on a high C, you can call it imputational character or imaginary character, ODC, other dependent character, and TEC, early established character, and I rearrange them so that the ODC is in the center, because it's the central meditation on the phenomena. on phenomena is dependent co-arising, because it's the basis of the imputation. Imputations are superimposed on the other dependent quality of phenomena. absence of the imputation on top of the other dependent is thoroughly established.

[01:04]

I read the expression, dread of reality, and I have some resonance with that expression, and I thought Part of the reason why we have a dread of reality is that, I think, is that we also have a dread of delusion. And delusion and reality for us are closely related. As you can see here, delusion is not actually the I wouldn't call the imputational character delusion, rather the confusing the other dependent with the imputational character is delusion. The superimposition of the imputational character upon the character phenomena which is their dependent co-arising.

[02:27]

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

[03:32]

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

[04:48]

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

[05:51]

For example, you see that somebody's life appears to be a tragedy, but That's not what I'm talking about here. I just want to make clear that that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about here is that it appears that somebody's life is substantially separate from yours. Or it appears that somebody's life, or somebody's tragic life, it appears that there's an essence to it and it has the basic level that I'm talking about right now. Later we can get into other stories, but the first step is this one. The basis of all these other stories is this imputation of essences and attitudes. Your example wouldn't apply here yet.

[07:03]

There's other realities I'll get to in a minute. Yes? When I look at, you know, what's being called the imputational character phenomenon, and... Excuse me, actually, could you wait a minute for your question? Just let me finish this little list. Would that be all right? Is it really okay? Really? Okay. So another thing, another kind of reality, is that things appear which don't really exist and they appear as though they do exist, so there's an appearance of things existing that don't exist. But there is an appearance, that's the same one that I just mentioned, there's a constant appearance of things that don't exist, like there's a constant appearance or ongoing appearance that were separate. There's an ongoing appearance of a separation between you and the world that is appearing frequently, and that separation is not real.

[08:11]

That's the second kind of reality. The third is that we believe it. In fact, there is this thing that we that we believe or we agree with this appearance that the world is out there set off from us, cut off from us, and it's at a distance from us. We agree with that. That's another kind of reality. A third? It's a third, yeah. First is the way things really are and the way they really are is things are not, for example, things are not there is no separation of subject and object really. Things don't have essences and attributes. That's the first one. Events are actually free, dependently co-arisen events which are the only kind of events, except for emptiness, but actually emptiness is not a dependently co-arisen event.

[09:24]

It doesn't happen. So anyway, take it back. Things that happen are free of imputation, really. They actually have a substance which is their freedom from imputation. That's the first one. The second one is a confusion of the two. That it actually appears, innately appears, as though subjects and objects are separate, or that objects have essences and attributes. That's the second one. The third one is we believe it. We believe the way things appear. We believe false appearances. We agree with them. And the fourth kind of reality is that when we believe these false appearances, particularly the ones I just mentioned, then we feel painful emotions like greed and hate. and jealousy, etc.

[10:27]

That's another truth, and that's a truth of delusion, but a painful aspect of delusion. And then another truth is, or reality is, that once we get involved in these painful emotions we want to do something about it. So then we start to become involved in actions, again based on this misconception that we're separate from others, so it's we're going to do it, and these actions are based on painful emotions which arise from these misconceptions, so it's defiled action. And this then leads to another reality which is that these actions then create consequences which are then the seeds to drive this process around another crank. So, misconception, well first of all, true conception is to see that things are free of our imaginations.

[11:31]

Misconception leads to painful emotions, which leads to a wish to do something about them, which is defiled karma, which keeps the process going. So there are various realities So looking at reality is looking at ultimate reality but also looking at the reality of the processes of delusion which are really kind of dreadful, it's hard to look at them. That's one of the reasons why we encourage the practice of shamatha, the practice of tranquility, so that you can develop relaxation in this dreadful process and also a relaxation which includes being kind of like bright and energetic and flexible so that you can come to these studies and the dread doesn't demoralize you or discourage you in your study of reality, in your study of the use of the discursive thought to develop facilities for penetrating all this confusion.

[12:39]

Okay, now did you, do you want to say something now? Beverly? I'm looking at what's been called the imputational character of phenomena and how the process of imputation is of essences and attributes projected by our minds. be more a characteristic of mind than actually a phenomenon? A character of mind rather than actually a phenomenon? Well, you mean mind rather than objects? Right. Because mind is a phenomenon too. Mind is impermanent too. So imputing is a dependently co-arisen process and the objects that are imputed upon are dependently co-arisen too.

[13:44]

So both of them have other dependent character and you're saying that you think the imputation is more mind than the objects? Right. Yeah and I think a lot of disciples of Buddha, very great ones, would say yes there is a difference between mind and objects, certain objects anyway. Now if you're the object of my imputations and in some sense you're not so different from me because you can impute too, but certainly if I'm imputing essences and attributes on the rocks, rocks are not able to impute essences and attributes. So there is a difference between mind and objects, but some people would say there's a difference but there's not a difference in a substantial difference between the mind and rocks, there's not a substantial difference. However, we don't put the imputing on the rock, we put it on the mind.

[14:50]

So are you saying that you feel like it's more the mind that's doing the imputing than the object? Right. I think that most people would agree with you, it's just that, I shouldn't say most people, but most Buddhist meditators would agree with you. Both wise Buddhist meditators would agree with you. However, they would quibble a little bit about the level of difference between mind and object. Some would say there's no difference. Some would say, well, there is a little difference, but none of them I don't think would say there's a substantial difference, a difference in entity. But that subtlety between the duality between mind and object is Two great schools of Mahayana Buddhism are in a very subtle argument about it, but they would agree that nobody is saying that the rock is doing the imputing of essences and attributes.

[15:54]

Now did you want to make any more comments than now, Elena, about this? So insight study, as you're presenting it, I don't want to make a statement, I want to make a question, I have to preface it by statement, seems to me to be an overall understanding of the process or the picture, and in that picture it seems that the way out of these afflictive emotions, which come from imputing or confusing the other direct other dependence with the imputational. The reality of these emotions that come from that is to go the other direction, not in the action, but go forward into some taking apart these two things, the imputational and other dependence. And so is that a different kind of insight study than that kind of study in which you see the dynamics of what's going on?

[17:03]

Once you see the dynamics, you see the... Well, let me check to see if I heard you. Did you say that In this picture, you see that when you're at the level of afflictive emotions of greed and hate, that rather than going to action based on that, you would turn around and study the greed and hate and see where it came from. That would be more relevant to the insight process. Is that what you're suggesting maybe you thought would be the case for insight work? Is that the insight work that we're involved in? If in fact you're aware of afflictive emotions, and then you actually look at them, and you notice them, and then you would perhaps wonderfully notice that they were based on some misconception, you would be doing insight work. If you just notice the afflictive emotions, you're actually doing insight work.

[18:05]

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

[19:13]

And at that level of penetration, the source of the arising of the afflictive emotions has been cut off, and therefore the source of contaminated action has been cut off. And therefore, the process of binding you to the process of misery has been cut off. So you're liberated when you start to see that you're being established. So that is insight work. So actually, I was going to say a little bit more before we get into the questions. Is that OK? I remember Shoho said something about practically applying these teachings, so I thought I'd give you a little going to be some practical advice about how to work with these teachings and then we can have questions if you want. So again, I already talked about practically, one of the practical ways of working with these teachings is to listen to them, listen to the teachings of this sutra, listen to them, that's part of the way, practically speaking, you work with them.

[20:18]

And if you hear them you might have a question like, well how do you practically work with But first of all, you're asking that question about practical applications of teaching because you listened to it in the first place. And asking questions like that is also how you practically work with them. Does that make sense? Asking questions when you hear a teaching about how do you practice it, that's part of how you practice it. And expressing your lack of understanding is part of how you practice it. That's part of how you study the teaching. Another way that you practically apply these teachings is to take a break from practically applying these teachings and take a break from listening to them. That's another way you practice them. In other words, one of the ways you practice this is to take care of yourself and not get too excited about studying insight. You can spend some of your time... now if you're super calm, like you're just like... it happens to people, they get into states of tranquility and they can run all over

[21:24]

ring gulch, do backflips and have high-speed conversations. They stay flexible and calm and relaxed and alert and they can really attend to what's ever happening very carefully, etc. So if you're already really calm and you can study this stuff and you don't get the slightest bit excited, you don't have to do any more tranquility work. But if you start to notice you're getting excited, not to mention discouraged, depressed, thinking that you're stupid or whatever, that kind of stuff, when you start thinking you're stupid, it's probably time to relax. Usually it's a sign of agitation. I mean, not just that you think you're stupid, but you think maybe that's true, etc. I'll stop at the etc. So one of the ways you practically apply these teachings is to practice a different kind of meditation than insight.

[22:26]

Because practicing tranquility helps you do insight work when you go back to it. So the next practical application is to see if you can notice, or catch, or identify the appearance that objects are out there cut off from them. Can you identify that appearance? Can you get a feeling for that, how it seems like that's the way things appear? And like, without you working that hard at it, they appear that way. As soon as you wake up in the morning, does the ceiling appear, does the dark appear to be out there separate from you, like I'm here and there's the darkness? So can you notice that appearance? So catching that appearance is also insight work. It's not noticing the emotions, it's doing it somewhat deeper. Like sometimes when you wake up in the morning you don't immediately feel angry.

[23:31]

It's possible. Have you ever had that happen? You don't immediately feel like, you know, lustful, like, oh. You just wake up kind of like, objects, I'm aware of something, what is it? And at that moment, you know, the afflictive emotions haven't kicked in in a way. You're just like, cool. How early do you have to get up? Approximately. 414 is good too. Pacific Standard Time. But sometimes on the days when we have, you know, on the four and nine days, or zero and five days, actually six is okay.

[24:44]

Something like that will also work. But just when you wake up, mindfulness practice is to be aware, and then see if you can catch that what you're aware of seems to be out there on its own, really. And it very well might. If not, well, we've got something interesting here. Like, it's out there, but... Wow! Where did the separation go? Now we're talking... That might happen too sometimes. I think it does sometimes happen to people. They lose it. They lose the delusion. Anyway, catch that, and then... See if you can catch that you believe it. See if you can catch that you believe that those objects people, your body, you know, trees, see if you can catch that they're out there separate from your awareness of them. See if you can catch that.

[25:46]

It's possible if you can catch it. And that's insight work too. It's a little bit more subtle than the other one, but I think you might be able to catch that you believe this appearance, which is the invitation You actually now are seeing the imputation of character of the moment and you're seeing that you believe it. This is pretty good and this can be done quite often. You can start when you get up and you can continue maybe all the way to brushing your teeth and then forget it. You might also notice when you, if you are able to catch it, you might notice when you stop catching it. And when you notice, I've spent quite a while not noticing, hey, I believe this. One time, a long time ago, I was having an argument with someone who I'm not allowed to mention who that was. And this person was really angry at me and I said, Oh, you believe that I'm actually here.

[26:51]

Actually, she regained her presence. it worked quite nicely, because I was genuinely surprised, I sort of got it that she thought that I was actually out there, and that was really bugging her at the time. The next point, after noticing that you believe this misconception, that you believe this appearance which is not really true, the next step would be to notice, identify, confess, how, as a consequence, See if you can notice and catch how as a consequence of believing this appearance painful emotions arise like hatred of him or her. See if you can notice that.

[27:52]

It actually is supposed to sometimes happen that we are confronted with this appearance that our nervous system and so on, our history and all that presents us with this appearance. We believe it and then we have painful emotions. See if you can notice that, catch that, admit that, that you believe it and there are consequences, and they're painful consequences. The sutra here says there will be afflictions when you confuse what's happening with the imputational. When you let the imputational blur over the way things are happening and apprehend it as what's happening, afflictions will be generated. See if you can catch those. You're getting pretty deep now. This is good. Then, that might be the end of the story for a lot of you in this process. You just keep catching the painful, you're catching the delusions, catching that you believe them, catching that you believe delusions, that you believe misconceptions apply to something.

[29:00]

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

[30:03]

but this is a busyness based on afflictive emotions, based on believing and so on. So at that point notice how karma starts to come in and notice how the karma… this is more difficult. It's not so difficult to notice how the karma kicks in, but what is difficult to notice and probably at this point you won't be able to notice it for a long time, is to notice how that karma propels you back into the process again. That next step The vision of that is not usually available. Usually you can't see how the karma has the consequence of keeping you in the cycle. So we're told that it does, but usually only a Buddha can see how that works. But you can see the karma. So that's part of how to turn this. At each stage you can turn the process around by mindfulness. If you're at the karmic level, if you're going to town, based on afflictive emotions, based on belief and so on, if you start meditating on the karma, that starts to get you back into the karma, and as you get more into the karma, you start getting back into the afflictive emotions, and as you start to be mindful of them, that backs you into the belief, that backs you into the misconception.

[31:17]

are very deep. We're getting close to the root problem here in these conversations and these teachings here. But we can easily move away up into these grosser levels very quickly, and then when we're running around doing karma based on all this, it's hard to turn around, but it's possible. And in each step you can turn the process around by this. So maybe you can hear this as a practical application at whatever level in the process you discover yourself to be. Basically, we're in this process. We're dealing with, we're actually, like it or not, we're in the process of dealing with reality all day. We're like reality junkies. We're into it. Because in fact, reality is unavoidable. Bob? relative versus absolute. Pardon? How do you overlay the relative versus the absolute?

[32:33]

Well, actually, the first type of reality was ... I don't like the word absolute too much, I prefer ultimate. The first kind of truth that I mentioned in reality was the ultimate. The other ones were conventional. Actually, Really the conventional one was the second one, and the belief in the conventional one is not exactly conventional. It's that you believe conventional to be ultimate. But you can catch yourself believing that conventional is ultimate. So if I go up the driveway, up to the roof, called car. So, I mean, those things exist on one level.

[33:39]

But then at another level, there's nothing substantial about any of that. Right. And I think on some level cars Cars are examples of other dependent character, and broken legs are examples of other dependent character. And they do exist, and there's some debate about how they exist. The Mind-Only School, which uses this sutra as its base text, it says that these dependently co-arisen things, like cars, really do exist. And other schools say, no, they don't really exist. But they do agree that that's the only kind of phenomena other than they're the established that have any kind of existence. They have conventional existence anyway.

[34:42]

Some of the imputationals exist and some of them don't. We'll get into that. But the imputation of essence to the car and attributes the imputation that the car is separate from the broken leg, that doesn't exist. None of the Buddhists say that that exists. Well, none of the Mahayana Buddhists say that that exists. The appearance of substantial separation between the broken leg and the car. But the dependently co-arisen aspect of the... Well, the leg is a dependent co-arising, the car is a dependent co-arising. and they do exist, at least conventionally, according to most Mahayana Buddhists and all the earlier Buddhists would agree to. Now, the car is composed of other things, but that's what it means to be dependent on the co-arisen. The broken leg depends on other things than itself for its existence, and that's what it means to be a dependent co-arisen.

[35:49]

produced by itself. But this school, the Yogacara school, the Mahayana school, does say that the leg and the car do come to be established by other conditions, but they're established by way of their own character at the same time. Yeah, yeah. They just appear to be. Yeah, and so I guess that's why I asked the question about the absolute, where on a relative, on one level it's like, okay, there's a car and there's a broken leg, but then on another level, okay, it's all energy appearing in different forms. Yes, so you're wondering on a relative level, does a separation exist?

[36:59]

Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're saying? Is that your question? It might be. Let's go with it. Let's assume it is. What do you think? We hear that ultimately the separation between the leg and the car and between the person with the broken leg and the car or this body, your sense of your body and the card, ultimately that separation is not substantially existent. But I guess you're asking, well, is it conventionally existent? The separation? I don't think so. I don't think it even exists conventionally.

[38:00]

But according to conventional realities it would exist in that reality, right? According to the reality of where it appears to exist that way, there is a sense, there is an appearance that things are out there separate from you, okay? There is that. It's true that things appear that way, but it's not true that the separation is true. Conventional truth doesn't say that really there is a separation. It's just true that there is a sense that there really is a separation. There's a truth that it appears that way. That's true. It does. But we're not saying that there's a conventional existence to that. with the broken leg is experiencing pain, but the car is not experiencing pain.

[39:19]

How is it? Yes, that's that seems to kind of reify in the conventional It makes me think I'm just separate from the courses. But does that mean that if you bump into somebody else and you both break your legs that you feel less separate? Yeah. No, no. I wouldn't feel any less separate. It doesn't matter what the object is, really. It seems like it's out there. Because no matter what it is, I'm here by myself, I don't need you.

[40:23]

Which means that I'm not looking at the other dependent, I'm distracted from the other dependent by the imputational. So we need to focus on the other dependent, we need to learn how to study that. And again, catch how we don't believe. that teaching that we're confusing with the other dependent quality because of our imagination. Yes? When you said that I just don't get that the imputation is permanent because it doesn't really exist, I can't understand that. It's permanent because it doesn't really arise or cease. Essences and attributes don't arise or cease.

[41:26]

The thought of them does, thinking about them does. Right? Again, we don't think that rocks think of essences and attributes. That's the kind of dependent co-arising they are, but the kind of dependent co-arising humans are is that they can think, and they can imagine, and they can imagine, they can conceive of essences and attributes. They can conceive of that what they're aware of is out there separate from themselves. They're independent of what they're knowing. People can conceive that. Conceiving is a dependent co-arising. That's an impermanent thing, and that's the center of our meditation is to watch our processes of conceiving and misconceiving and believing and all that. But the imputation of the essence, that imputation, that's not the imputing, that's the actual essence. That essence doesn't arise, essences don't arise and cease.

[42:30]

If they arise and cease, they're not essences, they're dependent co-arisings. They're not permanent things. But things that don't arise and cease are permanent. So conceptualizing is co-dependent realism, not process. But what do you conceptualize? Some of the things you conceptualize are permanent, because you're conceptualizing a permanence. You're conceptualizing something that doesn't arise. If essences arise, They're not essences. So we go ahead and think of things that don't happen. And therefore, since they don't happen, they're permanent. Because if they don't happen, they don't cease. I can. Can you give one? An essence is an example of something. What we mean by essence is something that's self-existent, that doesn't arise depending on things. So we sort of know that things arise in dependence on things, and yet these things that we know that arise in dependence on things, we project an essence on them, that they're out there on their own, rather than see things as arising from many conditions.

[43:50]

When you see how things arise from many conditions, when you see that, then of course you don't project an essence on them. When you see that you're arising from various conditions, you can project essences on it. So the rock doesn't have an essence? The rock does not have an essence? Right. It doesn't. So, essences, or another example of something that is permanent is the separation between self and other, that's kind of permanent. That doesn't arise. The projection of it arises, the imagination of it arises, but the thing you're talking about, you don't see that arising. If you saw it arise, you wouldn't believe it was substantial. Rockiness is permanent, isn't it? Rockiness is permanent? Rockness. Rockness is permanent?

[44:51]

Yeah, rockness is permanent. Rock is the essence, rockness is the essence of rock. But there is no rockness. All the things, all the attributes of rocks, that's why I said before, the funny thing is we project essences and then we project attributes, and the attributes are kind of like to substantiate the essence, but why would you have something to substantiate something that doesn't need any substantiation because it's substantially self-existent? Again, what do you have that for? Well, because it needs it. But it isn't sufficient, except for us and our friends. So these imputations are permanent. Now, some imputations that are... Some other imputations, which are also permanent, do exist. However, they also don't arise or cease, because they're permanent.

[45:55]

space, uncompounded space. It's just an imagined thing, you can't perceive it directly, it doesn't arise or cease, but it does exist. Time. I haven't heard that one. But the process of arising, the general characteristic of all phenomena, that they arise last for a little while, deteriorate and cease, that is a general characterization of phenomenon, it's an imagined thing, you can't find it. When you look for it, all you find is phenomenon. That's this type, the imputational type, is what we call the two types of cessation. One type of cessation is the type of cessation of affliction. There's two types. One type comes through practice, which Shakyamuni... It's a name for what happened to Shakyamuni.

[47:04]

Part of what happened to Shakyamuni on the bow tree was he attained a cessation of affliction due to his yogic practice, due to his insight. He attained the end of outflows, the cessation of affliction that happened. But that doesn't arise or cease. It's an imputation, it's something which we imagine, but it's not the imputation of essences and attributes, and you don't have to, like, in the dependent co-arising world, we don't, generally speaking, confuse that with what's happening. We don't confuse the, what do you call it, Pratisamkhya Naroda, we don't usually confuse The cessation due to yogic practice or due to effort, we don't usually confuse that with a ball or a tree. So to be thoroughly established, it's not that we don't confuse cessation with another person.

[48:10]

That's not a problem. As a matter of fact, this cessation is a wonderful thing, it's just that it's imaginary. Because it's actually just that there's no more suffering. That's not a thing, in the sense of something arises and ceases. it doesn't arise or cease, it's just realized. And then there's another kind of cessation which is called apratisamkhya nirodha, or it's a kind of cessation of misery and affliction that arises when you don't have a body anymore. Or, you know, parinirvana, perfect nirvana has this quality but it's not actually something you can observe, you can't really observe you can't observe this absence or the end, the cessation, you can't really observe the cessation of affliction. Okay? But you can imagine it and it does exist. So, sorry, but that's the way sometimes things are taught.

[49:16]

It's on the list of things that are happening. Not things, not things that are happening. These things don't happen. Some things, some phenomena don't happen. I've just told you some. And then there's one more that doesn't happen, which is our best friend. It's called the thoroughly established character. It doesn't happen. It's permanent. So the impermanent phenomena are surrounded by permanent, in a sense, in this presentation. These two are permanent. This one's impermanent. But the impermanent is the central meditation. Always meditating on the impermanent. You always stay here in the world of impermanence. Because this is where these other truths come. This is where people, you know, there's a dependent co-arising of people who believe in misconceptions and suffer and so on. This is Buddha's home base. And this is what Buddha teaches first in meditation. Meditate on the impermanent, meditate on the dependent co-arising. And then, we can start looking at the one kind of permanent thing, which is these imputations.

[50:19]

And we can also study the dependent co-arising of the imputation, of the imputing. So you can study the impermanent, unreliable, unpredictable, uncontrollable process of imagining permanent things, and that will help you, but that's based on the impermanent. And then by studying that and understanding that, you can also see how when we have the absence of the imputational in the other dependent. We then look at that absence. We start to undo the whole process. We can actually change ourselves, who are normally built to misconceive and believe our misconceptions and suffer. So then emptiness or suchness or the thoroughly established is a permanent phenomenon too. We can actually perceive it directly.

[51:23]

But we can't directly perceive these cessations, and you can't perceive space. But it's proposed to you that those are phenomena, and they exist. But there are some things, some of the imputational things don't. So some of the imputational things do, and some of them don't. So a self doesn't conventionally exist at all. It's just completely imagination, and it's not an existent imagination. But none of that stuff are dependent co-arising. They don't arise and cease. But our imagining these things that don't arise and cease, that imagining doesn't arise and cease. That imagining is actually other dependent character. So this stuff is supposed to be happening, so you should be able to find it. Unless the suture is just kidding, or misled. But supposedly we're all involved in these processes.

[52:23]

Okay? Yes, Cedar? So, there's this line that says, independence upon strongly adhering to the other dependent character as being the evocational character. The other dependent character is known. It sounds to me like... That's one of the big surprises of the suture. Can you explain this? Strongly adhering to the other dependent as the imputation of the other dependent is known. Another way to put that is, the only way you can know the other dependent is by confusing it with the imputation. So it's a dirty window, but it's the only window we got. It's a dirty window, but it's the only window we got. Yeah, right. Yeah, right. Through a glass darkly, that's it.

[53:26]

However, if you don't want to look through the glass, through the dark glass, fine. But you don't get to see anything. on the other side of it. However, I thought Helen's point was interesting the other day when she said, well, maybe it's by insight that you know the thoroughly established, and maybe in Samatha, in a sense, I don't know what you said, but did you say no? Or understand? Understanding might be different from knowing. So, in a sense, Prajna, or insight, in terms of Buddhist psychology, is not exactly the same as cognition, although it's a factor that can pervade a cognition, or an awareness. So, awarenesses, generally speaking, have objects, but prajna, in a sense, isn't necessarily like knowing something,

[54:34]

but maybe just understanding the something. So you're looking at an object, but you have an understanding of it. So maybe when you're in a state of tranquility, you have, what do you call it, given up certain processes of imputation, and therefore, in that way, you calm down. So maybe when you meet objects in this state of tranquility, you're more willing to give up knowing them. In other words, give up using the imputation in order to know them. So in that way, that's one of the advantages of the tranquility, you can get closer to things in a way, be more intimate with them. You give up the wonderful facility of the imputation, which makes it possible for you to talk about what's happening. So in tranquility, you're not so much trying to make a living off phenomena anymore. So would that be like getting up early in the morning?

[55:39]

In a way, yeah. Maybe what the sutra means is that the price of knowing things is adhering to the other dependent as the imputational. And certainly the price of speaking about things involves this imputation. Otherwise we just really feel like ungrounded or unwarranted in talking if we don't really think we're talking about something that's actually there. We feel kind of silly when we think we're talking about something that we don't think is really there. But sometimes you can be with something without really thinking it's there and somehow not talk and yet here you are with it. But you can't talk about it. So you think, well, OK, fine.

[56:41]

Is that enough cedar on that for now? I don't know. Who's next? You're next, Richard. I was wondering if you could address the relationship between imputing and discursive thought. And it sounded like in your last answer you were, in fact, When you give up... imputing is not the same as discursive thought. You can impute, in a sense, without running around in your mind. Imputing is more like astragena. Just suddenly things appear. Just boom. So, when you see a red ball, that's already imputing, usually. That's not discursive thought. Discursive thought is going back and forth with that red ball. But when you give up discursive thought, you also start to lighten up on the imputing. Although deep in your mind, you still have that proclivity, that disposition due to past karma.

[57:53]

You still have that disposition towards imputing. You haven't eliminated it. You still may believe that the appearance is out there. There still may be that sense But you calm down so much you're so relaxed with it. It's attenuated considerably. And then you're not going into afflictive emotions and karma from there. But you're not also going down and addressing that belief which is still there. and uprooting it, and being convinced that it doesn't really hold water. And you really can't. It's not really, really there. You're not doing that work in the Samatha. However, this way of being, once you are convinced and have done that work, this way of being brings additional light to the situation and brings you closer to the situation that you've had insight with.

[59:04]

So it deepens the insight. But it doesn't really create the insight all by itself. And it doesn't have to, so no problem. I don't know who's next, but yes? When you were saying that, about Helen's point, that perhaps in Samatha practice you're not knowing in the way that you do through insight, using descriptive thinking, what I thought of was in the Bodhisattva Sutra, it seems like the first chapter, there's a clear crystal. of the Buddha. In the second chapter, skill and means, where the only reason to talk or enter into discursive thinking is to help other people. There's the motive for it. The only reason for Buddhas to enter into discursive thought is to help people. And they can do that.

[60:05]

They can make conventional designations. through the Buddha's need to go through that same process of checking in to an imputation hotel so that they can have the ability to make conventional designations. And I would think that they have to sort of come into the hotel too, and that they can do that. But they also remember at the same time that this imputation in order to be able to talk to people who still have some confusion about the imputation's relationship to the other dependent. And then they can hear instructions about how to look at that confusion from the one who understands the confusion and has seen how to resolve it. Yes? I think I have a confusion. It's just a statement that I think I wrote incorrectly, so I'm just going to... I want you to give me feedback.

[61:13]

Okay. Okay. When you see the... Other dependent through the... the IC, do you see the TEC? So she wrote down, when you see the other dependent through the imputational character, you see the thoroughly established... No. When you see the other dependent through the imputational, you see a delusion. When you see the imputational as the imputational, you see the imputational. That's not delusion. It's not delusion that the imputational is the imputational. It's the adhering to the imputational, to the projection of... And in particular, it's confusing the imputation of essences and attributes, or substantial separation between self and other, that that's projected onto the other dependent. That's delusion.

[62:13]

Like they're saying, to think that the A clear crystal is a ruby. That's delusion. But just the red color in the cloth, the red color in the cloth is the imputation. You know that example? The red cloth that the crystal's sitting on, the red cloth is the imputation, but the red cloth isn't a delusion. It would only be a delusion to think that that applied to the crystal. But it doesn't apply to the crystal. The crystal doesn't really have the red cloth with it, and also the crystal is not a ruby. But when you confuse the red cloth, the imputation, you lose track that the imputation is a red cloth and the crystal is a clear crystal. Now you have a ruby. See, that's how it works. So, no, when you see the other dependent through the imputation, you don't see the thoroughly established. As a matter of fact, you don't see the other dependent or the thoroughly established at that time.

[63:15]

You just see the imputational, and you think that's what's happening. However, looking at the imputational is different than looking at the imputational when it gets confused with the other dependent. So you see, when you look at the imputational, you see a red cloth. When you confuse them, you see a ruby. Rubies are more interesting than red cloths to some people, unless the red cloth is made of a very high-quality silk. Does that make sense? I don't know who's next. Rosie? Mine's quick. Good. You've got to go to work. So you just said, when you see the educational, but before hadn't been to say, there's no other way to see the unintended? There's no other way to know it. I didn't say there's no other way. I sort of did though. Because Sutra says, By adhering to the other dependent as the imputational, the other dependent is known. No other way to know it.

[64:19]

It doesn't really say there's no other way to know it, but maybe that's the case, that in order to know it, you have to make that confusion. However, understanding that process, it says later, by understanding that process, you understand the afflictive phenomena. You notice that? Well, this is in our chapter, right? So, if you study the way that we're sort of drawn into this confusion in order to know what's happening. We want to know what's happening, because what's happening really is the basic meditation. But in order to know what's happening we have to also mix in this fantasy stuff. But then we also notice what's happening is affliction, because affliction arises in conjunction with this confusion. So by studying this dynamic between knowing and holding to the other dependent as the imputation, by studying that process, we understand afflictive character.

[65:24]

He's saying the studying of it is imputation? Studying how that in order to know the other dependent, We must hold to it as something that it isn't. Which I said before, it's like, in order to know Rosie, I have to think Rosie as Carolina. That's the only way I can know Rosie, is holding to Rosie as Carolina. But that's the way I can know Rosie. It's not right, but it gives me some access to Rosie, in terms of knowing her. But again, it may be that in tranquility, although I don't know you, I maximally understand you. But when I meet you without that, I actually understand you. But I don't understand you the way I would understand you, so I could talk about you and make a date with you or something. In order to do that, I need a little confusion in order to negotiate certain things.

[66:30]

Talk to me first. Grace? It seems to me that there's another sort of imputation that's going on that we're not really talking about. For example, We take the blue and we do the crystal. And then we confuse that sapphire. Sapphire is an other dependent process in all of our brain waves and discursive thought that's there by virtue of a long history of mind or whatever we want to call it. So it's, that's another

[67:34]

other dependent characteristic that's arising that then makes it possible. Isn't this correct for the imputation to be taken as the imputation? But here's the color, here's the crystal, here's the color, and then the third thing over here is here's this repository of images, experiences, history that is sitting just like the crystal. That repository, when things that arise from that repository, those are other dependent phenomena too. However, it's possible that Right.

[68:42]

And it seemed to be, you said before that the absence of the imputational was the thoroughly established. Yes. But this sounds like it's saying the absence of the other dependent is the thoroughly established. Absence of the other dependent? Would you read it again? Do I want to read it again? Yeah, would you read it again? Sure. Independence upon absence of strong Yeah, that's the absence. It's strong. Absence of adhering to the other dependent as the imputation. Absence of that adherence. Absence of the adherence of this as being that is the Guru established. It's not the other dependent that's absence. It's the adhering to it as something that it's not. So when you don't adhere to what's happening as what it's not, in the absence of that adherence, you're open to suchness, or the thoroughly established.

[69:46]

But once again, I think there is circulating in the Buddhist community, of people who are studying this teaching, a view that the thoroughly established, the other dependent, in the absence of the imputation of it, that's the thoroughly established. In other words, that the other dependent is the thoroughly established, when it's cleaned up. Or some other people think that the essence of the other dependent is that it's empty of the imputational. They think there's an essence in there. And when you realize that, then you realize that through the other dependent you realize the thoroughly established, which is right. The thoroughly established is based on the other dependent not having the imputational. So it's based on it, but it's not it. It's when you don't adhere to the other dependent as being what it's not.

[70:48]

So another place it says that the other dependent is not established in everlasting, everlasting time as the imputation. That's the thoroughly established. Putting it positively, the thoroughly established is established in everlasting time as the absence, as the other dependent not being the imputation. Either way you want to put it. The sutra puts it in a non-modern way. So the absence is the belief that what you're seeing, what you think you're seeing, is actually what you're seeing. The absence of that. The absence of that. Right. Let's see. Allison, I think? This was earlier. I just wanted to clarify. Tranquility practice? Yes. without necessarily insight? Yeah, it's intimacy with what's happening without insight.

[71:57]

And if you bring in insight, then I think you've brought in something that's not necessarily included yet. But tranquility sets the stage for insight work. I've recently been... I presented this scenario. Scenario is like kind of a sketch of a narrative or a play, right? Not the whole play. So the scenario is trust, relax, play, create, understand. That applies to this process. So the relaxation part is the tranquility practice. The playing is when you start studying the nature of phenomena, you start interacting with them, you start probing them, and let them sort of poke at you and poke back and get kind of excited a little bit.

[72:59]

But you're doing it in a relaxed way, hopefully. And as you enter into this play with phenomena, you enter into creativity. Or you enter into actually enacting the other dependent. And as you enact the other dependent more and more, you realize to what extent the invocation is getting in there and causing suffering. And you find a mode in which the other dependent is there in the absence. And then you see the absence and you understand. And then you're liberated, or liberated. Trust is the foundation. Relax, play, create, understand, liberate. Or trusting, relaxation, playing, creating, understanding, and liberating. Or trust, relaxation, playfulness, creation,

[74:08]

understanding and liberation. Demar is putting it as abstract nouns, verbs, and what else was it? I was wondering if you could give us like a practical breakdown example of this in terms of using the example of war as other events occurred. Yes, so I was actually talking to someone about that today. So you have this phenomenon of war arising, or let's say, you know, actually you're meeting a war, a war is going on, and so, and you're aware of it, So you want to practice insight with this war? That means that you would actually become aware that you catch this appearance that the war was out there separate from you.

[75:19]

Or you'd actually catch the imputation that there was an essence and attributes to this war scene. You'd catch that. then you would notice that you believe it. Then you would notice the afflictive emotions arising. Then you would notice the karma based on those arising. Then you would notice that you start acting or interacting with this thing in such a way as to propel the process of misery in relationship to this phenomena called war. That's what most people would do, right? Can we back up a little bit? Sure. You can back up all the way to the beginning, and catch the beginning, and then you see the war, and you catch the imputation, and you snuff it, and then you don't go into this process of defilement and contaminated action and misery. So would snuffing it be not believing that I'm separate from it?

[76:22]

It would be not so much not believing that you're separate from it, but sort of that. It would be even more like that the belief that you're separate from it would now be absent, which is slightly different than you not believing it. But sort of like that. In other words, you'd be noticing not so much that you don't believe it, but that the belief's not there, and also even the appearance is not there. Then you'd be looking at the war and realizing emptiness on that occasion. You'd be liberated, And then, in your liberation, if you happen to be also practicing, for example, Samatha, or tranquility meditation, and patience, and the precepts, and giving, if you've joined up your compassion practices with this insight you have now, you might be able to go and teach the people who are involved in the war something, to help them also start to become liberated from their

[77:30]

their life of seeing war out there and thinking that we're seeing the enemy, seeing the non-believers or whatever. So that's a possible response to war. In other words, it's possible to look at the war and look at suffering and be liberated while looking at suffering, your own or other people's suffering. Even looking at situations where people are being cruel to each other, to meet these situations and be liberated is a possible is a scenario that's being offered as a possibility. And when liberated, if you do the other practices, so we have the wisdom practices we're talking about now, if you do the other practices, which are the compassion practices of giving, precepts, patience, enthusiasm and concentration, so those five culminate in tranquility practice. So tranquility practice, in some sense, assumes the previous compassion practices. So you bring the compassion together with it, and then you become actually able to be effective in relating to this ocean of misery, which has war, it has some peace, but people are unhappy in peace to people in a peace situation, but they're inwardly afflicted, so they take drugs and stuff like that, and then they start shooting each other.

[78:53]

So anyway, it's this ocean of misery arising from misconception, from delusion, from ignorance. And if you meet this ocean, this war, with that way, then hopefully you can make a positive contribution to a war scene. Although you might not actually go in the war scene. You might go visit the generals, who are sort of like miles from the war scene. You might go visit them and teach them first. But you might actually walk into the war scene, perhaps. Or you might be forced into the war scene. And then the way you behave in the war scene might contribute to some people waking up. If you're in a war scene, it's possible sometimes to be kind in a war scene. There are examples of that, where people who are fighting against the other side actually are kind to the other side, and where it doesn't get them in trouble. And it's possible to teach compassion and teach wisdom in a war scene.

[79:59]

I say that, but really it's more like, I think that would be wonderful if it were true. I hope that that's possible. I've heard stories of it. I love those stories. I've heard stories of people being in war scenes and making it worse. Those are exciting stories too, but I like the ones of people being in war scenes and doing this very unusual thing, doing something good. But in a sense, you know, we are always in some kind of relative situation of conflict in this world. Can we meet these conflicts and do something good? And the idea is that if we have wisdom and liberation and compassion, we might be able to make a positive contribution. And sorry to say, I mean, sorry to talk like this, but even if you can't make much contribution, at least you're happy and free and not causing any trouble until you get in your SUV. I was wondering if you could, because I'm a little confused on the definition of absence.

[81:04]

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

[82:29]

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

[83:30]

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

[84:40]

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

[85:41]

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

[86:43]

That's why all the imputation itself is a permanent thing. The imputing is impermanent. You don't always, you're not always imputing. But always, the imputation doesn't make it. There's always an absence of the imputation. So that's the suchness that's thoroughly established. That's permanent. OK? Thank you. You're welcome. Nellie? I was wondering if there are inquiries of psychological terms to the re-establishment of the imputation or the outcome. Well, sort of equivalent, and if you want to, you know, next class I'll bring it up. It's a bit much to bring it up at this point. I think it's a bit much to bring it up, but if you remind me I'll speak of this a little bit more psychologically next time. This actually is, although it may not appear this way, this is psychological.

[87:45]

This sutra is teaching, this sutra is a sutra which is teaching about ultimate reality in terms of psychological processes. but also philosophical, because some of these things are not... Some of the objects... So, for example, the absence of misery, the absence of affliction, isn't really a psychological process. It's the end of psychological process. It's a philosophical thing, but... Jane? I want to go back to the appearance that objects are out there, cut off from you, and separate from your awareness. Oh, and you could also say that objects co-arrive with your awareness. Correct. That's exactly the way some Buddhists put it. That the awareness and the object come up together. It isn't like the awareness comes up and says, OK, well, come on. Something's going to happen.

[88:47]

You never have awareness coming up sort of unemployed. Awareness doesn't come up with the head of the object. And the object doesn't come up with the head of the awareness either. Objects don't mean anything without a subject. Phenomena aren't objects by their nature. They're objects only in relationship with subjects. Trees are not objects without a subject. No, no, wait. I'm not done. So anyway, when objects come up, subjects must come up. They come up together. And according to this school, they come up from the same seed. So they're actually one event. It seems like two. So this would also, question mark, be a way of describing how objects are not separate from each other. Exactly. That's right. That doesn't mean we're the same as objects. We're the same as the objects. Right.

[89:53]

Very good. Pardon? Well, I just wondered if there's any more... Yeah, there's the rest of our life. You just made a good point and now you can talk about that and study that and share with your friends for the rest of your life. Mom, this is a fact, which she managed to come up with there. Anybody who has not got a question, go ahead, do call on me. I think I have a question. Okay. I was wondering, but maybe it's not the right time, the other day when you were talking about art, I think we should then go get some glimpse that artists might have, that what's still not Well, what I was referring to is a glimpse that's not yet wisdom.

[90:56]

It's some wisdom. It's some insight. I think certainly artists have some insight. In other words, what I was speaking of is that many people, some of you perhaps, have seen beauty. Right? Did that happen so far? In this lifetime, have you seen beauty? You can see it, but you can't know it. Once you know it, what happens? You confused it with the invitation. So in some sense we can, in a sense, see beauty, but we can't know it. And I was actually thinking that some people, in some works of art, somehow the way causes and conditions work, when we meet them, in a sense we go into a state of grace, where we're actually meeting the thing without the incantational, we're meeting a dependent co-arising without the incantational.

[92:11]

And so we're actually impacting, we're affecting, We're transformed, we're moved by actually how things are happening and we experience beauty at that time. And so, like my grandson kind of does that for me. He strips away my imputations. I just become a slave. Zen master slave, of course. Basically, there's something about it. The sense of separation is kind of stripped away. It's like I can't hold up this thing and be separate. And some teachers are that way. Some works of art are that way. You just look at them and suddenly you're stripped of the appearance that the art is out there. And sometimes some art is very upsetting because it strips you of this sense that it's out there. And some people are upsetting that way too. They strip you of this sense.

[93:13]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ