Yes. Um... Don't worry about that. All the causes and conditions will not be given to you. They will not all be revealed to you until you're completely enlightened. And then you can be able to cope with it. It's useful to look at the sum, especially some particular one. It's extremely important to be able to observe.

[01:03]

Because some of them Some of them, some of the conditions are conditions which can be dropped. Some of the conditions for suffering can be dropped because they're actually images of things that don't exist. And if you understand that, then some of the conditions for suffering are no longer in effect. So, people who are not in study, they think that phenomena and selves are actually substantial. They appear to... The mind, there's a mind which actually sees that they substantially exist. They look like they're substantially existing. Walls and people, other people, look like they're really there. They see that. Plus, it's also innate to conceive that that's true.

[02:04]

This is like, comes, this is a gift, this is given to you. What's not necessarily given to you is to see that. But if you can, even, so to see that, once you see, see what things really do appear to be substantially existing, plus I think that's true. noticing that you think it's true that these things which appear to be substantial are really that way, noticing that is the beginning of liberation. If you reason with yourself and meditate on this belief, it can drop. However, even after it drops, things will still continue to appear to be substantially there. But you no longer think they're true. So they use the example of, in the Buddhist texts in the old days, they used to have magicians who would, they had various means of making people actually like see a horse, you know, appear.

[03:17]

They could actually... Just like now, you can see me appear. You have the... alchemy to make... Your body and mind had the alchemy to make the appearance of meat. There's other alchemies which could make a horse appear here. And some people learned those. And they could make people actually see a horse standing right there. That wasn't there to see a horse actually appear on top of a tree or on top of a rock. And ordinary people would look at that and they would actually... think that there really was a horse, actually perceive the appearance of a horse, and then they would also think it was true. The magician also would see the appearance of the horse, thereby knowing that he was successful, so he could collect. But he wouldn't think it was true. He wouldn't conceive that it was true. It would appear to be true.

[04:19]

The Buddha, looking at that, would not, it would not appear, the horse would not appear, and he would not conceive it was true. The magician would be affected by the spell that he was conjuring, would affect the appearance of the horse, assent to the spell. The wise person isn't even affected by the spell and the Buddha, I should say, isn't affected by the spell and doesn't conceive of the spell. And one other example is that the people who understand emptiness are those who no longer believe in the spell. but they still see things appearing to be out there on their own, substantially. They still see that appearance, but they don't conceive it as true. However, it's possible for Buddha, if you enter into meditative equipoise, simultaneous with the realization of emptiness, during that time, even the appearance of substantial existence doesn't come to you.

[05:34]

However, when you come out of the meditation, the appearance comes back, but the belief, the ascent to the appearance doesn't. Whereas a Buddha can, well, always see the non-appearance and not conceive of the reality at the same time, while simultaneously being able to see the appearance in another way. So, did I go too far, Sarah? No. Yes, Rosie. Substantially there. Well, like, how does your hand look to you?

[06:40]

Doesn't it seem like it's substantially there? Doesn't it seem substantially there? Yeah. And then maybe there's also the conception that goes with it. Huh? Yeah. No, not hand. No, the conception that... substantially there you can you conceive of it being true plus it first but before you even conceive along with conceiving it is actually it appears to be that way doesn't it appear to be that way it's like that just like ordinary things like hands and microphones and faces that's what's by substantial and there is the conception that that that's true that really is truly there Okay, now let's see. I see John. I see Owl and Galen and Linda.

[07:43]

But I think Galen and Linda were ahead of them. You don't know probably because they're behind you, but I think you were. And how about over here? Is there anybody over here I missed? Yes, okay, Troy. Did you have your hand raised? Carmel? No, just stretching. And Jerome? Galen? Isn't there a same analysis applied to this classic called suffering? Because suffering isn't a dharma, right? I mean, it's not a thing in itself. As all these conditions come to be, then this thought kind of locks in. Another thought comes in, it locks in, and then calls it suffering. It's not that you identify out there suffering, it's like you said, it's the backward step, it's the interior process that's happening. It has the view that the situation is unprofitable, unfulfilled, and then you're suffering.

[08:49]

It's a view that's being made, right? So it's the same analysis of deconstructing the substantiality of our lives to suffering. Deconstructing of the experience of suffering also occurs, is that what you're saying? In the sense of practice, if you have comes to be, watching the come to be of suffering, watching the masses show up... Deconstructing of suffering, you mean something different from the ceasing of suffering? You mean something different from nirvana? There's a phenomenon of suffering that arises, let's say. The phenomenon of suffering arises.

[09:52]

But with the phenomenon of suffering, there can arise a sense that it's substantial. arises and it appears to be substantial, plus there can be the conception that that's true, that it really is substantial. There can be not only the appearance, but then simultaneously this view, this theory. Okay? It can also be the case, however, that when the suffering arises, all you really see is the lack of inherent existence of the suffering. You don't even see the suffering. But the lack of inherent existence of suffering would have no meaning except in association with the suffering. So it does arise, otherwise there's no meaning of the lack of inherent existence of the suffering. So suffering arises, but one can see as soon as the suffering arises, or not as soon, but simultaneously with the arising and temporary

[10:56]

abiding of the suffering, that there's no inherent existence to this phenomenon. And that could be primarily what one is looking at. That could be all that one sees. In other words, all you see is the emptiness of that suffering. But there's no suffering without the arising of suffering. So there still is the conventional existence of suffering. In other words, because of mind, there is suffering. Some mental imputation, and there's suffering. Now, it's not just some mental imputation. There's some mental imputation in order for anything to happen. In this case, we're talking about suffering. So there must be mental imputation plus, at least for the moment, some grasping. Anyway, subsequently you've got this phenomenon called suffering. But then you can look at the suffering empirically and see its emptiness.

[12:00]

But the suffering isn't annihilated because emptiness is about the suffering. It's the emptiness of the suffering. It's the fact, it's the non-inherent existence of the suffering that you're looking at. At that time there's no suffering. You're looking at the emptiness. Now it might also be possible to read ...suffering, but still see the suffering and still see the appearance of the suffering as a substantial thing. That's also possible. That's not strictly speaking nirvana. Nirvana is not only do you realize the emptiness of the suffering... ...is the emptiness of the suffering. It's also possible to see the emptiness of the suffering but still see the appearance of the suffering. Like the magician. still sees the horse, but understands that there's no inherent existence of the horse. So he's not scared of the horse. So you do understand it, but you still see the appearance of substance, of inherent existence, the appearance of it.

[13:05]

But you no longer conceive of it. The conception of inherent existence is easier to let go of than the innate production of the appearance of inherent existence. Making appearance of things that seem solid, but when one realizes emptiness at the first level, one doesn't fall for it anymore. One doesn't assent to that appearance of substance. One doesn't assent to the appearance of true existence. to get to the point where one where all one it's not that it's not that there is no suffering but all one sees is the lack of inherent existence of the suffering so then you don't you just don't see the suffering appearing anymore but it must be there because emptiness is about it emptiness is a quality not emptiness but yeah okay emptiness is a quality of the suffering it's a quality of everything all things are marked by emptiness right

[14:10]

I don't know if I addressed your question. I did? Great. Isn't it a function of the mind to arrange things in such a way such that suffering appears? Yes. It is. Yes. Because the mind is arranged in such a way as to create suffering for this particular mind we're talking about here. Say it again, that last part. The first part, to be clear about that, that we have that which is built to see in such a way And seeing that way is suffering. But someone else could see another way and there wouldn't be suffering.

[15:12]

Giving two separate perceptions. Yeah, that they don't suffer. So now what's the next part? That's it. That's it? Okay. You sure? Now, If I might just... I was asked by the... What do you call it? It's the Nirvana Tour. I guess heard about yesterday's talk. And I don't know. Some people are calling out of here and telling people outside Tassajara what we're talking about. So then the people out there are getting upset. And one of the people that were called was this organization called Nirvana Tours. And they were afraid that they would get no more bodhisattvas signing up. So I just somewhat said, well, you know, do bodhisattvas get to go to nirvana just for a second and never go back? You know, like one time, it's one nirvana hit and then you're back in samsara from then on.

[16:17]

And from this point of view, from this person's point of view, happily, no, it's not that case. Bodhisattvas can visit nirvana repeatedly. And I mentioned to this person, the word attain, the etymology of the English word attain is to touch. So you attain nirvana means you touch. You don't camp out there forever. Buddhas do not live in nirvana. But when you realize, when you not only give up the conception of inherent existence, but even don't see the appearance of inherent existence, But as a bodhisattva, you just touch it and you're so happy that out of happiness you remember your job and come back into the world of appearances of substantial existence and suffering. But you, you know, but you don't given up the, what do you call it, the conception of inherent existence.

[17:29]

But you are seeing the appearance of inherent existence and So you come back again into suffering where it's appearing. You don't read. You can't any longer believe in the conception of it, though. And then, but sometimes, you actually stop seeing the appearance of suffering and go back to nirvana for another touch. It's like a refueling. And out of your happiness, out of... back into the appearance of inherent existence. which means the appearance of, you know, substantial, solid things. So then you actually see the appearance of suffering and happiness and all that. You see all these appearances. So that's not nirvana. Nirvana is nothing. Nothing's arising. All there is is lack of inherent existence. Okay?

[18:30]

Is that all right? Linda? Linda? Body-mind experience. Pony's better, actually. Yes. Is it their body-mind experience? Yes. Yes. It's a body-mind experience, yes. Not just the act of imputing, but what you come up with is a body-mind experience? Um... Not just the act of imputing, but what arises with the imputing?

[19:34]

Well, I think it was a dream. I think it was a dream, so [...] it was a dream. That's not really arising with anything. The dream's not really arising with anything? The idea of something not arising with anything is an idea of some substantially inherent existent thing. An inherent existent thing, a truly inherently existent thing would be something that doesn't need even mental imputation. That could be there without mental imputation. That would be like inherently existent. What is the question? What is the question? Well, in looking for things that are inherently existent, So you were talking about body-mind experience. I'm trying to understand what body-mind experience is and when does it stop being body-mind experience?

[20:38]

Body-mind experience stopping body-mind experience? Is that your question? I don't understand your question. I don't know of any... If you have a thought, is that body-mind experience or is it just the thinking? If you have a thought, you mean like the concept, some concept? Yeah. A concept, or is it thinking? Is it just all body-mind experience and I continue on? Is it the way of life and everything else? And all body-mind experience then? Because I was like hearing you say that body-mind experience is like, I look big. From whence everything else kind of, you know, it's going out and out and out. You're not understanding my question. Yeah, I'm not... I'm not understanding it.

[21:43]

Can I go back to the magician and the pony? Sure, that's nice. Go back. Is the pony... Is the pony what? Is the pony part of the magician's body, mind, experience? The pony who conjured up? is, let's see, the pony seems to be a body-mind experience because the appearance of the pony is a body-mind experience. There actually is no pony. Right? But people experience the appearance of a pony. All right? I think that answers your question. So it can be a fabrication. Your body-mind experience can be a fabrication, really. Because otherwise it would be... Your body-mind experience can be... Well, this may be... This point may be too subtle for right now.

[23:02]

Your point may just be too subtle for this forum. You may have to talk about it in a class. It's too big a... It's too big a... It's too subtle a distinction, I think. You may not realize it, but I think you're bringing up something very subtle. But I think it's out of scale... But if you can remember it for a class, you can have a whole class about this one point. This is a very subtle point, I feel. And then there was John, and Theo, and Howell. John? . See, what you're suggesting is that the sense itself is other than the horizon. Would you say that again, louder? I agree with that mostly except for when you said a really good adept just sees nirvana.

[24:29]

Just sees the emptiness. I would say a really good adept can just see the emptiness. It's possible to become so skillful that you just see emptiness. In that way, touch nirvana. It's possible to get that good at this meditation. All right? And a Buddha can do this. But that doesn't mean a really good yogi is always looking at just emptiness because a really good yogi is in contact with nirvana. A really good yogi is someone who could just see nirvana but doesn't just see nirvana. In other words, gives up just seeing nirvana and comes into the realm where the mind ...appearance of substantial existence. Good yogis, bodhisattva yogi, would come back and see the appearance of whatever again. However, they would not, you know, grasp and hold on to the conception that that was.

[25:40]

therefore they're looking at the appearance of substantial existence along with other people who are looking at the appearance of substantial existence but there's no belief in the reality of that on their part therefore they don't have outflows therefore they can help people study this appearance study their belief in the reality of that appearance and get relief from that and eventually even get relief from the appearance and realize Buddhahood But Buddhahood isn't just the realization of the emptiness in terms of appearance. It's also coming back from that into the world and helping people. That's also part of it. So really good yogis not only can just see emptiness and touch nirvana, really good yogis are those who even go beyond that and come back into the world where they see appearance same time do not apprehend the view or the conception that that appearance is real and work with people in that realm and then occasionally you know go on nirvana tour touch it again get refueled and come back round and round up to nirvana back to samsara up to samsara that's even a better yogi than the one who can just see nirvana does that make sense

[27:05]

And the time goes on, so I'm sorry, it gets thicker. Theo? Oh, yeah. Right. Well, the view of annihilation, I don't know if it was you I was talking to, but the view of annihilation is when you have, when you see an appearance, most people do, of something that seems to be really there, substantially out there, on its own, you know, it's out your mental imputation is not playing a part in this. It's really out there. Okay? Plus you think you have the conception that goes with that. Meaning you think that's true. Okay? Then if that thing changes, you think it's annihilated. So annihilation is the way is the way inherently existent things are when they change for you. For one who believes, who perceives and believes in inherent existence of something, when that thing changes or ceases, you think it's annihilated.

[28:14]

Because it was a permanent thing, and when permanent things change, it's completely gone. Whereas impermanent things can change and still kind of like be, have some continuity with their past existence. Okay? Well, for one thing it means if you think yourself inherently exists, then if your self changes, you think your self was annihilated. Yes, annihilationism is a view of inherent non-existence. It's all by itself, totally zip. But that's not the way things are, you know? If you, like, take away Brian, just take him away right now, it's not like there's nothing left.

[29:16]

We sort of say, well, wasn't there something there before? Would you go outside for a minute? Just go out. Just leave. You don't want to. But anyway, if you take something away... There's not nothing left. If something ceases, it's not annihilated. It's only annihilated if you thought it was permanently there. And some people, when they look at things that are permanently there and they change, they think it's totally gone. Because they see things this one inherent way, they see the other inherent way. So annihilation is the flip side of eternalism. It's the way you... Instead of like... The idea of permanence, when you see change or something cease, you don't look carefully and give up the idea of, you know, inherent existence and inherent non-existence. You just say, well, it was annihilated.

[30:18]

That's how you adapt to change. Ceasing. Inherent non-existence. Sometimes called materialism or nihilism. Troy? Was that all the people on this side? Huh? Oh, Owl, sorry. Owl? Yes? So, if one sees appearances, but doesn't believe in them, isn't grasping them, Uh, it seems like... Excuse me. Does one see, in your case, does one see the appearance of phenomena as substantial? No. No? It's the rising. Okay. It's the rising, like the magician.

[31:19]

No, the magician, the magician, the appearance of a substantial horse. The magician doesn't see an insubstantial horse. It's not a phantom horse. It's a substantial horse. The appearance of a horse like a regular horse, the magician sees that. If he can't see that, it isn't working very well. That's how he tunes it in. He kind of goes, well, it's a little foggy there. Oh, there's my baby. They got it. So for the magician, it's also apparently substantially there. But maybe that's not your example. But he doesn't conceive. There's a difference between an appearance and the conception, the appearance of reality and the conception that it's true. He doesn't conceive it's true. He knows it's not true. So he doesn't grasp what? Doesn't grasp the horse.

[32:19]

He might not try to grasp the horror, it's true, but the most important point is, I think, that he doesn't grasp, well, in terms of Buddhism, he doesn't grasp the conception. The conception. He doesn't grasp the conception. But his mind does grasp the appearance. And if he grasped the conception, he would try to ride the horse. But since he doesn't grab the conception, he doesn't try to ride the horse. The other people would try to ride the horse, except the magician made the horse so big that they're afraid of it. They're just holding on to their purse. Huh? Magician... The magician is free from suffering. But the suffering is still appearing to the magician. So why take this extra step of not seeing appearances at all? If you're just free of suffering, what's the problem?

[33:30]

Oh, because of the refueling possibilities of nirvana. So why would you need that refueling? Why would you need the refueling? Because he's not as happy as he's going to be when he gets the total, you know, the total touching of nirvana. It's not... The experience of nirvana offers certain resources that you don't get while you're still caught in the, you know, in the mind that's imputing, actively imputing substantial existence. So, in other words, realization of nirvana is... is actually what you want everybody to finally get a taste of. It is a possibility. And this is nirvana. This is not just half nirvana, which is half nirvana is giving up the conception of inherent existence. The other half is not even having the appearance of it.

[34:32]

It just seems like if he's not suffering, he's helping all beings, what more is necessary? Buddhahood. Buddhahood is actually being able to actually not even see the appearance of anything. What's so great about it? The great thing about it is that this thing I was saying yesterday, this Christian thing, right? He cares enough to give up his very best. So, the bodhisattva would renounce attachment and work for the welfare of beings even before realizing nirvana. There's something even greater about realizing nirvana and giving that up to come to beings and also to be able to tell beings not only is it possible to become free of being enchanted by the world of appearances of substantial reality, but it's also possible to be free of

[35:37]

giving it up plus it's also possible to be free of seeing the appearance of the world and also to give up being free of even seeing the appearance of the world yeah it's a lot like that that's that's exactly because giving up nirvana is how you make a buddha land if you give up half nirvana you can't make a full buddha land You can do a lot of good if you just reach the magician stage. You can be more effective to help before that. And you yourself get considerable relief. But as long as there's still appearance and you haven't realized nirvana, then you don't have the possibility of giving up nirvana. And somebody who's just given up nirvana is... comes back into the world having given that up then when they do ordinary things like make little piles of mochi and make little offerings to Buddha and cook lunch and stuff this creates a Buddha land because this is like this is like pure love purified of the conception of inherent existence and purified even of the appearance of inherent existence

[37:06]

Now you know. Good luck. But it's getting kind of late. So just one more question. Is that okay? Troy? I was wondering if you could just clarify whether I understand this process. Okay. Okay. He wants me to understand him now. Yes. Got a suffering person here, a sentient being. Yes. He hears a teaching that he might be able to settle down with his suffering. that you can not get involved with it, and that not getting involved with it will settle you down.

[38:12]

Yes. So you practice that settling down. Things are arising and ceasing. And he's not getting involved. And he's getting calm by not getting involved. And at some point, the sense of self So now he's moving into... It happened like a sense of self would arise. Okay, yeah, that might happen. Yeah, see? So you see the sense of self arising and ceasing and you don't get involved with that. You're calm with that, yes. Okay? Okay? So being, maybe naturally, you might naturally see the arising of this, this self might arise and you might be able to see it clearly in this calm state.

[39:25]

Yes. You see it comes to be or comes to cease. You see its dependent core arising. And then you see its emptiness. And then you see its emptiness. So when you see its emptiness, you say, then he said, everything so far is a possible scenario, I would agree. Then he said, you see its emptiness, and he said, then you're free of it? You're not free of it, exactly. You're free of what? You're free of the view of its inherent existence. You don't, you don't, see, we don't really want, the bodhisattva anyway doesn't want to be free of the world. The world's where the bodhisattva wants to be free of the view of inherent existence. So in that case, you might be free of the view of inherent existence of the self.

[40:31]

You don't grasp the view that it inherently exists. In your story, that could happen. That would be vipassana, that you would see that there's... It doesn't make sense. It just doesn't... It's pretty much, I don't like the word, destroyed, this inherent existence concept. So you always were free, but you were totally clinging to your view of the world. Now you let go of your view of the world, so you're free of suffering. Okay? The view is refuted. The view is refuted. Right. So that's a story that could happen. It sounds quite natural and lovely, doesn't it? And if it happens that way, fine. Get educated so that you spot that as the inherent existence one and look at it and study it with such sincerity that you actually refute it.

[41:34]

If you can do that without any education process, which you're already involved in, so it doesn't apply. But if somebody could do that without an education process, I would say they got the education process some way. So, but anyway, that story you told is a fine story and in some sense, without the details, it sounds like the story of bodhidharma and hueka. That he was taught, don't have any involvements around this stuff. And he had realization, he reached no involvements In other words, he was no longer involved in grasping the concept of inherent existence. And then Bodhidharma says, one way to read the story is, Bodhidharma says, you haven't, you're not hanging out in nirvana, are you? In other words, you haven't realized non-attachment to the view of inherent existence of phenomena.

[42:38]

You haven't disentangled and also disentangled from even the appearance of phenomena. And you're not hanging out there, are you? And he said, no. So he said, I am clearly observing. In other words, I'm seeing phenomena still. There's still the appearance of things, but I, you know, but I understand. Nirvana is when you don't even see the appearances. Nirvana is when you don't even see the appearances. In nirvana, nothing is happening. Can a person understand nirvana? Can they react? No. No. No. Too bad. You cannot... What is it? You can't take your Cadillac to Nirvana. But it's okay if you're bodhisattva because you're not going to hang out there. You can come back and drive your Cadillac in samsara. And when you come back, after you've not only given up the belief in the conception of inherent existence, but you even have ceased to see the appearance of inherent existence, then when you come back in samsara and drive your Cadillac, it's a big encouragement to everybody.

[43:55]

And then they get in and ride with you, and then they... from you. So that they too can become like a magician first, and then finally become like a Buddha. It seems like it's not possible even to hang out in Nirvana. Well, this is part of Buddhist theory. Is it possible to be in arhat, to attain Nirvana and go, you know, and be gone? Is that possible? And I think some people say, yeah, you can actually attain Nirvana and that's it. So you don't come back anymore. Huh? It's called parinirvana. The skandhas, there's no more implications for rebirth. This is part of the background of our tradition, is that that's a possibility. To attain nirvana, well, there's two kinds of nirvana. Excuse me. Sorry. One kind of nirvana is called pratisamkhya nirvana.

[45:00]

That's the nirvana that the Buddha attained under the Bodhi tree, where the Buddha, you know, became free of the conception of inherent existence. of the self and of phenomena, and also became free even of the appearance. And that's the nirvana that came with his practice. However, he came back from that nirvana to see the world and to teach and work with appearances and even speak in conventional language. When the Buddha died, he attained apratisamkhya-naroda, where he actually became and didn't get reborn at all. So it is possible then to, in that sense, stay in Nirvana. But then the life of the Buddha is gone unless he has disciples, which he did, to carry on the work in Samsara. So the life of Buddha is Samsara. But also the life of Buddha is Nirvana.

[46:05]

And the life of Buddha is not to yearn for Nirvana, or reject samsara, or reject nirvana and yearn for samsara. Most people actually yearn for samsara. In other words, they really yearn for samsara. They grasp the belief in inherent existence and then they grasp the appearance of inherent existence. This is grasping for samsara. But we shouldn't yearn for nirvana. But we commit ourselves to attain nirvana in order to help everybody. We take on this very lofty goal because we at some point see that it helps people if some people would attain nirvana, touch it. The story of Bodhidharma and Hueka, and that story can be amplified infinitely depending on whose story it's going to be. Is that enough now?

[47:02]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_73.5