During the last class, I said that we'd be studying dependent core rising now for the rest of the practice period. I think I said something like that. And someone told me that she was very happy to hear that. And I... Because you think we won't be studying emptiness anymore? I didn't ask her about that. But anyway, I'd like to revise my statement, and that is that we will be studying dependent core arising for the rest of the practice period. But you can't really study dependent core arising without also studying emptiness. I mean, you can, but it's incomplete. Some people speak of emptiness and dependent core rising as synonyms. And also some people feel that in the Mahayana, or particularly in the middle way school of the Mahayana, that emptiness and dependent core rising are equated.

[01:22]

And that is true that for a middle way person, emptiness and dependent core rising are not synonyms for everybody. Some people see dependent core rising but don't see emptiness. They recognize that phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions. They don't understand emptiness yet. Those who understand emptiness, when they study dependent core arising, they realize that emptiness is the meaning of dependent core arising, and that dependent core arising is the reason for emptiness. So they're almost, can be, they're equated in Buddha's mind or Buddha's eye, the pentagora rising and emptiness are compatible and mutually elucidate each other.

[02:34]

But it is possible to have some understanding of interdependence among all things, but not see that the implication of interdependence I shouldn't say, interdependence doesn't necessarily lead to that implication when you see it. When you see emptiness, then you see that it does. So, anyway, they're very close. They're very compatible. We need both of them, and we'll study both of them. Back and forth. Saved. Now, I would like to briefly mention a few points about studying delusion.

[03:40]

Buddhas are those who are greatly enlightened about delusion. They study delusion. They study appearances, and they study the belief that those appearances inherently exist. So people are still searching around for their false view of inherent existence, and I'd just like to say a few words about that. But before I do, I also want to say a few words about If you're not in the mood for studying, for finding this delusion that most of us have, that something very important to us exists, and actually everything inherently exists.

[04:45]

If you're not in the mood for looking for this delusion, Relax and enjoy the rest of the practice period in the deepest calm accessible to your practice. In that relaxed state, please listen in a relaxed way, look in a relaxed way, and so on, and you will be hearing somebody talking about some things which you're not in a particular mood to hear about, but which you're so relaxed about that you won't mind. Now if you are excited about studying these delusions, then I would say stop studying them. Calm down before you study them. You should not be too excited about this wonderful study which will culminate in the liberation of all beings from suffering. Getting excited about it actually is really off the track.

[05:49]

So calmly study this material. And if you can't study it in calmness, calm down. Practice calm until you're calm. And then if you're interested in a calm state in doing this kind of study, then go ahead. And if you're studying this material and feeling upset about it, excited about it or depressed about it or encouraged about it to an excited state, then I would say, even though you'd be happy to continue, why don't you take a little break and settle down a little bit before you go further. That story about the bird, painting the picture of the bird, you set up a cage. In the cage, where you set up a cage and then you wait quietly by the cage for the bird to come. And when the bird comes, then you gently close the cage.

[07:00]

And then at that time, well, when the bird comes, at that time you even get more quiet. So now I'm talking about what to do if the delusion should show up. if this appearance, if an appearance comes, you know, a bird, if a bird comes, but this is a special bird, this is a bird, an inherently existing bird comes, a bird which not only has that thread of inherent existence running through it, but you see, you can see that this bird seems to inherently exist, it seems to exist Yeah, is it really there? And one of the... Somebody came to talk to me about, you know, they thought they found it and they told me about it. I said, I don't think so. It doesn't sound like a subtle belief in inherent existence. Basically, characteristics of it

[08:03]

which were basically just characteristics of the conventional self, which again, a lot of people do that. And then after a little while, he just said, it's so real. I said, that's it. It's so real. That was it. So this bird will come, something will come, and you'll look and you'll see, it's so real. At that time, don't get excited. Stay even more quiet. Now, It comes into this cage and the cage is the instructions about how to look for and how to help you find this sole realness of something. It's the way you're thinking and training yourself so you can spot this delusion when it shows up. Be very quiet then. What a lot of people are doing when they tell me about it is they immediately refute it.

[09:08]

They say, well, there it is, but how can it be there? It doesn't make any sense, you know? Or like they start to, I say, can you have a clear vision of this sense of like something that's so real? And they say, well, how could I have a clear vision of a delusion? So when a delusion shows up, and it's a little bit foggy or a little bit vague, and you think, well, it can't get any more clear because it wouldn't make sense for it to get clear, then, and sure enough, it gets less clear. There can be a real vivid sense, vivid sense of a delusion. It's a vivid sense of an eye that's not clear, but you have an eye that's not clear and we're trying to find that eye that doesn't see clearly and see that that eye that doesn't see clearly really thinks it sees something clearly. And if you start to see it and you immediately say, oh, that doesn't make any sense, then you refute it too soon. You have to let it come into as full-bodied an experience of it as you can get.

[10:12]

If you refute it too soon, it won't work. So we need to be aware of the appearance of substantiality before we can realize insubstantiality. And if you start to become aware of the substantiality and you immediately make noise, it'll just fly away. So when the bird comes into the cage, be quiet, very quiet, even more quiet than you were, which allowed you to Do not immediately go to the bird and say, hey, you're not real. Just get to know this delusion before you start to criticize it. I thought I'd give a couple of... You know, some people, again, come and tell me what they're looking for, and... Again, I say, no, that's not it, that's not it. And then they just say some side comment, you know, and that's it.

[11:16]

Like this one person was telling me, and she was telling me all these things which were just conventional experience. She was telling me her experiences. Now, and she said, I, you know, this belief is all mixed up in everything. It's so difficult to see. And I said, that's right, it is. It is difficult to see because it's so mixed in with everything. And then she started it again. Even though she said it was difficult, she tried to tell me what it was, but she kept talking about the stuff that it was mixed in with. She told me about the bird rather than the sense that the bird is real. She told me about the way the bird looks, which is birds do look a certain way because birds depend on something. They depend on some thing to be designated birds. So if you tell me that a bird's yellow and so on, yeah, mm-hmm, that's what birds are like. They're yellow or purple or something. But that's not what we're looking for. We're looking for this sensation that is so real.

[12:22]

And the so real doesn't depend on being yellow. So real doesn't depend on anything. That's what's real, something that doesn't depend on anything. It's so hard to find. I said, yeah, it is hard to find. And then she made some other attempts to find it, but she kept coming up with the things that it depends, that some appearance depends on. But then she said, just, I don't know, suddenly she said, this is the same thing that, no, this is the same fine scandal that's been around since 1957. I said, that's it. the sense that this, what's happening now, is the same five skandhas as that there was in 1957. Five skandhas that's the same as, that basically, not just something about it that's the same, but this five skandhas is the same.

[13:27]

Can you imagine that the person said that? That this is the same form, it's the same smell, the same taste, the same touch, the same... Of course she doesn't mean that, right? body as 1957. But she said, but it is the same. That's the delusion, that it's the same feelings, the same... Of course it isn't, but we think there's something that actually is the same since we were born. And somebody else who has problems with rebirth, he doesn't believe in rebirth, Because he doesn't think, it doesn't make sense to him that a thing could get reborn, that a thing could die and get reborn. I said, you believe in the rebirth, but you do believe in the thing. The thing's the inherent existence. The thing that gets reborn.

[14:28]

You don't have to believe in rebirth. You already believe in something much weirder. To understand that, that thing you believe in, there won't be any more rebirth if you don't want to. Because birth depends on this belief. And then when this person said to me, it's so real, I had this little kind of thing happen to me where I thought of, that's what I first said about Zazen. And I thought, maybe what attracted me to Zazen was that I thought it was the inherently existing thing. Because people ask me, you know, what do you practice Zazen for?

[15:31]

What's good about it? You know, I couldn't really say it was fun or not fun. I couldn't say it was purple or green. Couldn't say it was good for me or... or I couldn't, there was nothing I really could get a hold of about it. And yet, even though it was in among all these possibilities and not any of them, it was real, all by itself real. This is an example of how you can see interdependence but not emptiness. It was related to all that stuff, but didn't depend on them. And that really is attractive, something real all by itself without any qualification. It's just almost like Buddha, no marks, right?

[16:31]

But it was so real, I could sense that it was real. to talk about this basic delusion but one way to talk about it is that reality or liberation has something to do with the concept you know in extreme form it has something to do with the concept liberation has something to do with independence that reality and liberation have something to do with dependence, independence. What? What? What does it say? Does not depend? Yes. Yeah, maybe, maybe, yeah.

[17:43]

So there it is. It's not your fault. Liberation has something to do with independence. Freedom, this is extreme, okay? Freedom has no necessity to anything or anybody. There's that idea. It's like, it's inherent existence again. Mixed in. But it does have this one weird thing there in the Prajnaparamita Sutra. It says that bodhisattvas rely on or depend on Paramita. And a lot of people, again, in the early days of Zen Center and even up until quite recently, people say how bodhisattvas rely on something, but they didn't rely on anything. I thought they were like, you know, unattached. I thought they produce a mind which doesn't depend on anything, right?

[18:44]

They produce a mind which doesn't depend on sight objects. It has no abode. It doesn't abide in anything. So we think, oh, no dependence. Something all by itself. What is a mind that doesn't depend on anything? That sounds like inherent existence. You're supposed to produce a mind which inherently exists. Pardon? Pardon? Pardon me means understanding emptiness. Yes. It says it does rely on prajnaparamita. They do. They rely on understanding emptiness.

[19:46]

Bodhisattvas need to understand emptiness. But another place it says bodhisattvas should produce a mind which doesn't depend on anything. So one understanding of that, a new understanding of that is, you should produce a mind of delusion. You should produce a mind of inherent existence, a mind which doesn't depend on anything. That's pretty good, huh? I think the fact that you're making that face makes me feel like we have struck upon reality. We have struck upon reality, not me. I didn't make that face. I needed you to make it. Some people's understandings are getting jiggled. They don't like this.

[20:49]

That's it. They gotcha. So, again, whether you're up for studying emptiness, which means finding the opposite of emptiness. Studying emptiness means studying the lack of inherent existence of phenomena. But in order to study the lack of inherent existence of phenomena in such a way that it transforms us, we have to find belief in the inherent existence of phenomena. To be in denial about our delusion does not uproot it. You have to go in and become intimate with our delusion. I think so. This approach of thinking about the non-deluded point of view all the time

[21:51]

seems all right, but it could be wasting time because the deluded view is just bigger and stronger while you're doing that. Because, you know, ordinarily the deluded view gets bopped around a little bit by anxiety and, you know, people being mean to you. But if you start thinking about emptiness and things like that, So it just gets stronger while you're not looking. But anyway, even if you're up for this study, still remember, if you start getting out of touch with ordinary reality, if you start looking down your nose at mundane right view and stuff like that, if you start getting excited and stuff like that, probably, you know, maybe you should take a little break from that study and just calm down for a while and start, you know, paying more attention to the deep and the consequences of activity, which again will connect you back to the same thing, but in a less, in a more mundane way.

[23:14]

It'll bring you back to this belief in inherent existence, way, not so exciting way. And if you're not up for studying it, it's okay. Just work on compassion in the form of giving, patience, careful observation of your conduct, and concentration until you feel up for it again. Now, going over to dependent core arising, sort of I feel like saying, thus I have heard. What I'm going to say is not necessarily anything other than what I've seen and heard, okay? This is how it looks to me. Dependent core arising is used in a number, in some different ways.

[24:20]

And it's used in early... The Buddha gave this teaching and then many other people also have given this teaching. So it's presented somewhat differently by different people. But anyway, in the early teachings, most people agree that the Buddha taught the pentacle arising and no self. Those are two basic teachings. The Four Noble Truths are very, very much the same thing as dependent core rising. So, one way of ...arising is that it's about the... it's a description of how the world arises and ceases.

[25:32]

That it's a description of the way the cosmos arises and ceases. One way that it can be seen, and the Buddha did sometimes talk that way and use the expression the dependent co-arising of the world and the dependent co-arising of the ceasing of the world. The dependent co-arising of the rising of the world and the dependent co-arising of the ceasing of the world talk that way. But also the Buddha talked about the dependent co-arising of the arising of suffering and the dependent co-arising of the ceasing of suffering. And it makes sense to me in a lot of ways that the dependent co-arising as the arising and ceasing of the world is somewhat superficial and in some ways not very detailed.

[26:34]

I think that modern science in some ways is a more profound and detailed story of the dependent co-arising of the universe than Buddhist teaching does. But the Buddhist teaching of the dependent core rising of suffering and the dependent core rising of the ceasing of suffering, the dependent core rising of the rising of suffering, and the dependent core rising of the ceasing of suffering, I think, well, it's just like, it's quite good. Very good. And nothing... It's way out there. It's supremely developed in the world. And also in... I think in Theravada, in the early... Excuse me.

[27:39]

Take it back to the early teachings. Not the early teachings. The way some people interpret the early teachings is that the pentacle arising is a very detailed and enlightened description of the arising, the personal life, and personal suffering. And the ceasing of personal life and the ceasing of individual suffering. I think it's... I think it's... I would expand that and say what dependent co-arising looks like to me now is a detailed description of the arising of suffering by means of the arising of the idea of an individual.

[29:02]

And then once that idea... So it accounts for the arising of suffering, but it also accounts for the arising of the idea of the individual, which then is the condition for the arising of suffering. And so really... But really what it is, it's the dependent co-arising... It's the description of the dependent co-arising of suffering, not... just of the individual, but of life in general. And it is the description of the dependent core arising of the ceasing of suffering, not just for the individual, but for all beings. And I think that some people interpret the individual, and I'm interpreting it as not about the individual, but about the imagined, the imagination of the individual, the arising of that and how that creates the suffering.

[30:14]

So that's one, that's what the pinnacle arising is seen. Got it? Of the world and of the arising of suffering and ceasing of suffering. Again, I would say that the logic of dependent co-arising, which is about talking about how suffering arises and ceases, the way it describes it implies that it's not about an individual. And also the way it describes it is that none of the aspects of the description are about individual aspects of the description. The dependent co-arising naturally empties itself. But first of all, when people look at it, it appears to be something out there. So it provides something for you to hook onto which will by its interdependence.

[31:23]

Once again, two ways it's presented is about the arising and ceasing of the world or the arising and ceasing of suffering. And I would also say that it is about the arising and ceasing of suffering. It is about a detailed analysis of suffering. It actually talks about suffering, how suffering is. So it's actually a detailed analysis of suffering itself. It's a detailed analysis of the origins and arising of suffering. It's a detailed analysis of the ceasing of suffering. It's a detailed analysis of the way of ceasing suffering. The Pentagon Rising is a detailed analysis of the Four Noble Truths. It is a... it brings out the... of the Four Noble Truths. And if you look at these two sutras that we've been chanting this practice period, the first sutra is a little bit more static.

[32:30]

It talks about renunciation of the extremes of self-mortification and indulgence, distracting yourself from what's happening by those two distractions, by those two extremes, and then it goes into Four Noble Truths. The second one goes a step deeper. First of all, teaching avoiding the extremes of believing in the inherent existence of extreme of thinking there's no existence at all. And this, avoiding these extremes would be first applied, avoid the extreme of the belief in inherent existence of the person, and avoid the extreme of believing that there's no person at all. And then apply it to phenomena too. So the first part's about emptiness, renouncing, and the second part's about dependent core arising. So that parallels the first sutra, where he's talking about the four normal truths. But the way he talks about it in the second sutra, empties, brings in relativity in the way that the first one doesn't so clearly.

[33:40]

So these two sutras are really parallel. One is a little bit deeper than the other. The second one has less to do with the person. It's more of an ultimate point of view. Okay, once again, Within the... as viewed as a description of the Four Noble Truths, or the arising and cessation of suffering, it can be viewed as basically about a moment. In other words, about each moment. Or it can be viewed as talking about a successive process over two lives or over many lives. And so, okay, and I think maybe some of you have heard about it.

[34:41]

Three, yeah, three, but three, the third one can be like, you know, many, many. A third one can be more than just one. One is like past life, present life, and future life. But that future life is not just the next one. It can be infinite next ones. Okay? So, it can be over three lives or even a longer period of time that this is envisioned. Or it can also be about one moment. All right? In the... In the Theravada commentaries, in other words, those people who are looking at the Theravada texts, excuse me, take it back, those who are looking at the Pali texts and looking at the Pali commentaries, Pali texts, they say that in the Pali texts you do not see Buddha talking about dependent core arising in three lives.

[35:50]

Did you get that, Christina? They say that you first see this idea of dependent co-arising in three lives, or many lives, you first see it in the commentaries. So, I myself cannot pop one out of the Pali text all of a sudden and say, right there the Buddha talked about dependent co-arising in three lives. I can't tell you I found a place like that. But if you've been looking at the Pali text more than me, I'll take their word for it. So it may be the case that in the Pali texts, the Buddha did not talk about the dependent core rising of birth and death over three lifetimes. Okay? For your information. If anybody finds out otherwise, let us know. This is, you know, if I was a professor, I would send graduate students to go look for this. Anyway, so that's maybe the case in that situation.

[37:03]

And then the commentaries, in other words, the commentaries look at the Buddha's teaching and they say, well, he didn't say three lives, but it's obvious that he meant it. Because he's not just accounting for suffering at this moment. He's talking about also accounting for it going on indefinitely. But that's an interpretation of the Pali text by the commentators. Okay? So that's what I've heard. And until further notice, you might take it as the latest dope on that. Now, however, in the Sutras, the Buddha does talk about three lives for dependable rising. and also in the Mahayana. But he also talks about it as one moment. So in the Avatamsaka Sutra, in the... the sixth stage in the development of bodhisattva is primarily focused on dependent core arising.

[38:06]

And there you see dependent core arising in a moment, in over three lifetimes. And this is the Avatamsaka Sutra, so we're going with that one for now. This is one of our... main sutras. And it's in other sutras, too, talking about rebirth and dependent co-arising in three lives. So in Mahayana, both are taught. And in the Mahayana and also the Mahayana sutras. But even the Mahayana people have found in the early sutras this presentation. So I would say, anyway, that to be open to these two interpretations. And even the people who are studying the Pali texts and the Pali commentaries, One of them I've been studying saying that he still feels that the description of dependent co-arising over a number of lives is not as profound and useful as a description in one moment.

[39:15]

And I think most Zen students probably would feel that way. And then you avoid this whole rebirth. Another one of the commentators is really red-hot about how terrible it is to teach dependent core rising over three lives. He thinks it's a real, it's one of the major disasters in Buddhism. It's what the commentators, the Pali commentators have done, the commentators on the Pali texts have done by presenting this teaching. But in Mahayana, a lot of Mahayana teachers feel like it's really important to bring this in, partly to... Yes? Okay, this is about... Don't say codependent. That's a different class.

[40:17]

Okay. Yes? So, in my experience, sometimes it seems like the self is generating a sort of reaction to my anxiety or confusion. Yes? You know, my self is like, it's what it's seeking some fundamental rely on or... Yes? Respectability. Yes, that sounds... When you said, no, it's the same thing, what do you mean, no, it's the same thing? Those examples, when he said that, I heard dependent core arising right out of the book. But anyway, then you said, no, it's the same. They don't even know what you're talking about at that point. I mean, it doesn't matter, like, you know, which one of those two.

[41:18]

Yeah, both of those are the same. Both of those you could see as contact, craving, clinging, becoming, and birth of the self, in both of those examples. Okay, well, what you're saying is exactly my question. I feel like whether we see the sentence, the sentence we're writing as... Say it in Sanskrit. ...or over three lifetimes, it's pretty inaccessible, because, like, in the moment, it's like, I mean, it's pretty microscopic, the flood of tense context of having... Okay. This is a parenthesis in the overview, right? So I'm going to try to make this short and go back to my nice overview.

[42:26]

Okay? Or should I postpone the response to this and continue the overview? Huh? What? You say it's okay, but how about the other people? They're more interested than you. Because, you know, it's about you, not them. You're the anxious one. They like to hear about it because they're not anxious. Some people here, you know, only know anxiety sort of vicariously. That's better than nothing, right? That's what most therapists are into. So should we do this little reality check here, this little practical thing in the middle of the big picture? Or do you want to finish the big picture? Okay. Put aside three births for now. You're not talking, you know, you're talking about a particular example right now. You feel anxiety. Okay? In case I forget to say this, the first link in dependent co-arising, ignorance, is not before any of the rest of them in actuality.

[43:34]

The first one doesn't come before. They're all simultaneous. Think about it as a moment. If it's a moment, there's not like one part of the moment before the other part. So in terms of accounting for a moment of suffering, the arising of suffering in a moment, ignorance is not before the other ones. But it's, you know, it's fundamental, but the other ones are fundamental too. The mother's not more fundamental than the child. The child's not more fundamental than the mother. You just never have one without the other. So, if you have sense contact... Then you can have anxiety. Anxiety is another way to say craving. You know, you have sense contact and you're anxious to get this air. So you have sense contact. What is it? Breath. Got breath, okay?

[44:36]

That's one thing you have an often. You have breath, sense contact of breath. for something. You want to get rid of some of it, or you want to get more, or you want it to come in a little faster or a little slower. Just a second, please. Whenever you're presenting these twelve things, you don't need to use twelve. Buddhists sometimes use twelve. Actually, if you look in the Pali text, almost never use twelve. Almost always uses less. He was a busy boy. He sometimes started at ignorance and went forward. He sometimes started at contact and went forward. He sometimes brought another factor which wasn't on the list in and wove it into the ones that usually are. So, watch how I did this, see? He's talking about craving. I mean, he's talking about anxiety, so I say anxiety, craving. So, you have sense contact of breath, you have sense contact of lunch, or you have sense contact of not only lunch, but tofu in the third bowl, or mushroom, and you can put a feeling in between there, like positive or negative, like positive and wanting more, being afraid you're not going to get it, being afraid you're going to lose it.

[46:04]

Then after that craving comes, let's say, often does, clinging, grasping, attachment. The subtle one, which is called becoming, which is basically the attachment coming to fruition. And then at fruition, self, the birth, birth. In other words, the self comes together. However, this whole process happens because of depending on the background or at the base of it all is ignorance. If you didn't believe in the inherent existence of something, there wouldn't have been the constriction at the sense contact. But because of belief in inherent existence, when there's a sense contact, there's constriction. Or there's sense contact. In other words, there's sense contact and there's kind of like, well... How does this work for me? How does this work for it?

[47:09]

How does it work for the thing that I don't believe gets reborn? But I don't believe it gets born. I think there is a thing. There's always a thing. It's going to get reborn. But I do think there's a thing now. And I'm worried about this thing and how this sense contact is going to work for it. And I think it's going to work pretty well. So this is pleasant. Or is this not going to work so well? Is this unpleasant? I'm not sure, so I'm confused. I don't know which it is. Now that I've got that settled, now this constriction sets in for wanting it to go this way or that way depending on how I evaluated the sense contact. The sense contact is based on the ignorance. The evaluation But the all-evaluation is also based on sense contact. You can't evaluate anything if you don't have sense contact. And the craving is based on the sense contact and on the feeling and on the ignorance and so on.

[48:14]

They're all interdependent. They happen at once. One follows the other. Therefore, in short, all of them are empty. Each of the elements are empty. And the birth of the self is also interdependent, so it's empty. But still, when you see them as separate events, it appears to happen. When you see the sense contact as a separate event, this is turning into big parentheses, when you see the sense contact as a separate event, and you lose track of it depending on the belief in inherent existence, and you lose track of it depending on consciousness and the five senses, Then it sits there, big and strong, all by itself, and the inherent existence gets transferred to the sense contact, and the sense contact is all by itself there. Link number six?

[49:15]

Five? Link number five? One? Six? There it is. All by itself. You don't see its dependency. It's all by itself, and when it's all by itself, then, again, It's like you're already believing inherent existence and now here's a good example of it. And so then you can't judge it as positive, negative, or neutral. And that's also standing by itself because you don't see its dependency on the previous one and everything. So each of these stand themselves. So this process seems to happen. So it seems to happen. Sense consciousness seems to happen. I mean, really. Feeling seems to happen really. Craving seems to happen really. Attachment seems to happen really. Self seems to happen really. And then suffering seems to happen really. But the only way is through this dependency, which is exactly how they don't happen really.

[50:24]

So if you can tune into this process of how they seem to be, how they appear to arise, and not only how they appear to arise, but how they appear to arise really, then you get to see how they don't appear to arise, and then, when you see that, they don't even appear to arise. It isn't even then that the belief in inherent existence of these things doesn't arise. The appearance of them doesn't even arise. So for the parentheses, we can do this over and over because it's happening over and over. But I want to go back now to the overview. The other main aspect of the overview is that dependent co-arising is also presented not as a dependent co-arising in terms of the arising of the world or the arising and ceasing of suffering or the person or sense contact or whatever, but is presented as the principle of conditionality or the principle of interdependence.

[51:35]

So, the practical example, the main practical example that Buddhism puts out there is this twelve links of causation. or sometimes ten, sometimes four, sometimes six, sometimes... It has to be at least two, I guess. What? The principle of conditionality or the principle of interdependence or interrelatedness. And that way of presenting dependent co-arising You can use dependent core rising not as this formula of 12 links, but as basically the way you reason with yourself about any appearance, in particular any appearance that seems to be inherently existing. And you bring this principle as the main way that you educate yourself to probe the phenomena and realize this lack of inherent existence.

[52:49]

It's the main reasoning that you bring to delusion to free yourself of it without necessarily getting into this very nice of arising and ceasing. And these the method of analysis which I was talking about before was originally taught by Nagarjuna as these fivefold of reasoning about inherent existence to realize emptiness. And one of his disciples, Chandrakirti, expanded it to sevenfold. But this fivefold or sevenfold reasoning doesn't sound like studying dependent the chain, but actually it is another version of dependent co-arising, specifically honed down for realizing the selflessness of the person.

[53:51]

And then there's another version, which is called, you know, the five modes of production, the derivative of the principle of dependent co-arising, which are used to refute the more subtle belief in inherent existence of phenomena. But these are all coming from the teaching of dependent core arising. So, when I was looking for teachings about dependent core arising, I would be looking for it and I would find the twelve... When I was looking for dependent core arising as the partner to refuting inherent existence, I would run into this twelve-fold chain of causation. That wasn't what I was looking for. And when I was looking for the twelve-fold chain of causation, I would get this other one. So, it's usually... of the principle and the reasoning of the enlightened mind. And that way, that kind of mind actually, I think is what is meant by a mind that doesn't depend on anything.

[54:57]

The mind which thinks about dependent co-arising is the mind which doesn't depend on anything. So that's probably enough presentation, I would think, for today. Nagarjuna? Oh, he presents a five-fold method. or five alternatives to apply to the belief in inherent person. And Chandrakirti expanded it to seven. But they're basically reasoning by dependent co-arising. Now sometimes what they do for certain people is once you find this belief in inherent existence of yourself, once you're looking at your

[56:02]

at your conventionally existing person, and you say, there's something very real about that, when you find that, and you can vividly sense that kind of like, that realness there, that aspect of you that doesn't depend on anything, which is really freedom, which is really a good deal, but which you haven't looked at, then the way to look at it is one way is this more analytical way, which I've been teaching you. I haven't finished yet, but I've been bringing it up. And it's sitting there waiting for you whenever you need it. But you have to first of all find this thing before you get... Again, do not refute this thing before you find it. You've been doing that your whole life. And so it's been... Every time you show up, you say, oh, get out of here. That sevenfold method, I think, I feel is quicker.

[57:07]

But there's another way for some people, which is actually to use dependent co-arising as the way to refute the belief in inherently existing self. But it's so brief that most people can't corner themselves with it. This other way, it's easier to trap yourself into facing the consequences of the delusion. It's easier to refute yourself with this more elaborate belief Even though more elaborate sounds complicated, it's actually easier for most people. But you could just use dependent co-arousal. And when you find this image of the inherent existence of the person, you could just say, well, there is no inherent existence because this person arises in dependence on conditions and whatever relies on dependence of things is the opposite of inherent existence because inherent existence means... doesn't depend on anything. So when I see something that doesn't depend on anything, all I've got to do is bring the teaching of that things depend on things and notice that and it's over.

[58:10]

But that's a little too simple for most people. They avoid the consequences of that. Once you understand emptiness, you could probably... But before you actually realize emptiness, that for most people might not work, even though that would be very handy, because that's the universal... actual reason for emptiness is the pinnacle arising. But a more elaborate form seems to work better. So now I think that's enough presentation. Oh, that was in response to your question, right? Yes. Yeah, you were next, I think. Jeff. Yeah. No, no, she didn't say the same self. She didn't say the same self. She didn't say the same self. She said the same five skandhas. Nobody's going to, you know, to say the same self sounds good, but do you really see that same self?

[59:14]

If you do, fine. But she didn't say that. She said the five skandhas were the same. In other words, there's something running, there's something that makes those five skandhas, which are obviously changing, into unchanging. There's a permanence there to the five skandhas. If she had said the same self, I would have said, well, what does it look like? And then she'd have to tell me, and that would be hard. So what she didn't, she couldn't do it. Well, the same five skandhas has been here all along since 1957. Wait a minute, there it is. You see? Yes? It's not just continuity. There is continuity. There is a continuity. But that's a conventional thing, which you can identify. Even if you change his name, say, well, before he changed his name to, you know, Sengon, it was Jeff, you know. And, you know, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, and then your telephone number was such and such for a long time, and then you changed it, but you changed it from that one to the next one.

[60:17]

You didn't change it from some other one to the next one. There's continuity, which can be conventionally established. And, you know, you can say, my name's Jeff, and somebody else can say, yeah, that's right. But if somebody else says, your name's not Jeff, you've got a problem there. Then there's no continuity in the things you disagree with people about. But there's plenty of other things you disagree with everybody, and Jeff's one of them. So there's continuity of Jeff, I guess, as far as I know. For as long as I've known you. Doesn't it go back to when you were a kid? Yeah, so there it is. There's continuity, and there's several other things too. There's continuity. But it's not exactly the same job, and it's not exactly the same body, and it's not the same thoughts, and it's not the same language. Everything else, all the five skandhas have been changing all along. And yet, somebody who knows that perfectly well says it's the same five skandhas. That's a slip. Why is that slip there? Because there's a feeling at it.

[61:18]

that unreasonable thing, that something is exactly the same. It's not more than continuity. And some would say, no, I didn't mean that. I didn't mean that. I just meant continuity. Okay. Take it back. Fine. Blow it away. Fine. But there is that thought that actually there's something about all these five skandhas that's exactly the same, that is permanent. Isn't that ridiculous? Don't think it's too ridiculous before you see it, though. But we do think that. We do. This is it. And that thing, another aspect of which I just mentioned, is that we think it's a good thing because we even think that freedom and happiness is about that thing being unrelying on anything because dependency is kind of a problem, isn't it? Isn't it kind of a, sort of a little bit of a problem that we depend on each other? It's, you know, you have to live in the world with all these other conventionally They're depressed or happy or they like you or they don't.

[62:23]

They want to give you lunch or they don't. You know, this is like, you know, this is, and if there's any self, and then knowing that, but mixed in with that kind of conditionality is this belief in inherent existence, which makes this conditionality painful. So we kind of get out of that dependence, then I would be free, right? Because We interject dependence with independence, and because we put independence into dependence, we suffer. But we think if we got out of the dependence and over to the independence, we wouldn't suffer, even though that's exactly what we're suffering. Another one of those real neat ironies. How do you mean? Yes? Yes? Right.

[63:32]

Well, yeah, I was just talking to someone about that, that because we think in terms of permanence, we're concerned about the next five skandhas, or way down the line five skandhas, because we're thinking in terms of permanence. If you don't think in terms of impermanence, If you think in terms of permanence, you think that you, people who think in terms of permanence, they think they own stuff. And they think they could own more stuff. Or they think they have health. And they think they could have health in the future. They're getting into possessing things now and in the future. That's based on this belief. So when you notice yourself thinking that, you know that this thing's been activated and is now activated into sense contact. What's a sense contact? The word future. The word end of practice period or April. That's the sense contact. In this case, it's of the mind.

[64:36]

It's a mind object, April. So that rises there. You know, this permanent self is going to be there then. And we've got to take care of it. Now, of course, since it's permanent and independent, why would you have to? But anyway, we still think we want to take care of that thing that's going to be there. And so that activates the feeling, activates the craving and the clinging. And so then the permanent self is like manifested right in that moment. It just comes up and like, there it is, boom. On the topic of future. The topic of future is tempting you into saying, are you going to go for this or not? This is a future thing. This must only be about somebody that's... If it's a different person, why would you care? Right? And you say, well, maybe it's not completely a different person, just sort of similar.

[65:39]

and that's how you felt, you would not be spending your time worried about something that hasn't happened yet that's sort of similar to this. It's because you think it's the same one that you're so concerned, because you've got to take care of this one and that one. So this is like really a painful situation, because in thinking about taking care of that one, you can't take care of this one, because you have to forget about this one, looking for the beauty queen. You have to get closer to what? You have to get closer to what? You need to get closer to this thing you need to take care of. And this thing you need... It doesn't make sense that you need to take care of it because it's permanent. But the funny thing is, that's the thing you're... Isn't that weird? This is like a messy situation. The thing that's permanent is what we're trying to take care of. And that distracts us from taking care of the impermanent person. The impermanent one who needs his teeth brushed and his hair combed and a bath and some exercise.

[66:46]

And even while you're brushing your teeth, you're still worrying about the next brush for the permanent one. The permanent one distracts you from this brushing and taking care of this person. This person needs plenty of attention, but we don't have time for this one because we're into this one and we'll be there later. That's the permanent one. You do need to get near to this permanent one. Because if you get near to him, we can find out that he's not there at all. And then all you have is the impermanent one. And you just take care of the impermanent one. But how do you take care of the impermanent one? Since you're not taking care of the impermanent one, believing that it's permanent, or interjecting permanence in him, what you do is you just take care of him. You don't get into craving and attachment. And then you also don't get into birth of this permanent one But we have to go back to getting rid of the craving. That's why when you practice this way of at the sense contact, letting the sense contact just be the sense contact, in some sense you stop the feeling and the craving right then.

[67:55]

And by stopping that, you stop the birth of the self. And actually by stopping that, you stop the ignorance. Although those things depend on ignorance, ignorance depends on those things. If you don't crave... If there's a ceasing of craving, there's a ceasing of ignorance. So at that moment, that's how you can be happy in the present when you do not crave. However, there is a deeper... such that you can, without even trying... to guard yourself against craving, you won't be able to even come up with craving because you have uprooted the ignorance. When you stop your craving by this kind of meditation, you do become free at the moment. Not depending on something, your freedom depends on this practice. And doing this practice depends on everybody else, which you see gradually. As you see that more and more, you work your way back to uprooting the possibility of craving. In the meantime, if you can stop the craving, you stop the whole process.

[68:58]

You stop birth and death right like that. So for now, do that practice, and keep listening until you can go back and do the practice of looking at the ignorance, which is there the whole time. Right now, the ignorance is hard to see. The craving and the feeling and the sense contact are the easiest to see. Feeling is the easiest to see among the mental ones, and the sense contact is easy to see. That's the most empirical part of this. And the sense contact arises in dependence on five aggregates. But five aggregates arise in dependence on sense contact. So if you have sense contact, that's your access to the five aggregates. Become empirical to you through being interdependent with sense contact. You can sense them. They are sensible. So if you can feel sense contact, you can go backwards into the five aggregates. If you can feel the five aggregates, you can go backwards into consciousness. If you can feel consciousness, you can go forward into consciousness.

[70:00]

You can just resonate back with the five aggregates, consciousness, five aggregates, consciousness, back and forth, and you can realize emptiness right at that part. Or you can go back from consciousness to karmic formations and ignorance. Then you can go forward from ignorance up to sense consciousness. And you can go from sense consciousness back to the five aggregates or forward into... And you don't do this on purpose. I mean, you don't engineer this. It's just presented to you. If five aggregates, if the sense consciousness is seen without understanding its emptiness, then feeling arises, which you can again observe. And then if that isn't observed in its emptiness... and therefore has no inherent existence, boop, graving arises. If at that point you could stop, or if you could stop the previous stage, or the previous stage, just at the sense consciousness, you stop and the whole thing ceases, the entire thing. Stop one link and the whole thing collapses at that moment. But it turns out there is quite a bit of subtlety here, and the most subtle part of this whole process is what is called number one.

[71:09]

The ignorance is the most subtle aspect of this. All of them have some subtlety, but suffering is not as subtle as ignorance. It could be the other way around, that ignorance was easy to see, and suffering was hard to see, and then we'd have a hard time finding suffering, but we still have to find the suffering. Or would we? No, we wouldn't. Because if we found the ignorance and studied it, there would be no suffering. So it turns out, Hardest thing for us to find is this suffering. I mean, is this ignorance. Easiest thing for us to find is the, I think the suffering is pretty easy when it's strong and the sense contact. But they're very closely related because we have a sense contact for the suffering. So sense contact is really a good place to start. Sense contact, feeling, craving area. Start there. Practice this mindfulness of no reaction, you know, not favoring or opposing what's happening, and you stop the whole process in that moment.

[72:18]

And this is a big... It encourages you to continue to practice that way. And then as you can practice this way of stopping this suffering, then you can start to not only stop the suffering by being that way, but also start to notice that there's a teaching of dependent core rising. That I'm not just this sense contact and what? and stopping the mind reaction to it, stopping the favoring and opposing, having a mind like a wall. Not just that, and not only am I becoming free of suffering at the moment, but I'm also ready to receive the teaching of dependent co-arising, which is this sense contact I'm excited about. I'm not getting involved with that this sense contact just happens to be dependent on something. What? Five aggregates. It's actually just one of the five aggregates. Now this is actually, at the moment of sense consciousness, all five aggregates are there.

[73:20]

But I'm not looking at all five aggregates, I'm looking at a sense contact. But the others are there. And without them, there wouldn't be this. And since there wouldn't be this without them, this is empty. But before I realize the emptiness of this, if I don't react to it, I'm still liberated on the spot. Because I renounce my reactivity. Ever. I still have not understood that the sense contact is empty. If I could understand the sense contact is empty, I wouldn't have to practice mind like a wall anymore. I just would be mind like a wall. And if I didn't want to be mind like a wall, If I didn't want to be a mind like a wall, I wouldn't be mind like a wall because my not wanting to be would not be something I decided to do. It would be something that dependently co-arose with the support of the whole universe. So I shouldn't be mind like a wall. I should be totally hysterical. If that's what everybody wants. Before that, you've got to discipline yourself to be like this so that you don't freak out.

[74:23]

at sense contact, you don't distract yourself, you don't get excited, you calm down, and then you're ready to study the pentacle arising of this sense contact, of this object. And as you study the pentacle arising of it, you see it depends... and you're on the verge of realizing emptiness. Then if you realize emptiness on this one, what you're realizing is the emptiness of sense contact. In other words, sense contact doesn't have inherent existence. However, this is pretty subtle, and it will be easier, actually, to realize the essence of this person. But that will be made available to you as you sit here and watch the dependent core arising of the, what do you call it, sense consciousness. And once we understand, once we understand, then this process of training isn't necessary anymore. We just naturally relate to things appropriately then.

[75:28]

But until then, we have to kind of like train ourselves and keep on the ball and be really mindful. You have to make this effort. After you uproot this ignorance, the effort will be spontaneous. So please get close to this permanent thing, this thing that makes you worry about the future. Get close to that. But the way to get close to it, first of all, is get close to sense contact, for example. But if you see an image of this, get close to it. Yes, definitely get close to it. And when you get close to it, you've got the bird in the cage. Okay, now we're going to end when the kitchen left, but the kitchen never left. They never came. They actually left. Wow. So, we're going to end when the kitchen... So, should we end now? And I appreciate that there's at least one person who would like to stay longer, but everybody else is going, so let's go with them.

[76:29]

Because this is, you know, that's the spirit of the Pentecostal Rising. Amen. Tension equally penetrate every being and place.

[76:48]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_87.91