I was recently reading a book called... It's a PhD thesis, and I think the title of it is something like... A PhD thesis. And I think the... I think the title is something like... in the Song Dynasty, or Soto Zen in the Song Dynasty China. And it's particularly about the revival of the Soto lineage during the Song Dynasty. The lineage which we at Zen Center sort of are in line with. That lineage almost disappeared.

[01:04]

It was very weak. But then in a couple of generations it became very strong again. And the discussion of how that happened and the view of the is that it happened because of, well, he didn't actually, what he looks at is how the Soto Zen lineage, how the Soto Zen teachers established a picture of their lineage which was very attractive. I didn't read the whole book, but part of it so far didn't really address what it was about them that could do that. But success in some ways in China, in religious circles, had a lot to do with what people thought of your lineage.

[02:11]

For example, now some people try to be associated with Suzuki Roshi, because if they are, people think, well, he might be pretty good, because he's supposed to be really good. The Zen school was successful in China, and some people, some scholars feel The reason why was that they had something that the other schools of Buddhism didn't. And what they had was this story of lineage, that they had this idea of transmission, and it was very attractive. There's something about that that's attractive to humans, I think, in general, that there's a direct line from ancient times down to the present. And somebody who's got a story like that sometimes is more successful than somebody who doesn't.

[03:20]

I also recently read a book about Rome around the time of Julius Caesar, and it's particularly a book about Cicero. And Cicero is a person who didn't have a lineage. He was a genius in many ways, but he didn't have a genius, I mean, he didn't have a lineage. And there's some other people who weren't necessarily so outstanding, but they were members of certain families that went back to ancient Rome. And so they had authority from just being in those families. Our tea teacher, our former tea teacher at Zen Center, Nakamura Sensei says, it takes three generations to become a tea teacher. You can't just go and start studying tea and become a tea teacher. You're two generations in your family before. Not just that you started with somebody who is in a family that has three or four generations, but you have to be in a family that's been doing it for three generations.

[04:26]

So, before the Sun dynasty, the Zen school, created a picture of its lineage, and then it started to flourish, and then Soto Zen was doing fine as part of that lineage picture, and then it got weak, and it got strong again, partly by refurbishing the image of its lineage. There's something to that. But everybody's trying to refurbish their lineage, actually. Everybody's trying to rewrite history so that people will think that they're great. Normal human beings do that. But to be able to be successful at that, when you have success at that, then you have this resource. But of course, some people who have that ability to be successful, then that maybe is connected, you know?

[05:35]

So, yes? What caused it to become weak? I think what causes it to become weak is the practice gets weak. Soto Zen had a nice... At the time of Dungsan, Soto Zen was... People thought Dungsan was great. They didn't think much of his teacher. We can get into that, how important that was. Remind me about that. That could take... quite a while. Part of Soto Zen is we have, well, I told you before, we had some kind of like not such smart ancestors. I told you about Yun Yan, you know, he wasn't too bright. And also, yeah, Yashin, too. He had some problems. So part of the greatness of the tradition is to have people that don't look so good.

[06:37]

But Deng Xia, in a way, looked really good. And his poem, you know, all other schools liked his poem of the Jomir Samadhi. So Soto Zen was really strong, and he had lots of disciples, and his disciples were strong. But then, not too many generations later, things got weak. The last really strong master, his name was Tayo Kyogen. Right? Tayo, yeah. Dayang. He was really strong and famous and lots of students, but then he got weak. And actually some people think that, well I won't get into it right now, maybe later, but anyway, he got strong again, but a big part of how it got strong was getting people to appreciate the lineage and making the lineage story strong again. Now that's a big topic which I think is really interesting and important and worldly and but what I actually wanted to deal with also was just that the lineage that the Zen school came up with around maybe approximately 200 years before this part I was just talking about was a lineage that started with Shakyamuni and had

[08:09]

Nagarjuna in it, and has Vasubandhu in it, and of course has Bodhidharma in it, and so on. So the Zen school is saying that there's a lineage from Shakyamuni down to Nagarjuna. People say, oh, okay, yeah, he's probably, he was a disciple of somebody who [...] was a disciple of Buddha. But the people that they say were his disciples sometimes don't make sense. Certainly, in some sense, every Buddhist disciple is in some sense a part of a lineage. But who is in the lineage? And so one of the people before Nagarjuna in our lineage's name is Vasumitra.

[09:12]

And he was a very famous Abhidharma master. He was so-called the president of the big convocation that made this huge compendium of scholastic literature called the Mahavibhasha. But was his disciple, disciples, [...] Nagarjuna's teacher? I don't know. And I don't think that that's been verified. But the Zen people... wanted Vasumitra in there too. And actually when they first started putting these ancestors in the lineage, sometimes they put people before somebody who lived before them. And then they found out about it and they switched it. And sometimes they put people next to each other that had died long before the other one was born. or that died, you know, two minutes before the other one was born.

[10:14]

Something like that. And then maybe they sometimes adjusted that. And maybe sometimes they said, well, he was very gifted. He got dominant transmission at three minutes old. There are stories like that. Some master comes up and says, that one... And that's part of the reincarnation thing that Tibetans do. Except usually they do it after the person dies. So I don't know if Nagarjuna is really the disciple. He might be, probably he's the disciple of the person just before him. Probably they chose somebody that they had some information at that. And the person after him, we do have records that the person after him was his disciple. So Kanadeva, there's lots of stories about Kanadeva being Nagarjuna's disciple.

[11:20]

But the person before Nagarjuna, it's not so clear that we know that that person was his teacher. And the person before that person is more obscure. And the person before that, I would say, more obscure. And then you get back to Vasumitra, who's famous. But among all Vasumitra's students, was there a lineage that went down to Nagarjuna? Maybe. But then from Nagarjuna, we have Kanadeva, and we have a couple more generations, and then we have Vasubandhu. So in not too long after Nagarjuna dies, we have supposedly a disciple of his named Vasubandhu. Was Vasubandha actually in a direct line to Nagarjuna? Who is Vasubandha's teacher? Who is his brother? His brother is Asanga. Now, does anyone do well to have Asanga in the list, too? I mean, Asanga is a super great Buddhist saint and yogi and Dharma master.

[12:29]

But it's hard to have both of them because they were brothers. And it isn't, you know, to some extent Asanga was Vasubandhu's teacher, but he wasn't really his, he was also kind of his brother. So the Zen people didn't put both of them in there. They chose Vasubandhu. And then they have a few generations after Vasubandhu, not very long, you have Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma was a disciple of Vasubandhu. We have a record. of eminent monks in the Zen tradition, which says Bodhidharma's teacher was a student of somebody who was a student of somebody who was a student of Vasubandhu. And you can see it in Kezan's transmission of the light. But Kezan got that out of the history of eminent monks. a record called the Cingda Chuang Dung Lu, the Cingda record of the transmission of the lamp.

[13:31]

So in that record, you have Shakyamuni down to Mahakasyapa, Ananda, Vasumitra, Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, and Bodhidharma. So I don't know if Bodhidharma was actually in the direct line to Vasubandhu. And also, we don't really know if Bodhidharma existed. We don't have much epi-historical records on him. And there's certain things about him that make us feel like maybe he didn't exist because he's like too perfect for what we need in Zen. Probably he's a combination of a lot of great yogis made into the perfect Zen master. But I don't know. Second ancestor is a little bit more historical. Third ancestor is like kind of secret kind of guy, a leper who didn't get around much.

[14:34]

The fourth ancestor is quite a lot of historical information about him. Seems to be really kind of like a lot of historical background on that guy. And the fifth and the sixth even more. But the point I'm trying to make is that the Zen school has Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu and Buddha in its lineage. So the founder of the Madhyamaka school and the founder of the Yogacara school are our ancestors. We have the founders of these two different schools in our ancestry. They are our people, supposedly. So in some sense, my spirit is to find somehow a way to have ancestors that are different schools, that have a slightly different understanding of emptiness. And with a slight different understanding of suchness, we can have dramatically different kinds of

[15:45]

of teaching is coming out of that. I mentioned this to you before. Anybody have anything to add? So I mentioned it before, Matsu, in this record, says, all of you here believe that you're

[16:50]

own mind is Buddha. This very mind is Buddha. When Bodhidharma came from India to China, he transmitted the supreme vehicle teaching of one mind. This mind is Buddha. And he talks about Bodhidharma brought the Lankavatara Sutra, which offers the Buddha's words that mind is the essence and there is no gate by which to enter Dharma. If you seek Dharma, you should seek nothing. Apart from mind, there is no other Buddha. This sounds like what school? Yoga Childhood. Yogacara, he said, Buddha's words that mind is the essence.

[17:58]

Yogacara. Madhsik, saying Bodhidharma taught mind is essence from the Lantavattara Sutta. Oh, I might as well just say this, in case I forget later. I thought I remembered, but I might not. A monk asked Matsu, what did you say Buddha was? And Matsu said, mind itself is Buddha. Then the monk says, what do you tell people that for? And he says, help children stop crying. The monk says, what do you do when they stop crying?

[19:01]

Then I tell them, no mind, no Buddha. No mind, no Buddha. Which tool is that? Huh? It could be either. No mind, no Buddha. I'll tell you later how Chogachara... It sounds like Mahajanic in a sense that no mind, no Buddha could be understood as. What? I don't know the last thing. But anyway, I did say some things about no mind, no Buddha and which school it was and that it could be either Yogacara. You could have the Yogacara or Mahajanic interpretation of that pretty easily. But anyway, I just wanted to, I might get into that again before we're done. And then, then, Sekito, I told you about this too. Well, Sekito, where are you? Sekito, Sekito, Sekito. Well, you know, basically he said the same thing.

[20:13]

The master enters the hall and addressed the monk, saying, My dharma gate was first taught by the former Buddhas. I don't say you need to practice some advanced form of meditation. Just see what Buddha saw. Mind is Buddha-mind. Buddha-mind, sentient beings, the names of things are different, but actually they are one body. You should each recognize your miraculous mind. Its essence is apart from temporary or everlasting. Its nature is without pollution or purity. It is clear and perfect." And then, just to jump down a ways to Wang Bo.

[21:37]

So those are the first things in your record, those lectures, they chose those as the first. Wang Bo, his record starts out, the Master said to me, Wang Bo said to me, all the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the one mind, besides which nothing exists. This mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible, and so on. One mind alone is Buddha. There is no distinction between Buddha and sentient beings. But that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddha. That sounds like... Pardon? Oh, sure, yeah.

[22:48]

And there's a lot of shoho mixed in there. So anyway... In some ways, we don't have to study Mahajanamaka and yoga. We don't have to study our ancestors. We just listen to what they say and practice it. But anyway, we've got ancestors like, I don't know what, you name it. You can say who your ancestors are, but we have some ancestors, and there's quite a few of them, and some of them are Buddha, and some of them are Nagarjuna and some of them are Vasubandhu and some of them are Bodhidharma.

[23:49]

And even those Rinzai people are our ancestors in some ways. And Dogen and Suzuki Roshi. All our ancestors are weird in the etymological sense. That word means destiny. Our ancestors are our destiny. We are destined to be what we are by our ancestors. And if these are your ancestors, then these are the people sitting out there offering teachings. So in that sense, that's part of the reason why I study Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna and Asanga and so on, along with the Zen people who are closer, that the integrity and what's interesting about Zen is that it's fresh, supposedly, and it's also ancient.

[24:56]

And it's connected somehow to the Buddha. So, you know, there are some people... I heard about... There was a... I don't want to get into this whole story, but basically some people get enlightened And there are some people who are either enlightened, or say they're enlightened, or act like they're enlightened, or hint that they're enlightened, or are believed to be enlightened, and they're teaching around in the world today. So that's cool. And then sometimes I feel a little embarrassed that I can't just say, well, I'm enlightened, rather than I'm a disciple of Buddha. I'm just this little puny disciple from the great ancient Buddha.

[25:59]

But part of our tradition is that the teachers, like before they give talks, they often bow to the Buddha. It's kind of like, well, you know, we're just like the current version of this ancient thing. We are the current version of Buddhism or the Buddha way. So we're the real thing. The rest of it's dead, but at the same time we bow to the ancestors. So I kind of feel that for me and for you too, it's useful and important that you understand the relationship between our practice here and the Zen practice in China, in Japan and China, and the relationship to that to the Buddhist practice in India. To see the connection, to understand the relationship, and to negotiate all the differences between these different teachings, and to see that there are differences, and that they had certain, see what their advantages are.

[27:04]

And again, I want to read this part here again, which is from... This is a text on meditation, right? All the Buddhas transmit inconceivable Dharma. All Buddhas abide in this inconceivable dharma, but do not have traces of consciousness in their illumination. Buddhas dwell in and maintain this wondrous inconceivable dharma, but there's no trace of conceptualization remaining. And then describing this realm where the Buddhas live, after that Dogen says, all this, however, does not appear within perception.

[28:19]

These various mutual influences between enlightened beings do not mixed with perceptions of the person sitting. The criterion for for this inconceivable dharma is the self-fulfilling samadhi, and its front door, its front gate, or sometimes called the correct door, is upright sitting. Dropping off mind in upright sitting is the way to enter the inconceivable.

[29:33]

And it is inconceivable how just sitting would be the gate to the inconceivable, except that that would make sense, that the gate to the inconceivable would be inconceivable. In other words, giving up conception is the way to enter the inconceivable realm. So we sit in faith that doing something that's inconceivably related to the inconceivable is the appropriate upright gate to the inconceivable wondrous dharma. And then when we're in the midst of this, the way it is, when we're in the midst of this samadhi where the Buddhas live, the Buddhas are sitting and dwelling in this inconceivable dharma. And when they're dwelling in this inconceivable dharma, it is the way it's described there, but not.

[30:42]

Because when you hear the description, you have an image of that, and your image of it is not it. And then it says that, however, this does not appear within perception. What you just heard about does not appear within perceptions that you just had about what you heard about. Because it is unconstructedness in stillness, it is immediate realization. If practice and realization were two things as it appears to an ordinary person, now practice and realization could also be rephrased as consciousness and knowledge, or consciousness and what you know. Usually we think that our awareness and what we're aware of are two different things. So here, if awareness and what we're aware of were two different things as it appears to an ordinary person, each could be recognized separately.

[31:50]

But what can be recognized is not realization itself. because realization is not reached by the deluded mind, which recognizes appearance as true rather than imaginary. Even though all we ever perceive is our perception, we cannot help but think of these perceptions as external objects. All we ever perceive is our perceptions.

[32:58]

All we ever perceive is our perceptions. The Buddha realm, the realm of the inconceivable dharma, is not mixed with perceptions. All we perceive is our perceptions, but we can't help but take them as external objects. and I wrote this little question for myself, is it true that even in direct perceptual cognition, which is unmediated by conception, that the object is mere concept?

[34:12]

Is it true that even in direct perceptual cognition, which is unmediated by conception, that the object is mere concept? And my answer is yes. So, even in direct perception, which is not mediated by conception, like seeing a color, before you even mediate it with conception, like it's blue, In that original sense perception, there still is the imputation that that color, which has not yet been mediated by concept, that that color, which we're perceiving, is external.

[35:19]

In other words, the mind constructs the imaginary externality of the color. How do you know that? How do I know that? I don't know. How is your answer yes? Because all we're perceiving is our perception, and in the case of blue, that's fine, right? When you're perceiving blue, you don't want to perceive any more than blue, right? we can't help but think that that blue is external. But we're not perceiving the blue, we're perceiving our perception of blue. Actually, you might want to be able to perceive something other than your perception of the blue. You might like to get cozy with the blue which was not mixed with your perception of blue.

[36:26]

You might like to have a perception of blue which was not mixed with your perception of blue, just the blue, not your perception of the blue. But I'm proposing to you that whenever you perceive blue, what you're perceiving is your perception. However, you want to perceive the blue. As a matter of fact, you do think you're perceiving the blue because even though the blue you're perceiving is not the blue as the blue is, separate from your perception, but you're actually just perceiving your perception. You want to, because you do, take it to be external. You want it to be external. You want to be in touch with the external because you take it to be external. So you want the world to line up with that. This is mere concept that we do that.

[37:32]

And now, again going back to the 30 verses, and I just want to say again for the 30 verses, if you get these transcripts, I would like you to, if you can, give me feedback on the difference between, any differences in the transcripts and what I'm saying now, because I was working with that material before I read the sutra. So I think I've changed. since reading the sutra. Did your opinion change in that respect over the years? What I just talked about? Yes. My opinion is constantly changing. The Buddhism that exists on the planet today never existed before.

[38:38]

That's another thing about the Buddhism. Another dynamic is that we're supposed to have the same teaching we used to have, and we don't. If we don't have the same teaching as the Buddha, then we're not really very good disciples, are we? And we don't. We don't have the same. And yet we have to. So we do. But I don't have the same teaching I had yesterday. They say, well, maybe someday you'll get to a teaching and then we'll stay the same. Excuse me, before you go further. Can I ask you about the last phrase? Is, we cannot help... I don't understand. We can't stop. We can't stop ourselves from imagining... that we can't stop our mind from constructing a non-existent thing. The non-existent thing is that everything we perceive, we imagine that it's external.

[39:51]

We imagine that what's in our head is external. We imagine that what we're looking at right in our eyeball is outside. We can't help that. That happens. That's the imputation. It cannot be stopped. If it was stopped, you would be a basket case. You wouldn't be able to talk anymore or anything else, okay? So do you want me to take the questions that are coming up now? Sorry, Delia. How many people want to wait a little longer? How many people want the questions now? Even the people who raise their hands are not asking. I want to go back once again to the definition of mere concept. I thought this was it. Oh, this is a different text.

[40:53]

Where are you? There you are. Thus, thought involves this transformation of consciousness for the reason that what has been thought of does not exist. Therefore, all is mere concept. The transformation of consciousness is a discrimination, and as it is discriminated, does not exist. So everything is perception only. Then it says, quite a bit later it says, as long as consciousness is not situated in perception only, or as long as consciousness doesn't terminate in perception only, another translation is as long as understanding is not grounded in perception only.

[42:16]

So, as long as your understanding is not grounded in perception only, perception only means what? It means that you're aware that whatever you're perceiving Okay? As you perceive it, it does not exist. You are perceiving something, that's right, but the way you perceive it is that it's external. And that externality does not exist. That fact is mere concept. And we do that for conceptual cognitions and for direct perception. Now, just parenthetically, Yogacara and Majamaka, okay? Majamaka says that the thing you're looking at is empty of an inherent existence. Whatever you're looking at, whatever you experience, is empty of inherent existence.

[43:27]

That's a Of course that's right. Of course that's right. Whatever you're looking at, whatever you're experiencing, whatever you're smelling, whatever you're thinking, whatever it is, it lacks inherent existence, it lacks independent existence. And another way to say it lacks independent existence is it lacks external existence. External would mean it's out there on its own, separate from you. It's got its own thing over there. It's independent. So externality and independence, externality from the conscious process and mental amputation is another way to say inheritance. you're looking at, your mind makes it external.

[44:33]

Whatever you perceive, your mind makes it. There is this constant creation of that which doesn't exist, which is the externality of what's in your head, of an external world, of an outside world inside your own mind. People wanted me to go on a little bit more. You also? You probably will after I finish. You'll be glad I did. Okay, then it goes on to talk about suchness.

[45:39]

It goes on to talk about the, what is it, the thoroughly established character, okay? So all phenomena have thoroughly established character. The Thirty Verses talks about them. The Sutra talks about them. Madhyamaka agreed there's a thoroughly established character to all phenomena. The suchness, right? It is the ultimate truth of all events, and it is suchness too. Since it is just so all the time, it is just perception only. It is just concept only. That thoroughly established character of phenomena, which can be seen, which can be perceived, it will also be perceived as out there. It also is perception only. And as long as your understanding is not grounded in this perception only, in this mere concept, the tendency to grasp will not cease.

[46:49]

So as long as you're situated in the fact of this externality being non-existent, your mind will grasp that subject-object duality. And then it goes on to say, indeed, one who, on account of grasping, were to place something before himself, saying this is mere concept, will not stop at meerness. Or another translation, and so, even with the consciousness, quotes, All this is perception only." So even if you hear about perception only and you see things and you say, all this is perception only, okay? In other words, all this is not really external. That this projection of externality is non-existent.

[47:52]

This projection of externality of each of these things I'm seeing is non-existent. Whenever I look at you and I see you and see that sense of externality and I remember that externality, that sense of externality is non-existent and I put that in, then that still is making that into an object which I think is out there. And that's not what it's like to be in mere concept. Even the thought, all this is appearance only, involves an object. So you think you understand, right? That all is appearance only. In other words, not an object, and that involves an object. And I like this translation in a way to go with the other ones. It says, anything that places something in front of it

[48:56]

The other translation says, you know, when one's grasping, we're to place something before himself. But this one, it's really a consciousness or whatever, a person, a concept, whatever, anything that places something in front of it is not grounded in this only. anything that places something in front of it is not grounded in, quotes, this only, this only, just sitting. When you're sitting and you place some sitting in front of you that you're doing, you're not grounded in this only. You're not grounded in this sitting. And if you're not grounded in the understanding of this sitting, then the compulsion to the two graspings will not cease.

[50:01]

In other words, there will be you grasping the sitting. In other words, there will be practice looking at realization. There will be the practice looking at the sitting. The sitting is the practice. I mean, the sitting is our realization. But as long as you don't realize mere concept, you don't understand just sitting. You make just sitting into an object, and that's not just sitting. Now, that's what it's like when you don't succeed in the practice of the Buddha way. That's what it's like when you don't succeed in the practice of just sitting, which is the front gate to the inconceivable Dharma. That just sitting upright and dropping all body and mind means just sitting and realizing that the sitting that you see as external doesn't exist.

[51:07]

then if you sit and understand that, then you don't grasp your sitting as something external to your consciousness. You realize that the sitting you're doing is just this. Then all the happy things happen. When consciousness with object is not obtained, when consciousness with object is not obtained, in other words, the consciousness which doesn't believe that the object is eternal, the consciousness which understands that the object, the sitting or whatever you're involved with, the externality of that is non-existent, and you don't even put that in front of you. That's the consciousness without object obtained. Then, there being no object, One is established in this state, one is established in this state of mere concept, for there is no grasping for it.

[52:15]

You're established in the wonderful state of mere concept which will end dualistic grasping and will open the door to the inconceivable dharma. You're established in it when you don't grasp being established in it. And you don't make that into another object. You don't have objects anymore. If practice and realization were two things as they appear to ordinary people, each could be recognized separately. But what can be recognized as separately or externally is not the standard of enlightenment. This state is not reached by the dualistic mind which sees practice and realization as separate, which sees the practice as external to your awareness. When consciousness does not apprehend any object of consciousness, it is situated in consciousness only.

[53:18]

For with the non-being of an object apprehended, there is no apprehension of it. With the non-being of the object apprehended, in other words, with understanding the non-being of something out there to apprehend, then there is no apprehending of it. When no object is apprehended by consciousness, then grounded in appearance only, with no object, there is no grasping subject. It is without thought and without object. No mind, no Buddha. It is also super mundane knowledge. Super mundane knowledge is without thought and without object.

[54:25]

Thought does not reach it and it is not an object. Through the destruction of the twofold depravities, there is reversion to the source of such depravities. It is without citta and without apprehension. It is supermundane knowledge. It is the revolution at the basis and the ending of the two kinds of susceptibility to harm. Then, With no mind and no object, with super mundane knowledge, it is transformation of the basis and the end of the two adversities. OK. Now, questions.

[55:27]

Giliya, and then Mako, and then Sala, maybe? This is different from my first question, which you resolved very nicely. Oh, good. What was it? It was not the old question? Yeah, the old one. So practice and realization, they look like two different things, just as consciousness and what you know look like two different things. And I was not certain if you were saying practice and the realization and the consciousness and what you know or to have a parallel type of relationship to one another, or if consciousness is equal to consciousness and realization that people believe now. That got resolved, huh? That got resolved? Huh? But the other thing I didn't get into that, I'd actually like... Okay, all right. Which you said that, you know, basically a loss of the incultational ability would turn us into a basket case.

[56:34]

We wouldn't be able to participate in the conventional world because we need to do that in order to use language. So this transformation at the basis this sort of transcendence of the duality of subject and object, and of seeing dharmas as something external, one's self or one's consciousness. Does that make sense, if you ask the people? The transcendence of seeing things as external? Yes, this transformation that was talked about at the end. No. So why not? Well, first of all, because it's an understanding that it's understanding that externality is non-existent. So when you see externality, we're only mentioning non-existence of things that are appearing to us. So this appearance of externality keeps happening. It's just that it's basically, you understand it's non-existent.

[57:39]

So in that sense, it's not happening. You don't really any longer believe that what you're thinking of is external. You don't longer believe that you are a subject being aware of this object, that you are a practitioner doing the practice. You don't see it, you don't believe that, and you don't see things that way. So bodhisattvas don't even perceive that anymore. They don't perceive the non-existent. But it still appears. There is still this thought construction going on. But it never really did exist. The externality or the essences that the mind imagines, those essences never did exist. They just appeared, and the production of them continues. And you can use those productions to enter the conventional world. So I think what I hear you saying is that for a bodhisattva, the imputations don't actually penetrate.

[58:43]

The imputations don't penetrate into the awareness? Let me just take a leap and come back to what you just said. use the expression, scroll back to where it says that the Buddhas are abiding in the inconceivable realm and some bodhisattvas get in there too. In this inconceivable realm, okay, there's no traces of perception and there's no traces of, you know, the imagination or the conception of externality. There's no traces of the imagination of, what do you call it, essences and independent existence of objects and subjects from subjects.

[59:48]

There's none of that reaching that place. So this is the realm of the Buddhas. This is the realm of inconceivable Dharma. Now, they can also come out of that to some extent and entertain these conscious activities. And those conscious activities that they're involved with are illuminated under the auspices of the realm where those conscious activities don't reach. So they can come back and play in the conscious world and play with the projection of essences onto dependently co-arisen conscious events. They can do all that, but the Buddhas actually can simultaneously see the realm where that stuff doesn't reach while they see the realm of how the illumination of that realm reaches the conscious realm. Bodhisattvas for a long time switch back and forth. So when they come out into the world of where the conscious construction of externality is happening, they see it, but they don't believe it.

[61:00]

And by not believing it and being really... You don't believe it and you don't believe it until finally, actually, it isn't there. And then you're in the realm where it isn't even appearing for a while. Mako left. Too bad. Anybody want to go ask her to come and ask your question? Do you want to ask a question? Yes? Yeah, that's about that. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. It's wound and open, so don't go back to sleep. Don't go back to sleep means don't forget that that projection of essence is non-existent.

[62:04]

I mean, the projection of the essence does exist. There is the projection of the essence, but it's the projection of an essence that doesn't exist. It's a projection of something that's non-existent. But there really is a projection of something non-existent in the Yogacara. OK? Should we stop now? So I see Catherine Shoho and Caroline. Sometimes it seems to me that when we talk about externalities, non-existence, we therefore think that means everything exists internally. It seems to me that if you are talking about the life of externality... Well, you just made the internal external. Exactly. Making the internal external is solipsism. So you don't want to flip into solipsism by saying it's all inside.

[63:12]

Because that just makes the inside, you know, an object of awareness. That's not right either. When there really isn't, when you stop believing in the externality, then there's no subject either. There's no internal either. There's no grasping on either side when you're established in the understanding that externality is mere concept. Yes? Well, let's see, is it the same? Yeah, I think you can say that it's the same for today. Yes, go ahead. Yes? I have a question about the transition. I don't believe the perception in this.

[64:13]

That transition is not believing the perception, knowing it's just a perception and not believing it. of being, of knowing it's not there. There's that joke, perception. And so, it's actually a problem with that second realm of, and how is it communicating, or how is it, I guess I'll have to proceed. How does it proceed? She says, how do you know it was the end part of her question. Want to say the whole thing again? I haven't said anything yet.

[65:22]

Please stand up. You don't believe the perception. You have perception. You're not believing the perception. You're not believing what about the perception? That it exists externally. And then you go to... And it's not there. So how do you know if the question... Okay, so when consciousness with object is not obtained, and that follows from understanding mere concept and not putting mere concept out there as something that you are perceiving as out there.

[66:37]

You just understand it. When you do understand it, then consciousness with object is not obtained. You don't have that kind of consciousness anymore. You haven't even got to the part you asked about. Because you want to know how you know. If that's the case, right? How do you know when there's consciousness without object? In the inconceivable... dharma realm conscious there's no traces of consciousness there okay however that realm can illuminate there's no red there's no uh traces of consciousness in the illumination of that realm that realm is a realm of illumination of light okay the realm of where there where the consciousness which makes objects, makes what it knows into objects, that consciousness doesn't reach there.

[67:41]

And then you want to know, how do you know? The normal knowing consciousness does not reach there. So the consciousness which you're trying to, which you're wondering about, how does that consciousness know? It doesn't reach this realm. Okay? First of all. However, that realm can illuminate that consciousness. But when it illuminates that consciousness, that consciousness does not take the form of being a subject which knows that as an object. It's a different kind of knowledge. Two kinds of consciousness? Two kinds of consciousness. One kind of consciousness has objects and another kind of consciousness doesn't. So, the kind of consciousness that has objects does not reach the realm of inconceivable dharma.

[68:47]

And the kind of consciousness that doesn't have also doesn't reach the realm of inconceivable dharma. But the consciousness that does not have objects is illuminated by the realm of dharma. And the consciousness that has objects is not illuminated by the realm of inconceivable dharma. The consciousness that has objects would like to know if it's being illuminated or not. and how I could check to see. The illuminated consciousness can check on other consciousnesses. When consciousness is without object or when consciousness without object is obtained, When consciousness without object is obtained, or when consciousness with object is not obtained, when consciousness with object is not obtained,

[70:00]

I guess it isn't necessarily the same. And when consciousness without object is obtained... Anyway, let's leave it the way it is. When consciousness with object is not obtained, then there being no object, one is established in the state of mere concept. And again, this is also saying when consciousness with object is not obtained, means when you can't find the imputational superimposed on the other dependent. In other words, you see the thoroughly established, but The thing, this is a Yogacara text, see? So when it talks about seeing the thoroughly established, it's already talking about seeing the thoroughly established in a non-dualistic way.

[71:18]

The emphasis here is already on the meditation practice by which you do this. So when in Chapter 7 and Chapter 6, when they teach you about these... and they teach you about these different types of emptiness, the different kinds of lack of own being, they don't necessarily get into how you see them. It's Chapter 8. They get into how you don't see them dualistically. So the Yogacara is the way it talks about seeing the... the mere concept, which seeing mere concept means seeing how the projection of externality is a projection of the non-existent. It also mentions that if you see that out there, that that's also not mere concept. So right away after it tells you about how to see the absence of the imputational and the other dependent,

[72:26]

in the language of the sutra, as soon as it tells you that, then it tells you that if you would then put the seeing of the absence of the imputation out there, you would just be doing the imputation, you would be falling for the imputational superimposed on the other dependent again. Because you have the dependent co-arising or the other dependent event of this understanding, and then the thought construction of this being external is put out there so then you can know it. That make sense? It might. See, I have this problem. If I talk slowly, you go to sleep between the words. And if I talk too fast, you can't catch them. So it's hard to say. I'm trying to do it at a speed where you'll stay awake and be able to keep up. And you keep up when I go slowly, but then you fall asleep. You don't get the beginning and end of these strange sentences. Plus, sometimes I also poop out halfway through. When consciousness with object is not obtained, then there being no object, one is established in the state of mere concept and there is no grasping for it.

[73:40]

So then there's no, again, there's no grasping, there's no grasping for the real, for the being able to see suchness which we are meditating on. So when we finally find suchness, which is the absence of the projection of essences or externality on objects, on dependently co-arisen objects, okay, then you've got to be careful not to make that external. Because then, again, you're believing, then the imputation is being superimposed on that. And then you say, yeah, but how will I know? Right? So is the answer to her question, we never will know? We won't know? No, you will. You just know in a super mundane way. A super duper way. You know super duper? You do? Wow. It's universal. Universal super-duper knowledge. That's what it is, actually.

[74:47]

When consciousness does not apprehend any object of consciousness... Well, consciousness has to have objects. But when it doesn't apprehend any object of consciousness, it is situated in consciousness only. And with the non-being of the object apprehended, with the non-being of an object apprehended, there is no apprehending of it. And with the non-being... with the non-being of an object apprehended, there is no apprehending of it. When no object is apprehended by consciousness, then grounded in appearance only, with no object, there is no grasping subject. This is supermundane knowledge.

[75:57]

A mind with no mind and no object. No mind and no object anymore. This is supramundane knowledge. Supra. Supra or sup, no, super. Super, I think. Super. But, you know, we can get into supra later, maybe. So that, what do you think, folks? Excuse me, did you just tweet grounded in appearance? Grounded, grounded, grounded, grounded, grounded. Where are you grounded? Grounded in appearance only. Grounded in appearance only is grounded in mere concept. grounded in mere concept, which means grounded in the understanding

[77:05]

It's inaccessible to language. Language doesn't reach it. Language does not reach this realm. So walking around in your life with language going on, Yes. Walking around in your life with language going on, yes, doesn't reach this realm. However... How do you practice? How do you practice? With all that language going on. You practice... Well, one way you practice is called practicing mere concept. And as you practice mere concept, you stop walking around. You sit down and you enter that realm. that language doesn't reach. And you hang out there. And after hanging out there, in that illumination, that illumination pervades your consciousness where language occurs. So you start talking differently.

[79:23]

And you actually can verify in the realm of language whether you actually went to the place that you wanted to go to, the realm of the inconceivable dharma. But the realm of language doesn't reach However, the realm of language guides you to the teaching of mere concept. When you practice mere concept, you realize the consciousness which has objects is not apprehended. And without apprehending that consciousness, you can't talk. But that's the least of your problems. Matter of fact, it's not even a problem. You're just illuminated. you're home at last. You're free, and the source of all harm is dropped away, and you're bathing in this illumination of the inconceivable Dharma.

[80:30]

That illumination penetrates then your consciousness when it arises, if ever. So if you find yourself walking and talking, after this illumination, your walking and talking is illuminated by what we call the inconceivable dharma, which is, of course, you're always moving in it, but it doesn't illuminate your consciousness usually because you believe the externality. Believing the externality means believing the imputation upon the dependently co-arisen existence. That closes the Dharma door. So you're operating in the world of conventional reality, and in the realm of conventional reality, you need to... What?

[81:36]

You need to what? You need to grasp. Otherwise, there's no accessibility of language. You need to grasp. You need to use the imputation. You need to use the thought construction and work with these external things. You can't talk without making things external. So you come back into the realm of where you're using the non-existent as a way to talk. You use the non-existent as a way to talk. The way talking is based on the imagination of something non-existent. You can't talk about things without projecting externality on them. You come back into the world, that's the conventional world, you come back into it, but you have just been on a little vacation. And it's been rather pleasant. And you actually are willing to go back to the sewer work again.

[82:38]

No problem. And if it gets to be difficult, just go back to the realm of inconceivable dharma, if you can get back. Get refueled and then come back again to the world of grasping and language. And consciousness, which obtains objects. But you don't, you know, even the fact that you've heard what you've heard so far has transformed you already. You're already transformed. So you're actually somewhat in, you're somewhat in what he called vision optimization. You've been thinking about it now for a few months or a few years. It's happening, you're in the training. But the part of the treatise we're reading now is about the vijñapti-mātratta-siddhi. We're reading about what it's like when you actually master this.

[83:40]

You get situated and grounded in this in an ongoing way. And then there's an end to these obstructions which cause problems. which arise from this grasping. So I partly have in mind, you know, a transition into the Seishin, and I hope in the next few classes to keep studying this material, but also have it so you can apply it to the activity of the of the experiences that arise in sesshin. During sesshin we do have certain experiences. In some ways they're fairly common or universal. And so it would be nice to be able to actually apply this teaching to the yoga of the sesshin. And Jamie, did you have a question?

[84:44]

I have a question about It sounds like today, I'm not sure, it sounds like maybe some people feel anxiety about what they might lose if they stepped away from institutions. And I wonder if that's kind of like if I were to imagine that I was a monkey and that I had $3 million and then I spent all my time playing this game and trying to protect the $3 million. caught me in a lot of... I was very involved in it, and then at some point I realised that it was my imagination. And then I might be worried. It's like I wonder if those questions are me worrying about losing my $3 million that I never had in the first place. Well, your example is more about the other dependent character. Your example is more an example of the other dependent character. Now, if this is, you know, in the case of you imagining that you're a monkey with $3 million, if you actually did imagine that, whatever causes and conditions which would give rise to that, you know, like Nocio often thinks he's a monkey or a fish or something, you know.

[85:57]

And so he actually does sort of, he says that, you know, that he thinks that, and he kind of sort of does think he's a monkey, sort of. Sometimes you think you're a monkey. Sometimes you think you're a girl. Sometimes you think you're a woman and not a girl, right? You used to think you were a girl maybe more than you do now. And soon you'll be maybe thinking you're an old lady. Who knows what you'll think? You might think you're a Zen monk. You might think you're a monkey. You might think you have $3 million. Anyway, there's causes and conditions. By various causes and conditions, you will think various things, okay? She will. So will you, right? Excuse me for saying this, but I heard about this one disorder, which is what you can't, you sort of, you don't kind of get straight where you are. So there's an example of a lady who was, she couldn't tell where she was, you know, she kept mistaking where she was. Like some people, like when they're in San Francisco, they think they're in Denver. This lady, so they took this lady to the hospital and she thought she was still home, you know.

[87:06]

the causes and conditions gave rise to her thinking that she was in her house. Whereas some other people in the hospital, causes and conditions gave rise to them thinking that they were, guess where? In the hospital. And they're the staff. Okay, where are you now? Hospital. What floor? 407. Okay, you're head nurse. You know, and where are you? I'm home. So you're patient. So the doctor came to see her, and the doctor says, where are you now, dear? She says, well, thanks for coming to visit me. Where are you? What do you mean, where am I? Well, what is this place called? This is my house. This is my dining room. The doctor says, no, this is a hospital, darling. And she says, no, it's not, sweetheart. It's my house. See my tea set there? And the doctor says, well, see out the door there? Yes. She said, yes. What do you see? She said, well, there's a nurse's station out there.

[88:09]

And the doctor said, do you see the elevators? And she said, yes. He said, well, don't you realize that you're in a hospital? And she said, do you know how much it cost me to have that nurse stationed here? This is like Dependent Core Horizon. This is the other dependent character, right, of what you think is going on. All right? That's going on all the time. So you think you're at Tassajara, right? And what do the fish in the river think? Do they think they're at Tassajara? What does Raji think? Does she think she's at Tassajara? That's a dependent core rising, you know. Then you think, well, we really are at Tassajara. Now that's the imputational. There really is a Tassajara out there. That's the imputational. It's your belief that there's an essence or an objectivity, an externality to this thought of being a monkey or being a Tassajara or being a woman.

[89:16]

That's the part that's non-existent. But it is happening that you're thinking of these images of where you are and who you are and what you're doing. Like, now I'm a Zen student and I'm sitting Zazen. I mean, I am like sitting Zazen. Okay, fine. That sort of does exist in this dependent way for the moment, okay? But the externality, the essence of your zazen doesn't exist at all. That's the part that causes the problem. So if I imagine that I am separate, there is something here that is separate. And then I imagine that I need to protect it and that there are other things out there that I need to get and get away from. So that is a codependent arising. That's a codependent arising, right. It is imputation to put... self here and object out there. Yes. And if I were to let go of that, I am not losing anything because I didn't have it in the first place.

[90:22]

That's right. That's right. Not necessarily even to feel anxiety, although the self is what feels anxiety. No, it's not the self that feels anxiety. There's no such thing. The anxiety is the self. No. The anxiety is not the self because there is no self. Maybe so 10 more times. Maybe you'll eventually get it right. That anxiety is what I, my consciousness will mistake for some. It's like the fire that I'll paint. Well, not do that, but not necessarily. The anxiety is an affliction that arouses because of grasping the externality and the subjectivity. But when it says here, you become free of the vulnerability to harm, when you don't believe the externality anymore, anxiety will not arise.

[91:23]

But if it did arise, you wouldn't know what to do. namely, go back to the very thing which you maybe think would be producing the anxiety, but doesn't. It frees you from anxiety to practice mere concept, to give up grasping, to stop believing that sense of essence on the world. As long as you do believe that anxiety will arise, so when you hear about the teaching and the anxiety arises, it's because the teaching is knocking on the door and you're grasping harder. It's the grasping that's causing anxiety, and it's the projection of externality onto the instructions of mere concept that raises the new version of anxiety. And a lot of people do have that experience. When they hear about this teaching, they externalize the teaching of remembering that externality is non-existent. They externalize the teaching that says externality is non-existent, and then they have a long, unforeseen experience of anxiety.

[92:33]

Only yogis have this type of anxiety. Other people haven't even heard about the opportunity for this kind of anxiety. they haven't been able to make it external yet. And so the other kinds of things that they project externality onto, they've learned that when this person comes and they project externality on that person, they know exactly what kind of drug to take to calm themselves down in relationship to that particular projection. But when this teaching comes, you're not ready to protect yourself from the anxiety that arises when you make it external. So you say, let's get out of here. Let's go someplace where I do know how to deal with the anxiety that comes up with the projection of, you know, essences on things. Do you want to do a time check? Okay, go ahead. Okay, so can she finish her question?

[93:37]

There starts to be a perception of separation, of self. Yes, yes. That is what produces the anxiety. So there starts to be this, like, current of anxiety. So it's very useful to notice, like, a straight shot back to nonduality, to notice that there's that anxiety coming up. Like, before I run off with it, I feel very violent. Oh, I must be feeding I and others, because there's that anxiety of death. Well, as Tova said, it's about time. I've hoped that you've enjoyed the show.

[94:28]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_82.89