It's mentioned. But someone gave me a little announcement. It's a theater announcement about something that's happening tonight at 8 o'clock. So it's 15 minutes away, but it's unfortunately appears to be in New York. But I thought you might be interested in it. It's in the West Side Theater, 8 o'clock tonight if you want to. You can get there. So the kind of simple point that I, simple to say, a point is that enlightenment is not

[01:03]

caused. Enlightenment is a dependent co-arising. Enlightenment dependently co-arises. Delusion also, by the way, is not caused. As a matter of fact, I wasn't going to mention it, but nothing is caused. There isn't anything that actually exists, that there's any evidence for existing that is caused. So unfortunately my talk just expanded a little. But I wanted to focus just on enlightenment, just to make that point that enlightenment is not caused. It is a dependent co-arising. So I said that before to you, right? Did you hear that before?

[02:05]

So because it's a dependent co-arising, it can arise. And if there's evidence for it, and I mentioned the other day some evidence, like Buddha's robe, the actual material Buddhist robe, when made by beings or inspired by awakening, is evidence. The robe isn't enlightened exactly, but it's evidence for enlightenment. Bowing also, when inspired by enlightenment, is evidence. Great wisdom and compassion are evidence. Great freedom is evidence. Kindness and harmony in the Buddhist community is evidence, and so on. There's quite a bit of evidence for this dependent co-arising thing called enlightenment. But

[03:11]

it's not caused. Enlightenment depends on something, but it's not caused by it. For example, enlightenment depends on ... well, you tell me, what does enlightenment depend on? Tell me some things that you think it might depend on. Compassion. Pardon? Compassion. Depends on compassion. Uh-huh. Wisdom. Wisdom. Presence. Presence. Uh-huh. What? Presence. Uh-huh. Blasphemous. Delusion. Delusion. Depends on delusion. Good old delusion. Anything else? Emptiness. Depends on emptiness. But it doesn't depend on emptiness. It doesn't depend on emptiness. It's empty. Is there anything it doesn't depend on? Well, as a matter of fact, yes. If there wasn't anything it depended on, if it depended on

[04:23]

everything, then there would be no, like, way to impute, to mentally, conceptually impute anything on it, and it would not exist, it would not appear for us. So, for example, we don't exactly say that enlightenment depends on the fireman named Jose who works in San Jose, dropping his pencil on Tuesday morning. Does not. We don't have that story about enlightenment. Now, somebody might, but most people don't. So there's some way that you think about what enlightenment depends on, and that's how it appears for you. For example, enlightenment does not depend, this one, get this, enlightenment does not depend on a lack of delusion. That's a big one. A lot of people think it does, but the story of the Buddha is that enlightenment

[05:27]

does not depend on a lack of delusion. Now, if there is a lack of delusion someplace, that won't hurt enlightenment. You know what I mean? Like, if there was some delusion over there on that seat around there, but then, like, right nearby, like down below there a little bit, there was lack of delusion, that wouldn't hinder the enlightenment arising interdependently with the delusion up on the tongue. Okay? And that wouldn't be part of the story of the enlightenment. Okay? Because there's a lack of delusion all over the place, right? It's basically everywhere, you know, there's no limit to it. But that's not the story. The story is that it depends on understanding delusion. And that's the enlightenment that we can have evidence for. Okay? So actually, nothing is caused, there aren't any caused

[06:31]

things. Causation is a fiction. But all those things which you think are caused, like misery, cruelty and so on, if you, rather than look, rather than deal with it in terms of causes, you understand it's dependent for arising, you can become free of the appearance of misery in this world. But if you deal with its cause, you stay in the cycle of its creation. So the Buddha did not teach cause and effect. So sometimes you see the Buddhists, like Dogen Zenji has a facet called Deep Faith, and it says, it looks like it says cause and effect, but really it means that you have to study the world where there is a dependent co-arising of the fiction of cause and effect. You have to understand how cause and effect

[07:37]

dependently co-arises. It's not that there is no cause and effect, it's rather that when you understand cause and effect, you understand it's dependent co-arising and you see that it's empty. A.K. Roshi quoted Rajneesh one time at Zen Center as saying that practice doesn't cause enlightenment. Enlightenment is an accident, but practice makes you accident prone. Rajneesh was a devotee of Bodhidharma. He really loved Bodhidharma, especially towards the end of his life. And he said that. And I thought, I was thinking now, is practice an accident? And I looked up accident, and the first meaning of accident

[08:42]

is an unexpected and undesirable event. And actually, pretty good. The second meaning is an unexpected or unintentional event. Another one is fortune or chance. And the root of the word accident means to happen, a happening. So, in a way, accident is not so bad that its enlightenment or awakening is unexpected. What it is, is not what you expect, and it's not what you intend. However, even though it may not be what you intend, if you practice properly, and if you're deluded properly, and if you're a living being properly, it will happen, it will dependently co-arise, and it'll be too late to say, well, that wasn't

[09:50]

what I intended. Would you please take it back? It will happen. Dogen Zenji says that enlightenment invariably differs from our expectation. Awakening invariably differs from our expectation. It is not like our conception of it. Whatever you think, one way or another, before awakening, is not a help for awakening. It is not like, although awakening is not like any of the thoughts preceding it, this is not because such thoughts

[10:53]

were actually bad or could not be awakening. Although awakening is not like any of the thoughts preceding it, this is not because such thoughts were bad and could not be awakening. Past thoughts, prior thoughts, thoughts prior to awakening, were all themselves actually already awakening. However, we didn't notice this because we were seeking elsewhere.

[11:55]

We thought and said that thoughts cannot be awakening. Again, he says it is worth noting, it is worth noticing that what you think, one way or another, is not a help to realization. If you realize this, if you notice this, you are cautious not to be small-minded. Do you understand about being small-minded? No? Small-minded is like this thought you have right now, small-minded is, this is not awakening, this thought, that is small-minded. It is also small-minded to say this thought is awakening, even though this thought already itself is

[12:59]

awakening. And the thought, that this thought is awakening, itself is already awakening. If enlightenment came forth by the power of your prior thoughts, it would not be trustworthy. Enlightenment is helped by the power of enlightenment itself. Know that there is no delusion and there is no enlightenment. And yet, enlightenment does, on some occasions, dependently co-arise in this world, and also delusion does dependently co-arise in this world. But because they dependently

[14:01]

co-arise, we can be free of both. So that's what I wanted to say. I hope you appreciate that. I think it's very important teaching from the ancestors. So you don't practice to cause enlightenment, but enlightenment dependently co-arises with practice, and also practice dependently co-arises with enlightenment. They come together. In India, they say that when two things come together all the time, they're really the same thing. However, if we have any gaining idea, we may not appreciate that this practice which dependently co-arises

[15:04]

with awakening, and the awakening which dependently co-arises with practice, we may not appreciate the fact that they're the same thing. And it's hard for us to not be small-minded. That's part of our work. Any questions about that? Does that make sense? Carol? What is the role of volition in practice? What is the role of volition in practice? Volition is a volunteer for the experiment

[16:10]

of practice. It's something that volunteers for the Buddha to study. It's something to be studied. That's its role. It's a study object. It is karma. It's a definition of karma. Volition is a definition of karma. So it is one of the first things that the Buddha points to as an object of study. He says volition has consequence. That's part of the right view. So volition is something that you study, you watch how it happens and how it has a consequence. You watch how it dependently co-arises and what dependently co-arises with it. Have you been watching it lately? I can't tell. You can't tell? I can't tell. You can't tell if you've been watching? I can't say.

[17:10]

You can't say? You haven't seen any volition lately? It doesn't look or shake you. Are you saying that you haven't seen any volition lately? No, I'm not. What are you saying? It seems to be more like an intention. Intention seems to be more like an intention? To come to practice seems like an intention. You could have an intention to come to practice. That's right. That's true. Practicing seems like it's intentional and voluntary and it arises. Do you say that practice seems like it's intentional and voluntary? It does. It does seem like that. So I'm suggesting that you consider that practice might not be your intention to practice. That your intention to practice might be actually an intention, not practice. That practice is the way you care for and pay attention to and are present with the intention to practice.

[18:19]

Okay? Consider that slight change of perspective. And please adopt it for at least one moment completely, and then you'll be a Buddha. That's all the time there is. Yeah, that's fortunate. If you do what I asked, you'll be fine. Pedro? Maybe you'll clear up something for me. It seems that there's practice and enlightenment. When I'm practicing, there's enlightenment. It's the same thing. I practice enlightenment, it's the same thing. And yet, it seems like, from what I've read and hear, there's different enlightenment. There's enlightenment that goes beyond that. Can you hear him, Linda and Ramon and Steve? Can you hear him?

[19:23]

Okay, so you've heard that maybe there's enlightenment that goes beyond what? Beyond practice and enlightenment. That goes beyond practice and enlightenment? I just wanted to clear that up. Practice and enlightenment goes beyond practice and enlightenment. Yes, that's right. It's like, you hear the term Great Awakening. Great Awakening. How does that differ from practice and enlightenment? How does it differ? It's another word for the same thing. And Great Awakening goes beyond itself. If it's Great Awakening.

[20:25]

If it doesn't go beyond itself, it's called, what do you call it? It's called Zen Sickness, among other things. It's called, the light is not circulating completely. So there can be a great light, but the light has to transcend itself, otherwise it gets stuck and doesn't fully realize itself. Does that have anything to do with your question? It's a question related to what Carl was saying. Is volition the same for motivation? Volition and motivation are very similar. I mean, in some context, motivation and volition are the same, exactly the same.

[21:39]

Maybe sometimes it's made different, but basically, yeah, they're the same. Volition, intention, will. What about bodhicitta? Bodhicitta, relative bodhicitta is a motivation, is an intention, is a wish. Buddhists do have wishes, do have intentions. Bodhisattvas do have wishes, do have intentions. And ordinary self-centered people do have wishes, do have intentions. The difference is that the Buddha doesn't have a self-clinging attitude in conjunction with the intention. So it's just the intention, it's not coupled with self-clinging. So it's not karma. Buddhist intentions are kind of like, Buddhist intentions are kind of like, real simple.

[22:47]

Sentient beings' intentions are quite varied. Like they intend to go shopping at this store and that store, and buy this and buy that, and get this and get that, and be with this person and avoid that person, and help this person and not help that person, these kinds of things, these are the motivations. Buddhist motivations are very, kind of like, one track. They're only concerned with ultimate reality, where all beings are interdependent, and where all beings are in harmony and happiness. That's the only intention is that, that world. Very simple. But they don't have a self associated with that intention. Okay? But they do have an intention. And sometimes we would have an intention just like a Buddha, the question is whether there's any self-clinging associated with that intention. And that's for us to find out.

[23:55]

And if we find some self-clinging, what do we do with it? What? Study it. Study it. Study it if it happens. Self-clinging. Study, study, study, just as it is, and you'll see how it happens. When you see how it happens, then there's freedom from self-clinging, and then there's just, hopefully, your good intentions free of self-clinging. Now, if you had any bad intentions prior to that, they will gradually drop away. And good intentions coupled with self-clinging are still good intentions, and they're called, under that situation, they're called good karma. But when the good intentions are coupled with selflessness, then they're not karma anymore, then they're liberating activity.

[25:01]

They're liberation and liberating. Okay? Does that make sense? I think you said that enlightenment exists before enlightenment. Is that right? No, I didn't. I said that the thoughts prior to enlightenment, are themselves already enlightenment. It's a somewhat different statement. So what does prior to enlightenment or after enlightenment mean? Well, it means like, let's say you're sitting over there, and you're thinking, and you look at your thoughts and you say, this is not nirvana. I'm not totally at peace, I'm not totally happy, I don't love all beings.

[26:02]

And this thought that I don't love all beings, that itself is not enlightenment. And I better go someplace else to be happy. Maybe I should change my seat with Rachel. You don't trust your thinking. So, you don't trust your thinking itself, you don't trust the substance of your thinking. So that lack of trust, that lack of faith in ta-ta-ta, effectively hinders the realization of the nature of your thought. But all the while the nature of your thought is itself enlightenment. But enlightenment never did exist. I didn't say that enlightenment existed before it existed. I never said anything about it existing at all. But I don't have to, because people do that for me. So if I forget to mention that Buddhism exists, enlightenment exists,

[27:05]

Zen Center exists, you exist, people will remember that for me. But basically I'm not into telling you that things exist, I'm into telling you that they dependently co-arise. Therefore they only appear by that interdependence, and that's called conventional existence. So, before enlightenment conventionally exists, before it conventionally exists, your thoughts are already enlightenment. I didn't say it already exists as your thoughts. You see the difference? It's subtle. Before enlightenment conventionally exists, and it conventionally exists like when there's evidence for great compassion and so on, and everybody's happy, okay? Before that, the thoughts you had prior to that conventionally existing enlightenment,

[28:09]

those thoughts themselves in actuality were enlightenment. But in actuality, the way that they're actually enlightenment, in actuality they're also empty, the thoughts and the enlightenment. So they don't exist in actuality. And also they don't exist conventionally. Because it's not that emptiness really exists, emptiness only conventionally exists. Just like enlightenment only conventionally exists, and delusion only conventionally exists. So your thoughts always are themselves awakening, but the in-themselves awakening is actuality. But in actuality, things don't fall into existence and non-existence. They're free of that troublesome categorization system. But then sometimes when you appreciate that, then there's a conventionally existing enlightenment.

[29:10]

It conventionally exists, okay? But I didn't mention that. But in fact, that's the case. When we say prior to enlightenment, we mean prior to the conventionally existing enlightenment, there's already an actuality of enlightenment. But the actuality of enlightenment is not existence or non-existence. Now you got it, right? Yeah. You have it partly because you could say you didn't have it. See? So now you have it. So take care of it, okay? But, did you say but? We can't appreciate the enlightenment prior to conventional enlightenment without conventional enlightenment. You see, we can't appreciate the enlightenment prior to the conventional enlightenment without the conventional enlightenment. You know, I think we might be able to appreciate

[30:13]

the enlightenment prior to the conventional enlightenment before realizing the conventional enlightenment. Yeah, that would be an unconventional enlightenment. It would be kind of like, I don't know why, but I really appreciate my thoughts prior to being enlightened. Like, I'm totally happy, you know? I'm really satisfied with the thinking that's going on. I feel completely free. But I'm not yet enlightened. But I'm kind of like, you know, it's as though I were, but I'm not. Because my enlightenment doesn't conventionally exist and it also doesn't ultimately exist either. This would be a kind of unconventional enlightenment. You wouldn't know you had it, you know? People would say, are you enlightened? You'd say, I don't think so. Stuff like that. This would be unconventional. This wouldn't be the kind we usually call enlightenment, right? Conventional enlightenment is the one where we kind of like all sign off on it, right? She knows, she's good looking, she's happy,

[31:15]

she's compassionate, she's wise, you know? And yet, when you tell me that you appreciate the nature of your mind prior to enlightenment, that's enlightenment. In fact, you're tuning in to the way enlightenment really is. Namely, it is what you are. So that would be kind of unconventional. But who cares, really? Well, you know, it is nice to have conventional, like, conventional existing enlightenment sometimes. There's something to say for it. Like, a conventionally existing monastery is nice, right? You can find it, it's got walls, you know? You can raise money. There's some advantage in conventional existence. It's good stuff, actually. But, there's also, like, unconventional enlightenment that nobody, that we won't agree on, right? Yes, Kathy?

[32:22]

Jack Kornfeld quotes Suzuki Roshi in Back to the Heart as saying that, strictly speaking, there was no such thing as an enlightened person. There was only enlightened activity. So that fits that. They're on a par. The enlightened activity exists no more than this person, than this enlightened person. They both can conventionally exist. You can have a conventionally existing person, but strictly speaking, there isn't one. Yes. I think Stuart wrote on this first,

[33:29]

and then came the rest. Right? Pardon? The problem is that enlightenment doesn't appear in person. That the people conduct enlightened activity, but because they conduct enlightened activity, it doesn't mean that their person is enlightened. But only that they're capable of conducting enlightened activity. And that, presumably, they might be capable of carrying on unenlightened activity as well. It's just a reminder that it doesn't appear in itself. It isn't identified by a person. Yes, but the same applies to enlightenment. It can conduct unenlightened activity. Enlightened activity can conduct unenlightened activity also.

[34:33]

But we don't generally say that activity conducts activity. We don't? We say people conduct activity. What do we say about activity? Activity takes place or doesn't take place. We do? We say that. Right, but in the realm of enlightenment, there aren't people conducting activity. Does that mean that you would say, though, that activity conducts activity, or do we simply say that activity takes place and people take place? Do we say that activity takes place? We do sometimes. And sometimes we say people take place. Okay? What's next? So that still doesn't make the enlightened activity

[35:37]

the property of a person, of a conventionally existing person. In the conventional, in the world of karma, the world of karma is the world where the person owns the activity, right? Is that true for enlightened activity? You might say about good karmic activity and bad karmic activity, that this enlightened activity falls into that realm. Does it? Well, let's see. When there's somebody who owns an activity, that's called karma, right? Okay? So where's the enlightened activity? At that moment. So the enlightened activity at that point is the activity which emerges with the understanding

[36:40]

of this story that I just told, right? Of a person owning activity. So where is the enlightenment? Where is it? So wherever it is, there it is, right? Now, does somebody else own that enlightened activity? No. Right? Neither ultimately or conventionally. Right. This kind of enlightened activity that's going on in the midst of karma, right there at that time, that can operate there, okay? There's nobody that owns that. Okay? Enlightened activity is conducting enlightened activity. Liz? And then we try to recognize that gaming idea,

[37:58]

but I think it's part of how the mind works, and it makes images of what it thinks it's heading towards. Yes. Try to be aware of it. Try to be aware of the mind making images of where it's going. Right. That's studying your intention. For example, studying your intention to be enlightened. That's a good one. It's also good to study your intention to perhaps be deluded. Linda. Yes.

[39:03]

Did you hear me say that delusion is enlightenment? No, no, I don't think I said that, but if I did, I withdraw my statement. Enlightenment is not delusion, but enlightenment dependently co-arises and delusion dependently co-arises. They both dependently co-arise, but their dependent co-arising is different. Just like you and Ramon, both dependently co-arise, but you have different dependent co-arising. You said enlightenment is dependent on delusion. I said enlightenment is dependent on delusion, yeah. Just like you depend on Steve and Leslie and so on,

[40:03]

but you're not Steve and Leslie. You depend on being a woman. You depend on the name Linda and so on. But you're not Linda and you're not a woman. Okay. Thank you.

[41:45]

Thank you. [...]

[43:04]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ