the instructions about the four truths. Would someone like to summarize the teaching there? ways of joining, of being joined to perfect wisdom.

[01:11]

And so we talked about all three truths, but just to mention the first one in some detail. The bodhisattva is... is joined to form, excuse me, is joined to the emptiness of form, is joined to the emptiness of form, is joined to the emptiness of feeling, is joined to the emptiness of perception, is joined to the emptiness of impulses, is joined to the emptiness of consciousness. In other words, is joined to the emptiness of paiskandas. In other words, is joined to the emptiness of suffering. So this is the instruction on how to practice the first noble truth as bodhisattva.

[02:20]

When you practice the first noble truth this way, you are joined to perfect wisdom. Suffering is, as we said, the five skandhas, five queen skandhas. All existence can be broken down into these five categories. So by joining, merging, developing a satisfying emotional relationship with the emptiness of these five categories of existence, one develops a relationship satisfying full relationship with the emptiness of all suffering. And this is the way to be joined or merged with perfect wisdom.

[03:21]

And the same for the 12 ayatanis, the 18 datus, 75 dharmas. Anyway, all the different ways that experience can be broken down, then the bodhisattva takes each one of these is joined to them, joined to their emptiness. Not joined to them, but joined to their emptiness. So when a bodhisattva is joined to the emptiness of the various elements of existence, at that time she is joined to the perfection of wisdom. She does not join, marry, or have these emotional relationships with things. These relationships are not with things, are not with the elements of existence, but with the particular elements of existence as emptiness.

[04:30]

These are particular elements, particular examples of existence, of suffering. packages of suffering comes in, and the yoking or joining or marriage or whatever is not with the thing but with the emptiness of the thing. When joined in this way, the bodhisattva is joined. When yoked in this way, when married in this way, the bodhisattva is married to perfect wisdom. In this case, we might say that it's good to say when he is joined, because perfect wisdom is considered to be a woman. So when he is joined in this way, he is joined or married to perfect wisdom.

[05:37]

Yes? What does it mean? Do you have any idea? Do you have any idea? So what is the emptiness of peace? joined to the emptiness of form.

[06:41]

I'll go ahead and say it. I'll remember what it said. By not being attached to a form or separate from it. He started it, he said that you become aware, I guess you said, first of all, you said to understand what form is.

[09:26]

That's right. That's right. Because what is form? Form is emptiness. So the place you start by joining yourself to form is you start with form. and form comes, in this case we're talking about form that comes through five senses. So you start with sense and sense phenomena. And you don't go any place else to find the emptiness of form other than the form. You don't have to move one bit. Now, then he said something about that part of what you find out about form maybe is this causal causal context. The material object contributes to this event called the blue dot. The blue dots that we don't know about is not what we're talking about.

[10:27]

We're talking about blue dots that we experienced. That's what we mean when we say form. But actually form is made up of forms that we don't even see. A thing which you can actually posit is an actual, if it's a realistic school, you can say it's an actual blue, something blue. You don't see that. That contributes to this event called the dot. That contributes to it. Can you grasp this? No. Can you grasp this? Or try to grasp that. What would you grasp? If you tried to grasp this, would you grasp that? Would that be your choice? Would you grasp the eye? Would that be your choice? Would you grasp the mind? What would you grasp? Well, obviously, if you see it, you'd grasp any of it because you know you wouldn't gain anything. You only get part of the thing to grasp, so it's ungraspable. If you concentrate your mind on a blue dot, for example, or concentrate your mind on a blue dot, and you stabilize your consciousness, and you run through this kind of thing, you will not be able to allow yourself to grasp

[11:41]

running your mind along these little tracks is exactly the same as not grasping form. Doing this exercise is what is non-attachment. Now you say that exercise takes a long time. But in fact, your mind is just functioning along, it's not attached to anything. Your mind is functioning perfectly right. The only problem is you think it isn't. And the way you think it isn't, you think in big chunks, big dispersive chunks, big dualistic patterns. So you say, well, how can you do this kind of meditation which you brought up? You actually pick up these forms like that. You pick up these colors that make up cups and people and stuff. You pick them up instantaneously. So how can you bring all this kind of a linguistic, meditational structure to a moment where you can. But also, you don't disturb nature things momentarily like that either.

[12:56]

You bring a linguistic system by which you can just do them up in yourself. So you just concentrate your mind and take on another system. Another system which unties all this, and by thinking this way, The mind, which ordinarily runs in such a way as to grasp things, as things, to grasp form as a thing, rather than form as the expression of a totality of causes, none of which are really it, none of which you can grab separately. And when you grab all of them, you can't grab all of them, because you can't have multiple objects like that. So you just have an experience, ungrascible experience, called form. And the same thing is... We already know that from 34, studying the body,

[14:09]

Do you mean by a person a body? Do you mean by a person that which stands behind the thought which means by a person? Before you tell me about doing a person, if I try to find out what she means by person, I would do the thing she means that she asked me to do, right? If I try to find out what she's talking about, I won't be able to figure out what she's asking. Because I don't know what a person is, right? And I don't know. Maybe somebody is, but I don't know what the characteristic of a person is. Please tell me what the characteristic of a person is. Please tell us, we found someone else. Tell us what a person is. I is just conventional. There's three kinds of speech you talked about before.

[15:14]

Three levels of speech. One is... One is you. One is arrogant. Those are the three aspects of speech. Ordinary people use all three. Aryans, short of arhatship, use two. But arhats just say, just according to convention. So I could talk about changing the way I talk around here, but I don't want to do that to set an example. Because using convention doesn't hurt. I don't drop all the I's. Hopefully I can do that if I was mindful. It would make a special speech and it would stick out as these strange beings to avoid saying I. But there's no problem.

[16:18]

Buddha used I, so we can use it. Our hearts use I, but the disciples use I, etc. You can also not use I. There's a way of restructuring your speech to avoid being I. There's a way of restructuring your speech to restructuring your speech. In fact, I don't. There is nobody who knows what a self is. There's no knowing of what a self is. A self doesn't have a purpose, but please tell me what you mean. Maybe you mean something and let me discover what a purpose is. bystanders and calling it a person.

[17:27]

It's one of the bystanders called perception, like a notion of a person. But now what is the mark of a sure sense? Even the body itself. Forget about a person, even a body. You can't find a characteristic of a body. You can't say what the characteristic of a body is. Try to describe a body. You will enter into a very confused discussion with yourself. But try. Try to tell me what a person is. The idea of that there is a person is due to this grasping of five standards. It can't be grasped. It's due to an imagination. But then what is it? Please tell me. I can't think of what to say. If anybody can say so, they can say.

[18:41]

Okay. That's fine. I don't know what to do about that, too. And it turns to the idea of loveliness is meditation on the body. Meditation on the body, you don't find a body anyway, and then you find the parts of the body, but even they don't have it. by looking at them, you find out the story of the idea of loveliness, and the idea of destroying itself. I mean, there's a self or a soul behind the thinking. But that breaks down, too, to think about that one.

[19:42]

There's no way you can establish it in here. No one's going to be able to do it. If you say that there's some... People often think that there's something behind the thought, there's something running the thought. Just like thought, there's thought behind the body, actually. There's a self behind the body, behind the thought. But it doesn't mean erroneous notion because if there's a self behind the thought then which is sufficient to run the body does the thought run the body or the self run the body if the thought self runs the body then what does the need of thought do you need thought or not well if you say you don't then the self runs the body and you don't have thought so what's the self within thought that you don't need the self, if thought is sufficient, then what's the self other than thought? And so on. Now this, someone else also said, you also said it's intellectual, okay?

[20:46]

It's true, it's intellectual. And that's, that in order to, that it's intellectual because you have intellectual ideas about the self as an intellectual idea. Self is not some kind of an emotional idea. Self is an intellectual The antidote to self is intellectual exercise. You are intellectual beings. You have a number of philosophical systems. Some of you have hundreds of thousands, some of you have just a few. When you meditate, when you meditate in the first sense of fixating your mind, calming your mind, that's not intellectual discipline in itself. It's calming the mind. But in order to calm the mind, usually you have to do a little intellectual activity to keep your mind from getting intellectually excited in the process of a simple, physical calming practice.

[21:58]

turning the attention of the mind to some basic process like breathing. That in itself is very low grade intellectual activity, just adverting the mind to the breath. However, intellectual activity is still buzzing away, taking off all over the place. Nobody asks you to do that. You do that all by yourself. Well, then you need a little intellectual practice, a little intellectual exercise in order to counteract to that, to give that up. You have to have some intellectual policy about what to do when you start spinning off of this very simple practice. But people say, again, that seems so intellectual, but you don't need to do it if you have no intellectual activities like that. The practice wouldn't even need to be done unless you're intellectually distracted. You can only use it when you're intellectually distracted. If you're just following your breathing and there's no distraction, you don't have to do anything about putting down the distraction.

[23:02]

Putting down the distraction doesn't mean necessarily that you say the distraction is bad. Putting it down means that you see that you're not distracted. Another way to phrase it is you see that the distraction is not really a distraction, that it actually is included in concentrating, and then you're back to your simple, non-intellectual concentration. So if you're very dull-witted, you may be able to calm the mind some kind of intellectual system to comment. However, no one is so dull-witted that they don't have some intellectual concepts, because that's just the point. Concept is part of the normal human body and mind, the ability to conceptualize. If you couldn't conceptualize, you couldn't talk. Sometimes I'm going to tell you perception or the desire to do so.

[24:43]

So, you know it's samskara or impulses. So there's various impulses which would, for example, greed likes to work with the perception of self. Perception of self is a notion, but perception of self usually wouldn't happen unless it Let's see there's some encouragement from some other aspects of consciousness which can cash in on this perception. Greed would like the five kinds to be grouped into a little package so that they could receive that which is greeted. There is an experience. Every moment is an experience.

[25:45]

If you look at experience, that's it. There is a totality. There is everything that happens. Everything that happens does not abide itself in even existence or non-existence. In a sense, there is a totality that has this nature, namely that you can't grasp it. Now, if you look at it, if you analyze this experience, it's at certain times. You can say it's at five times, you can say it's at twelve times, eighteen times, seventy-five times.

[26:25]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_56.7