I have often brought up the simple teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha, which comes to realizing freedom from the illusion of self and other. The simple teaching of training ourselves so that in the herd there is just the herd and in the scene there is just the scene. And in the cognized, there's just the cognized.

[01:07]

The simple training recommended by Shakyamuni Buddha. When we actually like that instruction, when that's the way it is for us, that in the herd, there's just the herd. Then there's no identification with phenomena. There's no identification with phenomenal experience. Then there's no self here and other over there. And this is the end of it. This is a way to meditate to contemplate the conventional world where things seem to appear and disappear sounds seem to come and go lights seem to be born and pass away

[02:34]

In this way of contemplating the conventional world where things which are empty still do appear and disappear, we would eventually see and understand the world of ultimate truth where things don't appear and disappear. You hear me OK over there? You hear me OK over there? I see this basic instruction, this basic training method offered by the Buddha as the, I hate to use the word actually, but as the pure way of being in the conventional world.

[04:02]

or training ourselves in this way is a way of purifying our vision so that we can see the ultimate truth. Kind of practice is not really doing anything. I don't really see it as doing anything or creating anything, but rather as purifying ourselves of lots of extra stuff that we've gone through. Purifying ourselves from the so-called perverted views where we keep trying to tweak the phenomenal world.

[05:24]

We try to adjust worldly convention as it appears to us. For example, to make things permanent or to imagine will give us happiness, or to imagine that there is pleasure found in phenomena. These ways of relating to them, don't just let the sound be the sound and the color be the color. Look at a face. concept of a face appearing to us, to look at our sense of our self, and just let it be that way. This is the training the Buddha's recommending.

[06:25]

And so as I said, I see it. I was trying to say, I see it. I see this kind of training in succeeding generations of his down to the present. I don't see it in the teaching of all of the disciples all of the time, but I see it in the teaching of some of the disciples some of the time. This kind of training in selflessness or in purifying purifying our practice. To hear a sound without thinking about what you can get out of it or how it might hurt you.

[07:29]

To look at a face without wondering what she's going to give to you or what she This is a difficult process of training. It does have supposedly wonderful possibilities. But if you think about them in the process of the training, you defile it. You somehow have to forget about getting anything out of it. And it was a background understanding that we're going to get, namely, freedom from always being concerned about getting something out of them. If you hear about all the affliction that we become relieved of,

[08:37]

When we think about that when we're doing the practice, that will undermine it. And yet sometimes people mention the benefits of a practice beforehand to encourage us, but then we have to forget about it in this case while we're doing it. lose track of our reason for doing the practice, then this can be brought up again. So from Sakyamuni Buddha, as I said, I see ,, I see prajna-tara, Bodhidharma, and so on, offering the same teaching.

[09:48]

But before going on to them to learn their way of teaching it, I thought it might be helpful to bring up a teaching which is given in a sutra called the Samghi Nirmacana, which means the scripture . I see in this sutra some details which expand or kind of zoom in on the of letting the team to just be the team. This teaching, I this teaching, which is about how to

[11:10]

Realize the state. Can you still hear me with the rain? Teaching about how to realize the state or the way of being such that the seen is just the seen. Can you kind of light up a little bit, please? thought crosses my mind, why couldn't I let the scene just be the scene? All these dark bodies. Actually, I could, but I... It's a difficult teaching, but I think it is actually giving some guidance

[12:17]

about how subtle it is to let phenomena just be the phenomena. And how easy it is, how difficult it is for us to understand the instruction about how to do that is to do it because of the nature of our processes of delusion. So this sutra talks about the process of delusion and the process by which we make much out of what's happening. So it teaches that the Buddha says in his sutra phenomena have three characteristics or three marks or signs dharmalakshana dharma like things dharmakshana sign or characteristic all phenomena have three all colors have three

[13:49]

all smells have three, all ideas have three, all feelings have three, judgments have three, and so on. Every phenomena has three. What are the three? The first one's called the a purely conceptual or purely imputational characteristic. Phenomenal sound has a purely imputational or purely conceptual characteristic.

[14:53]

Or you could say the characteristic of mere mental fabrication. Everything that we experience is a characteristic. Another characteristic that everything has is the characteristic of we call dependent origination everything is a dependent so it has the characteristic of being dependent on other things and the third characteristic of all things the thoroughly established or fully accomplished characteristic.

[16:09]

Everything has all three. Everything has the characteristic of being Every experience, every phenomenon has the characteristic of being a pure mental fabrication. Everything that appears and disappears for us has the characteristic of being a mere mental fabrication. It depends on words and names. And I'll say more about this later if I live longer, but because this characteristic of things, of mere imputational existence,

[17:29]

It depends on words and names. That characteristic has no other existence at all. It has no name of a thing. It's just the thing's name. It's not the thing. It's just the thing's name. It's just the imagination that the thing is what it's called. The next characteristic of the 10 core rising says that if this exists, something else exists. Or this exists because something else exists. So, for example, a main example is ignorance exists, therefore something else exists. Karmic formations. Because there's ignorance, there's karmic formations. Because there's karmic formations, You know there's ignorance.

[18:32]

And also, ignorance, it turns out, like everything else, it has an other-dependent quality or characteristic. It is as an other-dependent thing. It also lacks inherent existence because it completely depends on other things. There ain't no ignorance. and so on up to old age, sickness, and death. Sorrow, lamentation, grief. And there ain't no sorrow, lamentation, and so on without ignorance. So all those things, looking at their other dependent character, we see Another kind of insubstantiality.

[19:37]

And all things have this characteristic, too. The third characteristic that's thoroughly established is the characteristic which is called, to use the expression, suchness. The suchness is that whatever is happening, let's put it this way, when the other dependent quality of something is understood in the absence of the mental imputation, that's the suchness of the experience. When the sound, which has the quality of being a dependent co-horizon, when the sound is just the sound, when the herd is just the herd, in the absence of the mental implications which sound always comes with, then

[21:11]

that dependent core rising in the absence of the mental dictation of the sound. And if Bodhisattvas hang out with the suchness of sound and colors and taste and thought and feeling, they become completely enlightened. If you hear a sound, all three are there. What we need to do is learn how to hear the sound such that the dependent co-origin quality of the sound is appearing in the absence of something that always comes with it, but is imputed to it.

[22:32]

So this is a kind of subtle presentation. And I feel that it may take several applications to the surface of your body and mind for it to sink in. The first application. I wanted to say just one more thing. And that is, David? What's the mental imputations? Is there another way of saying that? Well, like, for example, the word sound. That's a mental imputation. That's an imputation. You take the word sound, and you put it on the phenomena. which we call sound.

[23:44]

In other words, you can't avoid the mental invitation. It's there. If you have an experience of sound that you know about, let me just say this also. The way you know these three characteristics come with everything. The way that you know them is you know them independently. Now, they're there all the time, but you don't always know them. All right? How do you know the mental implication? You know the mental implication by depending on names that are connected. It's by knowing the names that you know the mental implication. In other words, there's nothing more to it than that. That's how you know mental implications. For example, you've got this phenomena called sound. The mental implication part is the way which is connected to the sign, some sign by which you figure out to apply the word sound to the phenomenon.

[24:48]

OK? That's how you know the mental imputation. The independence upon strongly adhering to the other dependent character as being the mental imputational character, the other dependent character is known. That was easy, wasn't it? In dependence upon strong the other dependent to the dependently co-arisen character, as being the imputational character, the other dependent character is known. I cannot know the other dependent character. It is nothing in itself. The only way I can know the other dependent character is by strongly, strongly adhering to it as an imputational character.

[26:02]

So, the sound of The implicational side of the sound is just a name and associated with a sign for application. The other is not just a name. It is its other dependent. But in order to know the other dependent, I have to strongly adhere to the other dependent as being the implicational. Then I can know it. Now, I might also mention that in dependence on the absence of strong adherence to the other dependent character as being the imputational character, be thoroughly established the suchness of the phenomenon known. So you can actually know

[27:08]

the imputational character by, for example, knowing the word sound. And you can know the of the sound if you strongly adhere to the dependent core arising, the actual arising of the sound as being that mental imputation. Then you can know. something that without that mental education would not be known. And to let the dependent co-arising just be the dependent co-arising in the absence of that strong adherence, not like getting rid of the mental education, but only to the mental education. If you don't adhere strongly to it, then the dependent co-arising contaminated by that strong adherence to it being the mental dictation, that is suchness.

[28:17]

And hanging out with that is the way to enlightenment, according to this text. Okay? Yeah, it sounds like sort of like mental dictation, like the word sound. It's like a preconceived notion, sort of, like the word sound and everything I think about it or something. Yeah, kind of. It doesn't have to be that heavy-duty, but if you just see the word sound, it doesn't have to have a lot of associations, except with other words. So a word could also be a phenomena, and it has three characteristics, too. Pure mental invitation, dependable arising, and thoroughly established characteristics. The thoroughly established character of all things is like thoroughly established.

[29:24]

It's like it's always there. Nothing pushes it around. It's touchless. The thoroughly established character is that things are not contaminated by mental implications. The coming and going character of things is their dependent core rising character. And the way it works is that when they're contaminated and confused with mental implications, they come and go as suffering. And they're, without eliminating anything, without taking the mental implication away, but just not strong adhering to the mental implication as what's happening, Then you'd have the ever-present, unmovable, unshakable quality of all things, which is thoroughly established.

[30:30]

And meditating on that brings freedom. And this is, what do you call it? Just a scene. In the herd, they're just a herd. Okay? Yes? There's some what? Assurance? So she's saying there's some assurance that if you let go of the language, the language will still be there. You don't have to worry about It'll still be there. She has a reluctance to let go of her structures because she thinks she may never get them back.

[31:33]

Or they may come back all mixed up. What I'm teaching, I didn't say don't worry about it, but I would say don't worry about it. And it is a natural implication that you're not going to You're not going to be caught, what do you call it, flat-footed. No, you're not going to have a phenomena come to you without the purely computational coming with it. Don't worry. Without a phenomena, Buddha says it's got three characteristics. It's always going to come with a perceptual, merely perceptual quality will come with it. Which includes, as you get older, this merely perceptual quality of over there. That whatchamajigger. You know? You know that that whatchamajigger includes all the people in your family, all your possessions, you know? The actual specific word which applies only to that and not to the other relevant one anymore.

[32:43]

There's no brain support for that. The dependent core arising of that word is not there anymore because of brain damage. Okay? But you still have another word which comes in right handy. And without that word, without what it is, don't tell me and all that stuff. Without that thing, you don't have an experience. You see it over there. You don't know it. You knew that years ago you knew the name of it. Okay? And I have that called a memory. You have a memory. And you have a word for the memory. I used to know that. Okay? So every experience comes with that. If you don't have that, you don't have an experience. It's that lousy old mental imputation, that pure conceptualization. If you don't have that coming with a phenomenon, you don't have one. That's what the sisters say. So you don't have to worry about losing it. Letting go of it is not dangerous.

[33:44]

Trying to get rid of it is dangerous. Because then you're violating the which says that all phenomena come with all three. And you're saying, since that one's the troublemaker, I'll try to get rid of that, and I'll just go over . But it's not really that one's the troublemaker. That one is indispensable for an experience. And also, it's not the troublemaker. It's the strongly adhering to it as the dependent core arising that's the troublemaker. It's the confusing thing. ...event with the mental invitation and holding them together that causes the problem. So we don't want to get rid of the mental invitation, otherwise we won't have any experience. But really, that won't happen so much. What'll happen is we'll just have this strange experience of trying to get rid of the word. A weird kind of experience. But try to just let the word be the word and see if there's a way to have an experience, again, not in the absence of the word found, but where the word found is not held strongly as what's happening.

[35:03]

Whatever this thing is, this experience of what we call found, whatever it is, if we can have the experience without saying that experience is that thing, without getting rid of that thing, that mental dictation, without getting rid of the mental dictation. Without being compounding each other. And so it's not so much that you let go of the sound, it's that you study, actually, how it is. This is what you study delusion. You study how you... Is the dog coming in? Out, Rosie. Did that work? Did out have any effect? Out. Huh? Out. It's hard for her to separate the word out from the actual dependent core rising.

[36:14]

Out. But you can do it. The way you do it is by studying . OK? You can actually see. You can actually see. You can actually know these marks. You know the first one by the word in association with sign. The second one you know because you'll be able to find that you're strongly adhering to the and the . So that's what you have going for you right now. You don't try to pry them apart. You admit that they're stuck together. So part of letting the scene just be the scene is to realize that what you're doing is actually probably not letting the scene just be the scene. You're dealing with something that's happening which has these two qualities. One is that it has a mental fabrication quality. that you actually are using a concept to have the experience of the seed.

[37:20]

There's a concept involved in having the experience of the herd. That's happening. And you're confusing what's actually dependently co-arising strongly with that. That's happening. That's what your experience is. Now, simultaneous with that is which will be your guide to enlightenment. It's right there, too. And if you can see how the merely conceptual or the imputational is adhering to or stuck onto the dependently co-arisen, you can see also how they're not connected. When you see how they're not connected, you see suchness. You know it. However, it's there all the time. Suchness is always coming along with every experience, comes along with it, never, never doesn't. But in order to see it, we have to see the dependently co-arisen, the other dependent quality of whatever it is, pain, old age, old age, you know, losing your memory, whatever, phenomena, whatever that is,

[38:43]

It has a dependently co-arisen quality. You can't do it when you're a kid. You can't have that one for yourself when you're a kid, because you don't have the dependent co-arising of it. And you've got the mental dictation. If you can see how those are connected, you can see how they're separated. You know the . So we had Gordon many eons ago. Excuse me, I want you to excuse me. Liz, I was repeating your question over and over. You had that phenomenon I told you about. I was repeating it for the tape. And so when I repeat it, sometimes people think I didn't, I'm asking if I got it, you know. And then they sort of say it again, and then I say it again. But it isn't when I say it over that I haven't heard it. Sometimes it is, but it's often I'm just trying to say it so it gets on the tape. For the people who have cancer who are listening to this, I was talking about mental fabrication or mental imputation or conceptualization.

[39:50]

Does it have any role besides categorizing in the dependent co-arising? So it does have that quality. That's part of dependent co-arising. There is a mental imputation in the neighborhood. That's part of it. In fact, you do not have a dependent co-arising of a phenomena without a mental imputation. That's right. So besides categorization, does it have any other function? It does help in the origination. You cannot have, but also the suchness helps in the origination, too. So mental imputation is actually our friend, in a way, because it's part of the dependable horizon. OK? I don't know who was next. There was a whole bunch over here. Anybody have a hand over there? No? Interesting. There's like six over there and zero over here. Okay. The West is leading. Four to zero.

[40:51]

So let's see. I think Steve was next. I'm not sure. Well, you asked several questions, okay? So your first question is something about how does it carry over into the workaday world. So you mean how does the truth carry over in the workaday world, or how does the discipline carry over in the workaday world? It sure is. See, the workaday world is a phenomena, and it comes with a metaphor called workaday world, and you know how to apply that word to something, depending on certain signs that you use to apply workaday world. how you watch it. But you become a linguist. So you're like, you're a non-stop linguist. So you're a linguist in the monastery, you're a linguist when you're sitting on your cushion, and you're a linguist when you're outside of Tassajara in the streets, you're a linguist.

[41:55]

You're watching your language. That's part of the process. Another part of the process, like I was saying yesterday when I was looking at the dozing monks, if I'd If I see the dozing monk, in other words, there's this phenomena called dozing monk. I have this mental imputation, this word that I apply to the person depending on certain signs. If I bring together the dozing monk with the dependent core arising, then I think that this actually is a dozing monk. And then I have ignorance. karmic formations, and so on. Karmic formation would be, you know, like thinking, you know, certain ways because I associate, strongly associate dozing monk with this experience. Now, if I'm meditating with this phenomena, of course, quite a bit, and I realize that I am thinking this is a dozing monk, but I realize that the mental imputation

[43:08]

And there's some loosening starting to occur here, that something's happening, something's happening, and I think I know what it is. I think it's a dose of what I'm calling it, and that is a quality of this experience. But the actuality of how it's happening is, because I know it's happening, as being compounded with... happening and that's my trouble that's my delusion now in practical ways in gross ways I've told the story many times if I was talking to someone over in the garden here one time and I was talking to her and I was kind of jumping up and down I don't know but I was kind of like pounding my chair and saying I do not believe I'm not going to believe that you are

[44:10]

what i'm thinking you are i'm not going to believe that you are the you know pure mental imputation that i'm doing on you are my experience of whatever you are my experience of you is threatened by a strong adherence of a mental imputation to you and i don't want you to get hurt by the compounding of the two because the mental imputation is a terrible thing But in fact, this person I'm talking to has a mental, for me, as an experience to me, she has a mental imputation side, a quality, which was a terrible word. Then there's this other thing about her, which is not a word, which is like the actuality of her creation. I want to protect her creation from the strong adherence to the terrible word. Now, her creation is not inseparable from the terrible word.

[45:12]

And the terrible words are not separate from the creation, but they are all separate. Then the person is protected from whatever the word is. Then I can love this person the same as I would her or anybody else with a different mental imputation going with, of course, it would be a somewhat different manifestation. But also, even if it was a very nice word, it'd be safe from the process of delusion when those are stuck together. So in the daily life, I think you actually can spot what happens to you. Hopefully you can learn to spot what happens to you when you do compound the two. You can see that there's psychic disturbance will arise independent on these two being stuck together. If you study how they're stuck together, you'll also notice that there's all kinds of turbulence around them. This is what we have, you know, called the outflow or leakage.

[46:18]

You'll notice, out, Razi, out. See, now there's a mental imputation called cute. The way she stepped out, you know, phenomena, mental imputation, cute. And I feel that I relate to her because... If I can recognize in myself that those are strongly stuck together, it helps. So did you have more? This is important, so go ahead. He said, in what way does thusness feel different from our ordinary experience of being trapped in things? It's just not stopping in any way. We're not stopping to analyze, but as you're going, well, yeah. So let's say you're just moving along now. And what would it be like instead of having our usual way of looking at things, which is the deluded way of sticking the first two characters of things strongly together?

[47:28]

We know what that's like. That's suffering. That's ignorance. In other words, ignorance is you you don't notice thoroughly enough how those two are stuck together. You're not paying attention to that. If you look closely at how they're stuck together, you will see how they're not stuck together. You're ignoring their independence, in some sense. Not their independence, but the fact that they're separate, and they dependently co-create each other. Ignoring that is suffering. So you're going along in your daily life. Things are changing, but you don't seem to have much trouble continuing to ignore that. Even though things are changing, your meditation of ignorance is unfettered. You're able to continue to stick them together and not notice that. If you start noticing it, you can notice it in each moment. You don't have to have special moments to notice this.

[48:30]

You can be sitting still. You can be walking. This delusion is always right there. And how can you notice it? because of these outflows, turbulence, anxiety, pain, fear, grasping, and, of course, anger and so on and so forth. But basically, you're somewhat upset because of this. You can notice that on an ongoing basis. Now, of course, it's difficult to do it if you think you're supposed to be paying attention to something else. If you think you're not actually supposed to be looking at this, and you're supposed to be looking at the guy in the other foxhole, or you're supposed to be keeping your truck on the road, and you don't think you're supposed to be looking to see, is there some turbulence created by my strong adhesion of the phenomena of driving this truck The dependent core rising side of the driving this truck with the word driving the truck.

[49:35]

I can't drive the truck, I may feel, and also pay attention to the turbulence caused by my deluded view of driving the truck. If you can't do both, then forget the meditation part and just do the driving the truck, because we want you to live, to park the car, and go in the Zendo. But if you can pay attention to this, it's readily available. This turbulence, this outflow, this leakage, this flooding as a result of this deluded way of seeing things, which is not completely deluded, it's just, it's that sickening that causes delusion. Even that's not delusion per se, unless you actually grab it as such and misapprehend things, you know, and start thinking, you know, this person's a monster and stuff like that. They're not monsters, you know. They're your best friend. They don't understand. It's like this is a pure example of life here.

[50:39]

Compounding it so you're miserable. Now, if there was a break in that, and you saw suchness, the experience would be right in the middle of everything, a feeling of, well, you know, bodhisattva feeling. You feel great compassion and great energy and enthusiasm for being devoted and great joy at being devoted to whatever this phenomena is. That would be the way it would manifest. Okay, so let's do all of those people. I think maybe Pedro is next. Excuse me. You said sound, and then you said we're talking. That's mental imputation. Yes.

[51:42]

In the middle of any... Excuse me. I'm I don't know how to talk to you because I think you're you know maybe I am too but I'm trying to interact with you and you're not like you're sort of like your timing is like I try to come in and you keep bumping into me do you feel that okay so I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about okay I'm not trying to stop you so we're having all right In the middle of the conversation, there's the sound of the dog barking. I think Buddha's saying that when you hear the sound of the dog and the cat together, that that phenomena for you comes with you, your mind, imputing a concept to it.

[52:53]

But you wouldn't have that experience, that that phenomena would not be happening for you if you didn't put anti-implication on it. So if we're having a conversation, let's say you and I were having a conversation, and then later after the conversation was over, we asked a bunch of other people who were watching our conversation what else was going on while we were having the conversation. And they say, well, there was a dog and cat fight out there. You didn't hear it. But other people said that was the case for them. In other words, they had some experience, they put the dog and cat onto it, but we didn't put dog and cat onto it, so we didn't have the experience. There's lots of things going on in the universe, but when they're phenomena, that means they're phenomena. That's what Buddha's talking about here. For you, phenomena for you require that you put some concept on them. Otherwise, they don't happen for you. Everything that happens for you comes with this imputation.

[53:56]

That's what's being proposed. Pardon? Like I said, this is the first application. It may take several applications before it sinks in and makes you feel I said this is difficult material. I find it difficult. But I thought that it applies to this very simple instruction. And it kind of, for me, is encouraging because I noticed that practice such a simple way. And I noticed it's hard for people to get to the place where things are just such. It's hard to get to that place. And I think this teaching would show how difficult it is because our mind is so complex and there's such a well-established understanding of this compounding of mental fabrication with the phenomenon as a dependent co-arising.

[55:13]

So Buddhists, I think, say when you see something as such, you're just seeing its dependent co-arising. seeing its dependent core arising, you're just letting its dependent core arising be its dependent core arising, because you can't actually see the dependent core arising unless it's compounded with the mental imputation. You can't know it unless it's compounded. But to be with it uncompounded means that you're intimate with dependent core arising, which means you're intimate with Buddha. You can't be intimate with Buddha, you can't be intimate with Dharma, you can't be intimate with dependent core arising, according to this. and know it. You can only know it by compounding it with mental imputation. But that's not it. That's basically confusing it with mental imputation and grasping the dependently co-arisen nature of things as a mental imputation. This doesn't work for us.

[56:14]

It's our normal way, but it causes us problems. The way is somehow to Act with it in its separation from the mental imputation, which means in a way that we don't know. So then people would say, well, did Buddha know dependent core arising? According to this, the only way Buddha would know dependent core arising would be to compound it with concepts, which wouldn't wouldn't be it anymore. It'd be a confusion. But could he become intimate with it in its suchness? This picture says yes. You could become intimate with its suchness in the absence of the mental imputation. And this would be the way to enlightenment. So let's see. There's Hobontan. There's Marianne. There's Vicky. There's Sarah. Who else?

[57:15]

There's Martha. Who else? Is that all? people over here and there's Adam and there's Helka that's a lot of people but you know it's already what do you call it 10.33 so I don't know what do you think should we like do you want to like start over again tomorrow just kidding to answer those seven or eight questions or six or seven questions that will take us well into lunch Is this enough for today? Can you wait? Although you're not supposed to write during the session, maybe you can write down your question and then just let it sit and bring it to our session tomorrow. Is that all right to stop? Like I said, I'll tell you again, I find this very difficult, but somehow I feel it's really helpful

[58:19]

Helpful in understanding these very simple teachings, which I find so appealing. But then when you get into it, some more detail about how tricky they are, how subtle they are, I think is helpful. I hope this will eventually be helpful to somebody.

[58:41]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_80.56