This diagram ... what is it again? It's the three characters of phenomena, as taught by Buddha in the Samadhi Nirmatana Sutra. Someone mentioned to me the other day that he was giving a class, giving a Dharma talk he said, and teaching these three characters. And the way he put it to those people that he was talking to was, he called this one the mystery, this one being, for those of you who can't see, the other dependent character of phenomena,

[01:13]

and then the imputational character, or the merely conceptual character of phenomena, or merely conceptual phenomena, called the dream. And I guess you could ... no, the dream. He said, dream, dream's good. You notice the difference between dream and dreaming? The imputational character is the dream. He didn't say that, I'm sorry. He didn't say that, did he? Now you know. Dreaming, what's dreaming? No. The dream is the imputational character, what's dreaming? It's a mystery. It's a mystery. Dreaming is presented as a mystery. Dreaming is the other dependent character.

[02:19]

That's what's happening. Huh? That's what's happening. Dreaming does happen, have you noticed? But the dream doesn't happen. You ever had a dream? When you were dreaming, the dreaming happened, but when you were dreaming about it, it did not happen. Do you see the difference? No. So the imputational character is the dream, so dream is correct, actually. And dreaming is part of the mystery. And then, the thoroughly established character, I think, is the truth. Is that what you said? Yes. Yeah. So that's another way to talk about it. Here's another way to talk about it, which I told you before, I'll say it again. The Buddha taught, I'm not the Buddha, yeah, the Buddha taught, but the Buddha's disciples taught in the

[03:22]

Zen history, they taught, think of not thinking. How do you think of not thinking? Non-thinking. Okay? So the Zen teacher, the Zen master, the Buddha, sitting in meditation, the monk says to him, what kind of thinking is going on when you're sitting like that? He says, thinking of not thinking. The monk says, how do you think of not thinking? The teacher says, non-thinking. So, that story, that Zen story can be mapped onto this, I think. So under the mystery, you would put non-thinking. Under mystery, you put non-thinking.

[04:27]

Non-thinking is a way of talking about the other dependent character. Non-thinking. Surprised? You have a picture? Who's recording? Oh, she's recording. You know, a style of response in the face of people, for those who can't see. Is that why maybe when we say something is a mystery, it means we can't think about it anymore? It's very similar to that. Non-thinking has also been translated as beyond thinking. Beyond thinking. There's a new collection of translations of the meditation teachings of Dogen. The name of the book is Beyond Thinking. The other dependent character is actually beyond thinking. What's happening is actually beyond thinking. Why wouldn't that be true? Why wouldn't that be true? It just doesn't work out that way.

[05:30]

I said it just doesn't work out that way. That's right. The reason why it's not true, I will talk on in just a minute. I just want to finish this parallel here. Under dream, we put what? Thinking. But strictly speaking, it shouldn't be thinking. It should be more actually like thoughts. But anyway, I'm just going along with the usual way of thinking. But if dreaming is a mystery, then surely thinking is also a mystery. Yeah, thinking really would be a mystery. I'm just going along with the usual way of thinking. What kind of thinking is going on? He could have said, what kind of thoughts are going on? And he could have said, thinking... Oh, no thoughts.

[06:32]

It's kind of hard to translate. But anyway, the clearly established character is not thinking. In this thing. So, the kind of thinking that the Buddha does... Buddha does think. But what kind of thinking does Buddha do in samadhi? Buddha thinks of not thinking. In other words, Buddha thinks of the thoroughly established. So there's other dependent thinking going on about the truth. The Buddha is thinking about truth. About emptiness, about suchness. About the thoroughly established character. But then, that's what the Buddha thinks of. The Buddha thinks of not thinking. The Buddha thinks of a thoroughly established character. And then the monk says, how do you do that? How do you get into that?

[07:38]

By non-thinking. You get into the truth through the mystery. Or you get into the truth through beauty. You get into the truth through studying beauty. You get into the truth through studying dependent co-arising. Now, Suki said something about why isn't the mystery or other dependent truth? The reason is because... When you look at the truth, it purifies your mind... ...of all misconceptions. But looking at dependent co-arising does not purify your mind of misconceptions. You can actually be in rapport with the mystery, with the other dependent character...

[08:41]

...and not have your misconceptions tipped upside down. But when you see how your conceptions actually are not in the mystery... ...when you see how your misconceptions cannot be found anywhere... ...in the realm of what's happening... ...you become more and more convinced... ...that they really don't hold up and really don't apply to what's happening. What do they apply to? They apply basically to themselves, to fantasy. So in particular, the imputation or the idea of essences and attributes of things... ...when you look for the essences and attributes in what's happening... ...and you look and you cannot find it... ...and you hear the teaching that you won't be able to find it... ...and you look and you can't find it... ...it gradually convinces you that it's not there... ...that they aren't there, that they're imposed. And that's why that's the truth.

[09:44]

From the religious point of view, it's the truth. It is true in a sense. I mean, all three of these characters are true in a sense. It's true that we fantasize. It's true that there's more than just our fantasy. It's true that something happens. But what happens actually... ...fails to exist... ...in any way... ...other than just happening. And any imputation fails to touch what actually happens... ...which is more... ...the imputations fail to reach... ...what is happening... ...which is more than just what you're thinking. And that absence of all categories and so on... ...reaching what's happening... ...that's what purifies the mind. So... ...actually it's the practice of non-thinking...

[10:46]

...or the practice of meditation is the practice of non-thinking. It's the practice of mystery. Those who study the mystery... I humbly say to those who study mystery... ...don't waste time. Study the other dependent characters like studying the mystery. It's studying what is beyond thinking. So that's... ...that's... ...you know... Where should I go now? How do you know if you're wasting time? How do you know if you're wasting time? To try to find out if you're wasting time... ...you're wasting time. Now, when I tell you that... ...you may or may not know you're wasting time... ...but...

[11:49]

...if you chose to check to see if you're wasting time... ...that would be a waste of time... ...but if you were checking you're wasting time... ...which would be a waste of time... ...and you noticed that you were concerned and trying to know if you're wasting time... ...it's okay to check to see if you're wasting time... that's just checking on the mystery. Wasting time is a kind of mystery, but to try to know that, to try to know if you are that thing, would be like assuming that that imputation could be found in what's happening. That would be kind of like wasting time. I also want to mention that over the door of Suzuki Roshi's room in the San Francisco Zen Center, when he lived there, and it's still there, there's a piece of calligraphy, and it says

[12:54]

cloud driver. Do you understand cloud driver? Somebody who's either driving clouds or driving through clouds. But I think driving through is okay, but it's more like herding clouds, I would say. Not so much herding clouds, but being devoted to clouds. And then over on the side, that's the two big characters up there, cloud driver, and then over on the side, the small characters, it says non-thinking. Non-thinking is like being a cloud driver, or I sometimes say cloud farmer. Studying the mystery is like being devoted to what you can't control. Being devoted to what you think you can control is delusion. What's acting, it's acting on delusion.

[13:56]

That would be like being devoted to what you think you control, or being devoted to trying to control things, that's confusing the other dependent with the imputational. Do you want me to present more, or do you want me to just, we'll get into the questions now, which means no more presentation in a sense. A little more? Okay. Another thing I thought I might mention was that, a little more water. I'm going to the back of the class now.

[15:00]

Oh, here's another way to talk about the other dependent character. The brain. Or, in Buddhist terminology, alaya-vijñāna, storehouse consciousness. The brain is actually other from our fantasies. It's actually like cooking away there, producing all kinds of stuff, and we're dreaming about what's going on. And to study the brain is to study the mystery, because we can't possibly ever see how it works.

[16:18]

But the brain, and the brain is also connected to so many other things, because it's totally responsive to itself, to the body, and to the environment. It's impossible to understand, and one way to say it is, because it's impossible to understand it, we make dreams up about it. We can't understand it, so we make dreams talk about it. And these are useful, these dreams. I also just want to note that this kind of study of wisdom naturally, naturally often, brings up a dread or fear of reality, and I get a feeling like that dread and that resistance

[17:34]

to reality is now starting to arise, and I just wanted to say that it's happening. So, in some sense it means we're getting closer, getting warmer. Another Zen term is the nest. We have a nest. It means the nest of our illusions. So, the imputational character is the nest of our illusions, and sometimes we also speak of the nest of our delusions. The nest of our delusions is the confusing of the imputational character with the other dependent character. The imputational character is not a delusion. It's not a delusion to have the conception of an inherently existing phenomenon or person. It's just an idea, just a fantasy.

[18:41]

But to confuse it with a living being, an actual living thing, that's a delusion. And there's a nest where people who have such delusions live, and they're comfortable there. That's usually where they live. Comfortable means they're familiar, and they know that they can live there, and you can. They're actually suffering, but they're familiar with it. This teaching here, and other teachings, are encouraging people to get out of their nests, and go, you know, leave their nest of their illusions and go spend time with the mystery. First step is to go spend time with the mystery. Don't go directly to the truth. Start with the mystery. Start with what's beyond thinking. The truth isn't beyond thinking. You can know the truth. The only way you can know the mystery is by confusing it with your ideas.

[19:50]

What's beyond thinking really is. And yet, we're encouraged to study the mystery, knowing that it is beyond our thinking. We're studying what's beyond our thinking. We're studying what's beyond our control. What's happening is beyond our thinking, beyond our control. And, but that's not enough. We have to then go and study the imputational character, and then find the truth. The reason why studying the mystery isn't enough is because that does not purify our mind of the confusion of our dream. It does not purify our mind of the confusion of taking the mystery as our idea of it.

[20:54]

But we start studying, as Joshan says, the way you learn to think of not thinking, the way you learn to see the truth, is by practicing non-thinking, practicing beyond thinking. And the traditional way in Zen to practice beyond thinking is to sit. But the sitting that we're talking about, that we're doing, that's really beyond thinking. It's not your idea of sitting while you're sitting, but the actual sitting, which is the actual way the sitting has happened, including everything, that sitting that you're doing is beyond thinking. And if we try to think about it, we sometimes do think about it, but our thinking about it is not the sitting. The sitting is beyond everything. So we do practice like that, which is our basic way of studying the mystery.

[22:00]

I wanted to read you a text. It's kind of long, it's difficult, but I think it really captures the spirit of... it just made me feel like it captured the spirit of the study of wisdom in a lot of ways. So this might be a big mistake to read this, but I'm just going to give it a try, okay? Of all the existential questions that have plagued me over the years, none have been more persistent than this. Am I hot or not? Although most evidence favors the conclusion that I am, in fact, hot, there is still a slim chance that I'm not hot.

[23:10]

And that possibility transforms each day for me into an orgy of self-doubt. At times, I even envy the millions of people who clearly are not hot and know it, since they can at least get on with their lives. I probably worry about the hot-not-hot issue more than the average Joe does, because I come from such a hot family. Mom and dad, for example, are both incredibly hot. Is dad hotter than mom? Some people think so, but there are equal numbers who would swear that my mom is hotter.

[24:18]

This is splitting hairs. In my family, being hot has always been a fact of life. Never questioned, never discussed. With the exceptional occasion, hot is what hot does, from Uncle Ezra. This is why I would never in a million years dream of asking my parents if I am hot or not. Besides, they would probably feel obligated to say that I am hot, even if I'm not. And I really don't feel like turning to two of the hottest people I know into liars. Instead, I decided to ask people I work with at the bank.

[25:25]

Who is better to resolve this matter than folks who see me eight hours a day? My boss, my co-workers, my subordinates, and my new boss, Janet Gunderson, whom I didn't know all that well, but who had just come over from compliance. And seems like a straight shooter. I emailed each of them a photo of me lying on a leopard skin rug, wearing a red Speedo. Does everybody know what a Speedo is? Gazing at a camera with my smoldering bedroom eyes.

[26:35]

It was, and I say that as a guy who has taken many, many hot pictures of himself over the years. I pressed send and waited for responses, fully prepared to take the verdict, good or ill, like a man. When I didn't get any responses, I thought I was a liar. Something told me I'd made a mistake. When security escorted me out of the bank and changed the lock on my office door, that was another sign.

[27:41]

Only later did I realize that one's workplace, rife as it is with politics, jealousy, and petty agendas, is the wrong place to get a good read on a question that requires brutal honesty. If I wanted complete candor, I would obviously have to ask people who had no vested interest in giving me the, quote, right answer. In other words, total strangers. And so I started accosting people on the street, knocking on doors, shimmying up drainpipes, climbing in second-story windows. But everywhere I went, all I found were hopelessly unimaginative drones whose knee-jerk reaction to the question, am I hot or not, was to run to the nearest telephone and call the police.

[28:43]

Sometimes people would ask me if I was insane. I would politely inform them that am I crazy or not was a question that did not interest me in the least. From the vantage point of my prison cell, I realized that to the outside world, my quest for truth about hotness or lack of it may not seem worth the price I'm paying. But that's missing the point, I think. Socrates said that the unexamined leg is not worth the price. And even though he wasn't hot, he wasn't stupid either. Maybe I'm in this joint for a reason, and not just the reasons stated at my trial.

[29:47]

Perhaps my fellow inmates, stripped by society of every ounce of pretension and affect, are the people who will tell me, once and for all, whether I'm hot or not. One thing I've learned is that there's no harm in asking. Now, after the chapter which you have been reading, chapter 6, I believe, in this translation, comes chapter 7. Chapter 7 is a much bigger chapter, and really, really much harder. I'm sorry that we started with chapter 5 in a way, because if you've done the first four chapters,

[30:53]

chapter 5 would be, in some sense, wouldn't have been so challenging. But we never would have got to chapter 5 if we started with chapter 1, I don't think. Except it went very fast. So that's why I just leapt into chapter 5, into the first five chapters. I leapt into chapter 6, and invited you to join me there. So it is kind of a big leap. Chapter 7 now is looming out there, and I just want to tell you a little bit about chapter 7. Are we going to read it before lunch? I'm not sure exactly if we'll ever read it, as a group, or not. But I'll read you a little bit of it here. I'll just tell you about it. Basically, the way the chapter is built is that this bodhisattva, which means paramartha samatgata,

[32:04]

paramartha means ultimate truth, and samatgata means arisen or born from. So the name of this bodhisattva is arisen from ultimate truth. And he says to the Buddha, basically, Buddha, you taught about the own being of, for example, the skandhas. And then he goes through various things that the Buddha taught the own being about. Actually, the own character. You taught the own character of the skandhas, and so on. The own character of the four noble truths, and so on. But then, you taught that all phenomena lack own being. So first you taught the own character of all phenomena, and then you taught that all phenomena lack own being. And there's an implied, there seems to be a contradiction there.

[33:11]

I'm just sort of raising the contradiction. What were you thinking of when you taught that all phenomena lack own being? All phenomena lack own being. What were you thinking of when you said that? After earlier teaching that, teaching about the own character of all phenomena. And then the Buddha said, well, what I was thinking about is three types of lack of own being. When I taught basically one type of lack of own being. So in the Heart Sutra, it just says, for example, that the skandhas lack own being. Avalokiteshvara saw that the skandhas were empty of own being, right? You know what it says? And that saying that the skandhas are empty of own being is a teaching that came after the Buddha taught that the skandhas sort of did have own being.

[34:12]

So Paramahamsa is saying, well, how come you taught the skandhas had lack of own being, but earlier you taught that they did? What were you thinking of when you said that? Well, actually, in the back of my mind, he didn't say it quite this way, but actually what I was thinking of was three kinds of lack of own being when I taught just that one kind of lack of own being. And the three types of lack of own being which I was thinking about were a lack of own being in terms of character, a lack of own being in terms of production, and an ultimate lack of own being. I had those three types of lack of own being in my mind when I taught one type of lack of own being for everything. That's why I taught all phenomenal lack of own being. Can you say that again, please? The whole thing? The part of why, the answer. Hmm? The part, the why, the answer to three things, three types.

[35:19]

It's not so much why. The why, we haven't talked about yet, but what he had in his mind was three types of lack of own being at that time. He always had those three types in his mind, but he didn't think people were ready for it. That's the why. So he just taught them one. And the one he taught them was everything lacks own being, all phenomenal lack of own being, all phenomenal lack of own being, all phenomenal lack of own being. He said that. But what he had in his mind when he taught that, in other words, when he taught the Prajnaparamita literature, like the Heart Sutra, what he had in his mind was three types of lack of own being, which he didn't mention. And now, in this sutra, he's telling those three types he had in mind. And the three types are lack of own being in terms of character, lack of own being in terms of production, and lack of own being, an ultimate lack of own being. And those three types of lack of own being are sort of what he called the other foot dropping relative to these three characters.

[36:26]

These three characters are actually also the three types of lack of own being. They're characters, but they're also three different modes of lacking own being. So the dream, or the mere fantasy, the imputational character, is a lack of own being in terms of character. The other dependent character is a lack of own being in terms of production. It's a production, but really what it means is a lack of own being in terms of self-production. And the other dependent is the ultimate lack of own being. The verb established is the ultimate lack of own being. Now, one of the hard aspects of the sutra, which we may or may not be able to clarify, is that the other dependent is actually two kinds of lack of own being.

[37:32]

It's a lack of own being in terms of production, and it's an ultimate lack of own being also. So there's two kinds of ultimate lack of own being. One kind of ultimate lack of own being is a thoroughly established. One kind of ultimate lack of own being is a thoroughly established. The other kind of ultimate lack of own being is the other dependent character. What does production mean? Production means arising, or arising of birth. So, in other words, what's happening, the way things are happening, lacks some kind of own being or essence in terms of how it happens. The way it happens doesn't have self. And what's happening is not produced by itself. So it's both ways of looking at it. How things are happening, and in any particular thing you have, how you happen, how a feeling happens, is that it's not produced by itself.

[38:43]

It's produced by others. So it lacks own being, or it lacks an essence in terms of how it's produced. So the other dependent character, or the mystery, lacks an essence in terms of its production. But also it has ultimate lack of own being. But there's two types of ultimate lack of own being. One type is the actual ultimate lack of own being, which is a selflessness, an emptiness, a phenomenon. And the other type is a lack of own being in the sense that it lacks the ultimate lack of own being. So one is selflessness itself, which is thoroughly established. That's an ultimate lack of own being. The way things are thoroughly established is the ultimate lack of own being. And there's another type of ultimate lack of own being, which is the mystery, the other dependent character phenomenon.

[39:47]

So I wondered, what was Buddha thinking of when he taught these two types of ultimate lack of own being? How can there be two ultimate lack of own being? Well, there really aren't. Why did he say there were? I think because the other dependent thoroughly established are so intimate, that I think he mentioned these two to help us discriminate their relationship correctly. Because there is a tendency, which has come up several times during this practice period and before, to think that once you clean up, that beyond thinking, the other dependent is beyond thinking. So once there's no more confusion of the thinking with the other dependent, that the other dependent is the ultimate. That's what Suki's question was sort of. Well, if it's beyond thinking, why isn't it the truth? So that's why it's called an ultimate lack of own being, because it actually lacks the ultimate truth.

[40:50]

And we mention that specifically because there's a tendency to look for the ultimate truth in the thoroughly established. Not exactly in the thoroughly established. I'm just going to look for the thoroughly established in the other dependent, in the mystery. As though there was something that the essence of the mystery is the thoroughly established. The essence of the other dependent is thoroughly established. But they're not the same. The other dependent lacks the ultimate lack. So that's one of the... this is a core issue of chapter six, and it's kind of difficult. This is a core difficulty of chapter seven, and this is kind of difficult. And one more thing I wanted to mention for you. Can you take any more? This is a real important thing.

[41:50]

After the Buddha said that this is what was in mind when teaching the Prajnaparamita literature. And here's another big parenthesis. The Bodhisattva didn't ask him how come he taught the own character phenomena first. He didn't say, how come you taught? Now that you're teaching Prajnaparamita, how come you taught things differently earlier? He didn't say that. Rather than ask him, why did you teach differently at the beginning, he asked him, why did you teach differently later? But actually also it's implying the question, why did you teach differently at the beginning? And the answer I would give to it is because if Buddha had taught the ultimate truth at the beginning of his teaching, people, his students probably would have had a nihilistic interpretation of Buddhist practice and Buddhist teaching. So he gave them a little bit of a false impression about the nature of reality.

[42:55]

What he did was he gave them a teaching where they could dismantle their belief in the self of the person, but continue to believe in the self of phenomena, like the skandhas. And that way they wouldn't say, well, nothing matters, the precepts are empty too. People are empty of the self, but the precepts are empty of the self too, so forget the precepts. He knew that wouldn't work. So he taught them what he hoped would allow them to continue to practice meditation and follow the precepts and gradually give up their belief in the imputations upon the phenomena of the person. Then he taught them that the phenomena also are empty, all of them. But that was risky because they could still become nihilistic, and they did sometimes. Now they're asking the question, what did you have in mind? This third teaching is to protect them from the misunderstanding of the ultimate teaching.

[43:59]

That's why he taught the other one first, which was actually false in a way. The second teaching was really true, but easily misunderstood. The third teaching protects from the misunderstanding. So, yes? It sounds that if you weren't right to the truth, that you'd be, or the person would be, beings would be missing the compassion. Yes, right. And precepts are, precepts and concentration and so on are compassion practices. So they would take, and they're nihilist, they become nihilistic. I just wanted to mention this one other point. A big point, and that is that he says that for that beings who have not generated good roots of virtue,

[45:18]

beings who have not generated roots of virtue, beings that do not have much faith, up to beings who have not amassed the accumulation of wisdom and virtue, for beings like that, I initially teach them the other dependent character phenomena. I initially teach them the lack of own being in terms of production. That's a Buddha taught first in history, and continues to do so. So that's why we start with, we have to start teaching people who think something that's beyond thinking. Dependent co-arising is beyond thinking. The way things happen, the way your brain works, cannot be understood by a person. The brain has not produced a mind which can understand the producer.

[46:22]

And yet we're encouraged to study, basically, the brain's productions. And then he says that when beings who have not generated roots of virtue understand, hear and understand, thereupon they develop fear and discouragement, with respect to all compositional phenomena. Having developed these feelings of fear and discouragement about all compositional phenomena, all dependent co-arising, they turn away from ill deeds and resort to virtue. Hearing the teaching about the other dependent character,

[47:32]

which is hearing the teaching about the lack of own being in terms of production, when beings hear that and understand, they see that everything that happens is basically other-powered, not powered by you. Nothing is really under your control. Just take away nothing. These things are not under your control. You're built to want to control them, but they're not under your control. And to continue to try to control them is really unworthy of confidence. So you turn towards virtue. So what's virtue? Virtue is turning towards a practice which is being devoted

[48:33]

to what you can't control. Being devoted to the mystery, being devoted to dependently co-arising phenomena. So you, in a way, you're discouraged to try to get anything from them. You have fear of trying to get anything from them, dread of that particular approach. You switch to the approach of being devoted to all dependent co-arising. You still pay attention to them, but you switch from trying to control them which you understand is now possible, and which you will later understand that the impulse to try to control them is based on believing that they are the imputational character. The belief in the essence of things which you project on them makes you think that you can control them.

[49:35]

So by switching to virtue, you start to lay the ground for getting ready to study the imputational. You start with studying the mystery. And again, sitting is an example of a practice where you give up trying to control what's happening. You try to learn how to give up trying to control what's happening. You give up the approach of I'm going to go do Zazen. People talk like that in Zen, they say, I'm going to go do Zazen. We let each other talk that way, right? But really what the practice of virtue is is not something you're doing. But it's not something you're doing, it is the devotion to how you're doing things. How many causes and conditions

[50:39]

are ensconcing you and giving rise to your behavior. It's devotion to that process which happens all the time, including when you're sitting. So the sitting practice is a nice example of it because you don't get distracted too much by much accomplishment. Something you can do, that's called various things when you feel like you're getting something out of it. What was the dread? You spoke of several kinds of dread in that practice. Dread of compositional things. Dread of things which are other-powered, other-dependent. But it's dread in the sense of dread of wasting your time.

[51:40]

Trying to... Trying to act based on the illusion of an independent self. So, controlling what's happening depends on the condition of believing in an independent self. So the dread that you will continue to go towards compositional factors which are other-powered thinking that, acting as though they were self-powered. That your self could make things go a certain way. So of course, a big part of this practice of studying the mystery would be to confess a lot that you're not studying the mystery. That you're basically trying to get control of the mystery. That you're bringing self-power to other-powered phenomena. And you confess that, because that's your habit. But the more I confess

[52:44]

that I bring self-power to other-powered phenomena, the more I confess my illusions and my confusion of the two. The closer I get to being able to be with the other-powered nature. To be with the mystery. Practicing virtue. And as you practice more virtue, you get even more convinced that the other-powered phenomena, which are everything that actually is happening, which is every experience you have, every thought, every action, everything you see are other-powered phenomena, except emptiness. What's our intention to practice? Hm? Our intention to practice is other-powered? Our intention to practice

[53:46]

seems to be in other-powered phenomena. So if we don't show up, then do we have an excuse? Yeah, your excuse is that you can't control your actions. You didn't make yourself. That can be your excuse. I can't control my feelings. I didn't make myself. And so I have this feeling I shouldn't go to the Zen Dojo. That's fine. That's a nice conversation. Nice conversation starter. I'd like to understand. You mentioned there's two types of lack of ultimate, lack of own being. Two types of lack of ultimate own being, yes. I was wondering, is it like it was mentioned earlier in the sutra and also in different sutras that certain, that people were studying like

[54:47]

the skandhas or different teachings and they came to the point of selflessness and they're basically kind of They came to the point of the selflessness of the person. Yeah, they saw the skandhas seizing, right, and it was the skandhas were seizing. Somebody saw the skandhas seizing? Yeah, and then they took it for selflessness and the Buddha was then kind of coming up and saying well, but there's a pivotal moment there's just, there's something to it. It's not only the cessation of the skandhas it's the lack of own being. There's some extra thing that's a lack of own being. Is that kind of Is that related? Related to the selflessness and the lack of own being? I don't know if this is what you're saying but the selflessness of phenomena in particular the selflessness of the aggregates of experience, the skandhas their selflessness is not the same as them seizing.

[55:47]

They're arising and seizing. We can see they're arising and seizing that's how we see it in an independent character. But of course what we're really seeing is our ideas about their arising and seizing we're not seeing how they actually arise and seize. But we do see skandhas arise and seize. We do see feelings arise and seize. Emotions arise and seize. But if all the skandhas cease like that happens to some extent when you die that's not the same as the selflessness. But I don't know if that's your question. Well, the question comes from a particular word in the sutra about where he was talking some chapter before that that there was a discovering of selflessness but that's not the real selflessness because it's not thoroughly established. Maybe you can show me that. It's kind of hard to get integrated in this discussion at this point.

[56:52]

But could you then explain the two? The two? Yes. In different words again. In different words? So, in some sense when he first talked he said there's three kinds of lack of own being. The lack of own being in terms of character which is the, he says, what is that? That's the infinitational character. The lack of own being in terms of production if you want to get used to it you can put in parentheses self. The lack of own being in terms of self production that's the other dependent character. And the ultimate lack of own being that's a thoroughly established character. Then later he said that this other dependent character really is not just the lack of own being in terms of production it is also an ultimate lack of own being. But it's a different type of ultimate lack of own being

[57:53]

from this ultimate lack of own being. It's a lack of own being because it lacks the ultimate. Which it lacks the thoroughly established. So, the other dependent lacks thoroughly established. It isn't like thoroughly established is part of the other dependent. And the other dependent is the selflessness of phenomena. But the dependent co-arising of phenomena is not the selflessness. However, studying the dependent co-arising of phenomena is a way to see the selflessness. So, what we need to do is first of all study the dependent co-arising then we go to study the imputations. Then after we understand the imputations we see how they're confused with the other dependent. And we find how they're not they're absolutely the other dependent. And then we see the thoroughly established. That's why I gave you that one suggestion.

[58:54]

See if you can find the imputational. See that you believe it. See if you can see how suffering or how afflictive emotions arise from it. See how karma arises from that. But that meditation should be based on working with things that are impermanent. That are changing. You should be working with those kinds of things before you go over to study the imputational. Let's just stop for just one second here now. Is there enough hair in the room? No. Anybody near windows willing to help him more? I see the hand but I'm pausing for some reason.

[60:03]

I'm actually introspecting about what is the reason for him to stop here for a moment. It might be partly that I have this feeling like that I'm unsure whether whether the point of in particular how hearing the teaching of the other power in the nature of phenomena, how hearing that teaching transforms us,

[61:39]

transforms our behavior. Actually starts to transform our behavior and finally does transform our behavior from operating from this misconception of an independent self when we switch over to practice virtue as the other dependent, as an other-powered practice. And in order to make that transition we have to have certain feelings about discouragement from our old approach. I just wanted that to come across.

[62:48]

I mean, of course it can come across deeper and deeper but I just wanted to... This is really a fundamental practice is this orientation towards what's actually happening, orientation towards what's happening, towards what we cannot understand. And yet it is appearing to us all the time so it's very grounded but ungraspable. This cloud-driving orientation Our belief in an independent self does not want to do that. It wants to work with something it can grasp, something it can control. So only when we have a strong feeling of uncontrollability of what's happening, the unpredictable quality of it, the unreliable quality of it,

[63:49]

and feel really afraid that we're going to get back into that old mode of thinking that we can control it, and really feel discouraged about getting happiness and freedom through that mode of conduct, actually through that mode of behavior, I should say, do we switch from personal behavior to interdependent conduct. And this is... We've got to keep centered on this point as we proceed in the study of wisdom. Okay? So now we'll do the questions. Nancy? As you're speaking, it sounds like along with the discouragement and the realization and the... what I feel like the exhaustion of pushing the cart, it's also compassion. I think from... I don't know if I'll be able to do that study without compassion.

[64:51]

Well, this whole wisdom practice is accompanied by compassion. So we're not mentioning all the compassion practices, but one of them is... We have mentioned one of them, which is stabilization practice, concentration practices. That's one kind of compassion. So one kind of compassion... One thing you do for the world and yourself as you practice wisdom is you practice concentration because that helps you practice wisdom and it also helps you help other people in your daily life. But also giving precepts, patience and enthusiasm, all those compassionate practices have to go alongside with this wisdom for it to go all the way. But... So we're just emphasizing the wisdom practices time, but the other practices really need to be there, that's right.

[65:53]

Would you also put in with compassion practices confession of karma? Confession of karma is part of the precept practice. Right? So, which is compassion? Yeah. The five basic compassion practices are giving, precepts, patience, diligence and concentration. The first five paramitas in the Bodhisattva path, those are compassion practices. And wisdom is the wisdom side. So under precepts you have the confession practice. And confession practice is particularly important as you start to do the wisdom practice to keep confessing that you're not doing it. To keep confessing that you're reverting from the teaching of the other dependent character phenomena over to thinking that phenomena aren't other dependent but they're self-dependent. We think... Our tendency is to think that we project ourself onto these other dependent phenomena and therefore we try to control them.

[66:55]

To switch from being with them, which we can't be always with them, but to be with them with, you know, trying to like give up this self-powered approach is when we start to see that it's ridiculous to try to self... to self-power what's not self-powered. When we hear that teaching, we see it's impossible. So we start to feel actually... not just like, oh, it's impossible, but like, it's impossible, but... I might keep... I might forget that. I might forget and waste a lot of time not studying the mystery, but just going back to my power trips. Rather than study the mystery of my children, I'm going to go back and try to control my children. You become afraid of that. It isn't just... It's not just that it's a good idea to sort of wake up to the inconsistency and contradiction of trying to overpower things. We need an emotional...

[67:57]

disgust with that old trip. We need to be afraid of our tendency to do this. And even then we don't stop completely. Then we confess a lot, but we continue in our own way. The more we confess and we do these teachings, the confession that we're continuing it and seeing how it works develops a stronger and stronger emotional commitment to this. And then, finally, of course, there's an understanding. And then, once there's an understanding, it's overthrown. The old confusion between our ideas of what's happening and what's happening. Our thinking and what's beyond thinking. Liz? I'm just really struck by what a blessing it is to have an opportunity to hear this in the Dharma and to practice in Sangha because you can be in...

[68:59]

hearing the Dharma and you can be in this tight and strict mind. And some others just fake that there's a bigger mind. There's more. And I really feel here that practicing together we're really helping each other. When I feel myself, when I'm afraid to find out about myself, other people are willing to talk and give information that breaks that tight sense of self and gives me information that I'm actually living in this. Right. And it's even possible that people would give you that information In a kind way. Well, in a kind way, but also but also not necessarily trying to control you. They know they know you're not under... they can't control you. And even though they know they can't control you, they still maybe give you information

[69:59]

about how they feel. Not from... they're devoted to you as an uncontrollable being. And still they have feelings about you which they give to you. Rob? I personally find it really a powerful teaching the notion of infiltration and you know, co-arising stuff. And at the same time I find it co-arising in me and hear from you how you see that being balanced against responsibility. If...

[71:05]

if this hand rises in the world okay I could say I am responsible for this hand. And I'm very happy to say that I am responsible for this hand as I will now demonstrate by clapping it on another one. I'm responsible. I can respond to this hand I'm responsible. I have to live with this hand. Whatever happens with this hand I'm responsible for. But if I understand also at the same time that this rising of this hand was not done by me can I understand that without taking my responsibility away? So like Bibi used the example of something, you know and you can say I don't make myself I'm not... I can't control myself I don't make myself and I am responsible. But so are you.

[72:06]

You are responsible for me too. And I need you to understand that you're responsible for me. And I'm responsible for you. And I need you to understand that I'm responsible for you. And I need you to understand that you're responsible for me. I am totally responsible. you are told there's no place in this net of interdependence that's less responsible than another place. And when you start to realize that, you don't start to take away your responsibility. Your responsibility increases. This pushes the limiting responsibility back indefinitely. But it also pushes your understanding of other people's responsibility, and you want them to share this widening, this pushing the boundaries of responsibility back, sort of beyond the horizon. That's what you want. That's the implication here. And that's part of what this teaching is about, to balance the teaching of the lack-of-own-being

[73:14]

of all phenomena, so that you don't become irresponsible, so that you do care about every uncontrollable event. Every uncontrollable event, every under-dependent event, is an opportunity to realize the ultimate truth. And if you're not responsible completely for everything, you're going to skip over the opportunity to become free. Richard? I wonder if you could say a little bit about the idea that appeal and response come up together as it relates to other controlled phenomena, and giving up self-control of those phenomena. Well, a little bit of it is just... the first one that comes to my mind is, when consciousness

[74:24]

comes up, object comes up. So if you make an appeal, the response comes up as soon as you make the appeal. When you ask for something, the answer is right there. It can't be later. It's right there. It looks like you didn't get that. It looks like you didn't get that. So, the self and other come up together, the requester and the requested come up together. They come up together. Not one after the other. I guess I'm looking at that as a sort of a crutch to be able to say, I can't do this by myself, but to have some confidence that help is there already. What do you mean by a crutch? To see that you can't do it by yourself? It's a new thing in my life to be able to think, I can't do this by myself.

[75:29]

I can't sit for straight periods of zazen by myself, so I'm going to let go of that because the response is already there. But why is that a crutch? It helps me get by. So, the idea that everybody in the universe is a crutch to you is a new crutch? The idea that everybody helps you get by, helps you get by? Is that what you're saying? I don't know. I think it has to do with being able to feel that sense of confidence. Right, but does a crutch make you feel... I don't think crutches help you feel confident, do they? What's a crutch? Do you mean it more like a hook? Maybe it's a crutch in the sense that you don't yet believe it, so it's helping you before you believe it, that kind of thing?

[76:31]

That's what you mean by a crutch? So it's like, it's a crutch to believe that you're propped up by all things, until you really see it and believe that you're propped up by all things. Like if you jump off a cliff, it's a crutch to have the idea that you'll be all right before you find out that you will. Like that? Just like that. I'm at the place that I'm really working on this, trying to believe that I'm out of control. You're trying to believe what? That I am not in control of things. Because in part of my life, it seems like I have control of things. For example? For example, let's say I want to get a degree in so and so, I can go to university four

[77:33]

or five years later, I have this. In some ways, it seems like we can make up our minds, I want this, and we can get things in this way. Right. So it seems like you're in control in a way. Yeah. And our whole society is set up to reinforce that. And yet, in Zazen especially, I can see that breaking down, it just doesn't work. And yet I'm still struggling with this. My question is, if we're still struggling, and we don't yet see this fully and completely, where is the motivation to take the precepts, to practice the precepts, when we don't yet see clearly? Well, even if you don't yet see clearly, you might think that the precepts would be part of your self-control trip. So you might think that I would be more successful at being able to get myself through college if I took the precepts.

[78:33]

That practicing these precepts would help me control my car, and my grades, and my teachers. But I don't believe that. Pardon? But I don't believe that. You don't believe that, but some people might. I mean, a lot of people think that if you practice the precepts, your life will go better. Better means more the way you'd like it to go. I believe that. Yeah. So, just like some people think if you brush your teeth, then probably some people would like to be more comfortable having you talk to them. But, you know, it doesn't really work that way, actually, that brushing your teeth, people like, you know, feel better about you. You say, well, if I brush them properly, if I use mouthwash, there's some way for me to get control of my breath, to successfully present a mouth that doesn't smell bad. And then people will like me. But that's not necessarily the case, that they'll like you.

[79:37]

They might, but it's not under my control. But again, you can see, well, I wanted to go to college, and I did go to college, and I got my degree, so it seemed like I was under control. But if you look more carefully, you see that many things came together, many factors worked out such that you could do that, right? You got accepted, you could have not gotten accepted. The legislature voted money. Yeah, the legislature voted money. Your teachers gave you passing grades, you know. You did various works, you know, I did the work, so that gave me good grades. But the teacher also gave you the good grades. People gave you lots of stuff, and actually it was together with everybody that you actually got through college. You didn't do it by your own power. But we think that way. We think, I'm going to control myself. As you said, our society teaches, get control of your life. You're driving your life. You're not driving a cloud. You're driving a guy through doors, into buildings, to that degree. It's not a cloud. It's not a wispy, mysterious process.

[80:38]

You can get this guy named Eric to get that degree. That's what we're talking about. Get control of your life. Yes. It looks like that. So, how do you give that up? And that's your question, right? How do you give it up? Again, start by confessing that you haven't given it up. Start by confessing, I do not believe these teachings. Or I sort of believe them a little bit, but actually I mostly believe the opposite of this teaching. I mostly believe, I'm going to get control of this shoe. I'm going to put this shoe on. But we all, you know, when you have a child, are they in control of their shoes? You know? No, obviously they're not in control of their shoes. You have to help them with them. And they, you know, they kind of know that.

[81:42]

They sometimes say, help me. Help me put my shoe on. And you help them and they get the shoe on. Then at some point they say, let me do it. You know? And then they start to think that they got the shoe on by themselves. Even though hundreds of times you helped them with the shoe. And they wouldn't have been able to get it on this time probably. This particular person has this background of you helping them hundreds of times. Now they get it on. And you help them other ways such that they're alive so that they can think, I'm going to get it on. So then after that, then they think that they put their shoes on by their own power. They forget the millions of times, the millions of ways, the inconceivable ways. First of all, they forget the ways they know about your help. But we'll never know all the ways that were helped to get our shoes on. We can't. It's a mystery how we get our shoes on. Right? I mean, not right, right? It's not a mystery. You know how you get your shoes on. I vote for mystery. But when you know how you get your shoes on, that means, according to this teaching,

[82:46]

that you have projected some essences and attributes onto the situation so that you can feel like you're under control of your degree or your shoes. But really putting a shoe on is a mystery. So when you switch from, basically, ill deeds to virtue, you're switching from deeds based on misconception of independent self to virtue, which is that you're appreciating that what's happening is other-powered, is dependent on others. You switch to a more mysterious and ungraspable approach to your shoes. I mentioned this example many times before. One time somebody asked me, they asked me, what are outflows in Buddhism? Outflows, I would say outflows are, abstractly,

[83:47]

outflows are the loss of energy, the gain and loss of energy that happen around activities that you think you're doing by yourself. You don't really want to appreciate other powers, but the example I gave, actually that wasn't the example, the person said, how does burnout happen? I said, burnout happens when you sit in a chair and assume it will hold you. And burnout happens as a result of repeated outflows, repeated actions based on a feeling of self-control or self-power. Every time you put a shoe on and ignore this teaching, every time you think you put the shoe on by your own power, you lose some energy or gain some energy. You get jacked around, you know, you get disturbed,

[84:50]

you get agitated, you're flooded or depleted of energy. Your energy is blocked and distorted and disturbed every time you put a shoe on thinking that you did it by your own power. And when that happens, if you put your shoes on like that all day long, at the end of the day, you might say, I'm never going to wear shoes again, and run barefoot to some place where there's no shoes. And similarly, if you sit on a chair and assume it will hold you, that tires you, that weakens you. How would you sit in a chair without that? You'd realize that the chair is unpredictable, other-dependent phenomenon. And that the activity of sitting in a chair is other-dependent phenomenon. And you'd sit in a chair and you would not know what was going to happen. You would be studying the mystery. You wouldn't say, well, I'll study the mystery of Zendo, but I don't study the mystery here. So you sit in a chair and this is like...

[85:54]

Maybe the chair will hold you, maybe it won't. I'm going to check it out now. I'm going to see now. And you sit down and you put a little more weight on it. More weight, more weight, more weight, more weight. More weight. And then you fall through. No. No. Now most of my weight is on the chair. And now that you're in the chair, you don't assume it's going to continue to hold you. You're sitting on the edge of your chair. You're ready for the chair to collapse. Or fly through the air. It's a mystery. You're studying the other-dependent character of this activity. This is an other-dependent activity. When you sit in chairs like that, you don't have burnout. When you meet people like that, you don't get burnout. But when you don't meet people like that, when you meet people like... and take them according to your idea of them, or take the chair according to your idea of it, take the chair according to the idea that the chair won't hold you

[87:03]

and assume that that's true, that will also burn you out. Whatever idea you have in the chair, give that up, and then what would you do with the chair? You would, like, study it, you know? One way to study it is to put your back to it, and put your back of your calves against it, and put your butt on it, and put your weight on it. This is ways of studying a chair. A doorknob, the same way. Anything. Are you studying the mystery, or are you just basically, hey, this is this. I'm going to do this. The more you do that, you would convince yourself. You get one kind of a life out of one thing. And one kind of a life out of the other. Of course, it's moment by moment, and switching back and forth between the two. But you could experiment that way, and verify that you could go through college, or sit on a chair, or do various things from the point of practice of virtue, or from the practice of basically self-powered activity.

[88:06]

I mean, not self-powered activity. Activity based on belief in self-power. What about other family? How about in terms of energy, inward energy and outward energy, if you either take the shoes or the chair, if you go, let's say, and sit in the chair, and the chair repeatedly is not there. So you're spending a lot of time going to get something that's going to fit if you sit down. I don't understand your example. You go to a chair that's not there. Well, you go to a chair thinking that it's there, because that's where it was beforehand. Or maybe you put it there, and then it's not there. Yeah? What's the problem with that? I'm saying, is that input or output of energy when then you go and you are looking for the chair? Looking for something? Is that the input or output of energy? I think what will tire you is if you think that when you're looking for the chair,

[89:07]

that you're doing it by your own power. If you go looking for chairs and you think, okay, we're going on a chair hunt now. That's outside the room. We go outside. And if I think that I'm powering this chair hunt, then every step of the way, there's outflows. And outflows means, again, inflow or outflow. You can get deflated or depleted, either way. Both ways are weakening you. So if you think, I'm running this chair hunt, either by myself or leading the group on a chair hunt, we find a chair, I say, see? Wasn't I a good leader? If we don't find it, I feel, well, I'm a bad leader. But if I don't have that understanding, whether I'm in a leadership position or not, I don't get inflated or deflated by the events. And I'm not so much trying to control them.

[90:13]

I'm not trying to control compounded things because I don't think that I can. Or I'm trying to learn to understand the teaching that I can't control. So I'm trying to give them up and have a different relationship. A relationship of studying the mystery rather than converting the mystery into a usable commodity. So how do you look for the chair? How do you meet a posse with a chair? I know you've talked about this before, but I need help again. How do really bad things happen? Like people being tortured right now. How can I look at that? How can I look at that? This is pretty risky now, but I'm just going to tell you that I sometimes am tortured by people.

[91:15]

I don't mean to take your thing lightly, but sometimes people torture me. And sometimes I mention while they're torturing me that they're torturing me. And some of the people who are torturing me have said to me in the process of torture, you seem to be doing fine. You seem to be thriving in this torture chamber. And I often say, Oops. So, what you're talking about is not a mystery. You're talking about torture, not a mystery. Because the dependent core isn't torture. This is not a mystery. This is the confusion of the imputation with what's happening. Calling it torture. Making the conventional designation torture. And believing. Not just making it conventional, but the conventional designation torture

[92:18]

is based on the imputation of an actual essence to this torture, and that this torture has attributes. The attributes would help you identify this torture and believe that it really is there. So, we have a really bad thing. Okay? Now, if you believe that, then you have a really bad thing, and you have the arising of affliction. A really bad thing which really is there, and really has an essence, an attribute of a really bad thing. And affliction arises. However, if you had a really good thing, and you would do the same thing to it, which you'd have to do to have a really good thing. Not a mystery. So, convert the mystery into a really good thing with essences and attributes. And you also have the arising of affliction. So, when you have a really good thing, a good situation, that means you have a situation where you are saying the mystery,

[93:18]

the dependent core arising, you are saying, or you and your friends are saying, this is good. And when you do that, imputing these essences and attributes, afflictions arise. In what you call good, afflictions arise.

[93:34]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ