are the extremes. There's all kinds of varieties of the two, but they're all from this basic ignorance. If you don't take those extremes, which means you watch how things happen. You see how things come to be.

[68:34]

And when you see how things come to be, how things come to arise, you do not, in that vision, you do not grasp that things eternally exist. You do not grasp the view of existence. And if you watch how things cease as it actually happens, you don't grasp the position of annihilation. You see that things are not annihilated. Ceasing does not mean annihilation. Thinking that they're annihilated is based on thinking that they were really there. But something that's not really there can't be annihilated. Yes? Yes? Wait a second. You say, what if you're driving down the street and somebody does turns without turning the turn signal on and you're surprised?

[69:35]

If you're meditating, you're surprised by the turn signal, too. Pardon? The turn signal is warning us. No. See, there you say, the turn signal is warning us. That's a prejudice. Oh, this is great. This is why talking to people is good, because you really bring out the, you know, the 21st century version of these ancient texts. When you see somebody in front of you, okay, and the turn signal goes on, you know now, if it's a left turn signal, you know it does not mean they're going to turn left. Okay? But then you say, okay, I know it doesn't mean that they turn left, but they are giving me a warning. Okay? That's a prejudice. In other words, you think if they don't turn signal on, then they're not giving me a warning.

[70:37]

And if they do, they're giving me a warning. Every car is giving you a warning. Even when it's parked, it's giving you a warning. Or you can say every car is not giving you a warning. What it is is not telling you what it's going to do next. You can't tell by the way things are. you know, when you look at them as an inherent and existing thing, you can't tell what it's warning you about. So when you're driving and you say, okay, the turn signal's on, and I know statistically that 77% of the time that that goes on, they turn left. So that's a nice warning. But if they don't turn it on, I know that... I know that, what do you see? I don't know much at all now. If I don't see any signals like that, then I don't know much at all. Oh, I don't like that warning.

[71:37]

I want a different warning. I want the warning of 77% time they turn left. So what's your question? Well, I guess my question is about what happened when we get surprised that they're getting left and then we get upset and sort of, oh, well, that happened and then we get upset. Surprised, now surprised, again, when the turn signal goes on, are you surprised or not? You get to say it. Do you want to say no? No? You're more surprised. So what does more surprised mean? Huh? What does more surprised mean? When the light goes off, something happened there, and you didn't know it was going to happen before it went on.

[72:40]

You're driving along. The turn signal goes on. There it is. You're a little bit surprised. Tiny bit surprised. Yes. It's a more comfortable surprise. It's so comfortable you hardly even call it a surprise. Because you're saying, you know, I'm driving and basically I expect cars in front of me either to have their turn signals on or off. So when they're off, I'm not surprised. And when they go on, I'm not surprised. What I'm surprised by is when they turn left without telling me, without giving me any signal. And I'm also surprised when they have their left turn signal on and they turn right or stop. I'm surprised by that, too, because it's less likely. So the more surprised means more discomfort, it sounds like. Right? That's what you mean. And how can we feel more discomfort? We feel more discomfort because they poke at us and show us our preconception.

[73:44]

The other case, we're driving down the road, having preconceptions like, this car is not going to stop going to reverse and attack me. That's my basic, you know, I'm like 99%, you know, kind of like into that. So you're driving along feeling pretty good, you know, with your preconception, because it's not getting challenged. But if they should happen to suddenly put the brakes on and start backing up into you, and you feel really surprised, you said, well, how come you're surprised? Because you didn't think that was going to happen. You didn't think, oh, here I am driving down the road, assuming that these cars aren't going to gang up on me. You don't think that, but you do, actually. If you thought that they were going to, you'd drive very differently. Like, it's kind of like just, you wouldn't even stay in your parked car. You'd get out of your car and go hide in the basement of Zen Zen. They can't get me here. But no, we think, you know, chances are, you know, they're not going to come after me today.

[74:55]

I never saw those movies about those cars that attack people, but they have cars. There's a movie called Fairlane, right? I heard about it. Fairlane, huh? So there's a movie called Fairlane. It's about a Ford that went after people, right? So this Ford is actually a bodhisattva who's challenging people's preconceptions that cars are not going to come after you, right? So the point is, basically we're driving down the road with our preconceptions. We walk down the street with our preconceptions. And it's like easy to walk down the road with our preconceptions. Easy. And when they get challenged, strongly, we say surprised. Right? And sometimes we don't even say surprise, we just say we feel rage. We skip over the surprise and just go into super defense and hatred because they didn't do what we expected.

[76:06]

In other words, if they did, if we knew they were going to do what they're doing, we wouldn't have gone there in the first place. But we don't know what's going to happen next. We don't. Yes? They get their to drive. Their attendant, they sit over in the passenger seat or even in the back seat and let the attendant do all that dualistic stuff. unless the attendants realize, and then they just park. What? No, they sit on the ground, on the earth. So they don't. Realized beings, super-realized beings do not, you know, well, actually, I don't know, forget about Buddhas, but anyway, in the mode of realization, you can't drive the car.

[77:20]

You're in trouble. You should pull over right away. If you feel it coming on, pull over. What? What? Yeah, if you feel it coming on, signal somewhere or other. and pull over and then park, you know, and then just go into it. But when you come out and you're back in the dualistic world, you have had some realization. But you have to come back in a dualistic world again where you think you do stuff. You know, there's birth and death. You're not a responsible driver if you're not playing the birth and death game with the other people. okay but you're not perplexed anymore because you understand that you are not separate from the car and you're not driving it by yourself you understand that but you have to play that game in order to drive so a realized person when they're in the mode of realization I don't think they can drive a car but fortunately there are shovers so realized beings can be transported by these you know so they can sit down and

[78:52]

But a Buddha, I think, actually can drive at the same time of being in the mode of realization. But most people have to switch back and forth. So shall we switch? Looks like you're ready to switch. From wherever you are, switch. And after you switch, switch again. Keep going back and forth from wherever you are. If you're in the realm of having a fixed position, a determined position of this is myself, switch. Drop that preconception and just be upright with what's happening. Let go of your preconceptions and then get the

[79:54]

non-perplexed, non-doubting mode of right view in the midst of the world of birth and death. And then with that right view in the midst of the world of birth and death you can realize that there is no birth and death. And then when you realize that, please come back and practice love with us who are still waiting to switch. We need some encouragement. Bring word from the other side.

[80:36]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_89.23