I see you, you can call it imputational character or imaginary character, O.D.C., Other Dependent Character and T.E.C., Fairly Established Character and I rearrange them so that the O.D.C. is in the center and because it's the central meditation on phenomena is dependent co-arising because it's the basis of the imputation. Imputations are superimposed on the other dependent quality of phenomena and the absence of the imputation in the other dependent or on top of the other dependent is the Thoroughly Established.

[01:03]

I read the expression, dread of reality, and I have some resonance with that expression and I thought part of the reason why we have a dread of reality I think is that we also have a dread of delusion, and delusion and reality for us are closely related. As you can see here, delusion is not actually, I wouldn't call the imputational character delusion, rather the confusing the other dependent with the imputational character is delusion. The superimposition of the imputational character upon the character of phenomena which is their

[02:24]

dependent co-arising, that's delusion. Taking the way things are happening, the apprehending what's happening as our ideas of it, and particularly the taking of what's happening in terms of our ideas of essences and attributes, or the taking or apprehending what's happening in terms of self and other being different, that way of taking things, that's delusion. But just the idea that self and other are separate, just an idea, just a fantasy, it's the confusion that's the delusion. And there's kind of a dread of that confusion, I feel. I think there's some dread at looking at how confusion and delusion are manifesting.

[03:31]

So I just wanted to say some different kinds of reality. One kind of reality is the way things really are. And the way things really are, ultimately, is that they're thoroughly established. That's their suchness, the way they're thoroughly established is their suchness. The way they are, the way events are, is that they're free of the imputational. Our life is actually free, really it's free of our ideas, of our projections of essences and attributes on them. Really the way things are, the way things are happening, is that they're free of this appearance

[04:42]

that self and other are substantially different. That's one kind of reality. It's called ultimate reality or suchness, or the thoroughly established character. Another kind of reality is that what's happening, namely the dependently co-arisen events, another reality is that they appear in a way that they're not. In other words, that they appear in a fantastic or imaginary way. It's a reality that things appear to be a way that they're not. It's true that things appear to be a way that they're not. Or it's true that things that don't exist are constantly being produced. There's a constant production of phenomena that fail to exist.

[05:48]

Yes? For example, you see that somebody's life appears to be a tragedy, but... That's not what I'm talking about here. I just want to make clear that that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about here is that it appears that somebody's life is substantially separate from yours. Or it appears that somebody's life, or somebody's tragic life, it appears that there's an essence to it and it has attributes. That's the basic level that I'm talking about right now. Later we can get into other stories, but the first step is this one. The basis of all these other stories is this imputation of essences and attributes, or the imputation that the self, subject and object, mind and objects are substantially different.

[06:58]

That's the step I'm at now. Your example wouldn't apply here yet. There's other realities I'll get to in a minute. Yes? When I look at what's being called the imputational character phenomenon... Excuse me, actually, could you wait until your question? Just let me finish this little list. Would that be alright? Is it really okay? Really? Another kind of reality is that things appear, which don't really exist, and they appear as though they do exist. So there's an appearance of things existing that don't exist. But there is an appearance, that's the same one that I just mentioned. There's a constant appearance of things that don't exist. Like there's a constant appearance, or ongoing appearance, that we're separate.

[08:01]

There's an ongoing appearance of a separation between you and the world that is appearing frequently. And that separation is not real. That's the second kind of reality. The third is that we believe it. In fact, there is this thing that we believe, or we agree with, this appearance. That the world is out there, set off from us, cut off from us. And it's at a distance from us. We agree with that. That's another kind of reality. A third? It's a third, yeah. First is that... First is the way things really are, and the way they really are is things are not... For example, things are not... There is no separation of subject and object, really. Things don't have essences and attributes.

[09:04]

That's the first one. Events are actually free. Dependently co-arisen events, which are the only kind of events, except for emptiness. But actually, emptiness is not a dependently co-arisen event. It doesn't happen. So anyway, take it back. Things that happen are free of imputation, really. They actually have a suchness, which is their freedom from imputation. That's the first one. The second one is a confusion of the two. That it actually appears, innately appears, as though subjects and objects are separate, or that objects have essences and attributes. That's the second one. The third one is we believe it. We believe the way things appear. We believe false appearances. We agree with them.

[10:06]

And the fourth one is... The fourth kind of reality is that when we believe these false appearances, particularly the ones I just mentioned, then we feel painful emotions like greed and hate and jealousy, etc. That's another truth. That's a truth of delusion, but a painful aspect of delusion. And then another reality is that once we get involved in these painful emotions, we want to do something about it. So then we start to become involved in actions, again, based on this misconception that we're separate from others, so it's, we're going to do it. And these actions are based on painful emotions which arise from these misconceptions, so it's defiled action. And this then leads to another reality,

[11:09]

which is that these actions then create consequences, which are then the seeds to drive this circle around, this process around another crank. So, misconception, well, first of all, true conception is to see that things are free of our imaginations. Misconception then leads to painful emotions, which leads to wish to do something about them, which is defiled karma, which keeps the process going. So these are various realities. So looking at reality is looking at ultimate reality, but also looking at this, the reality of the processes of delusion, which are really kind of dreadful. It's hard to look at them. That's one of the reasons why we encourage the practice of shamatha, the practice of tranquility, so that you can be relaxed, develop relaxation in this dreadful process. And also not relaxation which includes being kind of like bright and energetic

[12:15]

and flexible so that you can come to these studies and the dread doesn't like demoralize you or discourage you in your study of reality, in your study of the use of the discursive thought to develop facilities for penetrating all this confusion. Okay, now did you want to say something now? Yes, please. Beverly? I'm looking at what's been called the imputational character of phenomena and how the process of imputation is, are the essences and attributes projected by our minds. It seems to me to be more a characteristic of mind than actually a phenomenon.

[13:16]

A character of mind rather than actually a phenomenon? Well, you mean mind rather than objects? Right. Because mind is a phenomenon too. Mind is impermanent too. So imputing is a dependently co-arisen process and the objects that are imputed upon are dependently co-arisen too. So both of them have other dependent character and you're saying that you think the imputation is more mind than the objects? Right. Yeah, and I think a lot of disciples of Buddha, very great ones, would say, yes, there is a difference between mind and objects, certain objects. If you're the object of my imputations, then in some sense you're not so different from me, because you can impute too.

[14:21]

But certainly if I'm imputing essences and attributes on the rocks, rocks are not able to impute essences and attributes. So there is a difference between mind and objects. But some people would say there's a difference, but there's not a substantial difference between the mind and rocks. There's not a substantial difference. However, we don't put the imputing on the rock, we put it on the mind. So are you saying that you feel like it's more the mind that's doing the imputing than the object? Right. I think that most people would agree with you. It's just that, I shouldn't say most people, but most Buddhist meditators would agree with you. Most wise Buddhist meditators would agree with you. However, they would quibble a little bit about the level of difference between mind and object.

[15:24]

Some would say there's no difference. Some would say, well, there is a little difference, but none of them, I don't think, would say there's a substantial difference, a difference in entity. But that subtlety between, the duality between mind and object, two great schools of Mahayana Buddhism are in a very subtle argument about it. But they would agree that nobody is saying that the rock is doing the imputing of essences and attributes. Now, did you want to make any more comments than now, Elena? About this? Okay. Yes. Yes. So insight study, as you're presenting it, I don't want to make a statement, I won't make a question, I have to preface it by statement, seems to me to be an overall understanding of the process or the picture.

[16:27]

And in that picture, it seems that the way out of these afflictive emotions, which come from imputing or confusing the other dependence with the imputational, the way out of these emotions that come from that is to go the other direction, not into action, but go forward into taking apart these two things, the imputational and the dependent. And so is that a different kind of insight study than that kind of study in which you see the dynamics of what's going on? Well, let me check to see if I heard you. Did you say that in this picture you see that when you're at the level of afflictive emotions of greed and hate, that rather than going to action based on that, you would turn around and study the greed and hate and see where it came from? That would be more relevant to the insight process? Yes.

[17:29]

Is that what you're suggesting maybe you thought would be the case for insight work? Is that the insight work that we're involved in? How is that done? If in fact you're aware of afflictive emotions and then you actually look at them and notice them, and then you would perhaps wonderfully notice that they were based on some misconception, you would be doing insight work. If you just notice the afflictive emotions, you're actually doing insight work. That's called mindfulness. That's one of the foundations of mindfulness, is to notice. It's actually sort of the third and fourth foundation of mindfulness, to notice. For example, if you notice this mind is infested with afflictive emotions. There's a lot of painful emotions in this consciousness we have here at this seating area. That's mindfulness of the mind.

[18:33]

Then if you would actually see in detail what afflictive emotions, what painful emotions were there, that would be getting into the foundation of mindfulness of Dharma. And you would be doing insight work. Now if you could see what it was that was the conditions for the arising of those, then your insight work would be now penetrating, starting to penetrate. And then if you could see that, you could study then these misconceptions. In other words, how these misconceptions are being mixed up with what's happening, and then you would penetrate deeper. And then if you could see how the misconceptions are really absent in what's happening, you would be penetrating deeper. And at that level of penetration, the source of the arising of the afflictive emotions have been cut off. And therefore the source of contaminated action has been cut off. And therefore the process of binding you to the process of misery has been cut off.

[19:38]

So you're liberated when you start to see that they're really established. So that is insight work. So actually I was going to say a little bit more before we get into the questions. Is that okay? I remember, you know, Shoho said something about practically applying these teachings, so I thought I'd give you a little... maybe some practical advice about how to work with these teachings, and then we can have questions if you want. So again, I already talked about practically. One of the practical ways of working with these teachings is to listen to them. Listen to the teachings of this sutra. That's part of the way, practically speaking, you work with them. And then if you hear them, you might have a question like, well, how do you practically work with them? But first of all, you're asking that question about the practical application of this teaching because you listened to them in the first place. And asking questions like that is also how you practically work with them.

[20:39]

Does that make sense? Asking questions when you hear a teaching about how do you practice it, that's part of how you practice it. And expressing your lack of understanding is part of how you practice it. That's part of how you study the teaching. Another way that you practically apply these teachings is to take a break from practically applying these teachings and take a break from listening to them. That's another way you practice them. In other words, one of the ways you practice this is to take care of yourself and not get too excited about studying insight. Spend some of your time... Now, if you're super calm, it happens to people, they get into states of tranquility and they can run all over Green Gulch, do backflips and have high-speed conversations. They stay flexible and calm and relaxed and alert

[21:40]

and they can really attend to what's ever happening very carefully, etc. So if you're already really calm and you can study this stuff and you don't get the slightest bit excited, you don't have to do any more tranquility work. But if you start to notice you're getting excited, not to mention discouraged, depressed, thinking that you're stupid or whatever, that kind of stuff, when you start thinking you're stupid, it's probably time to relax. Usually it's a sign of agitation. I mean, not just that you think you're stupid, but you think maybe that's true. Etc. I'll stop at the etc. The other thing is... So one of the ways you practically apply these teachings is to practice a different kind of meditation than insight. Practicing tranquility helps you do insight work when you go back to it. So the next practical application is to see if you can notice or catch

[22:50]

or identify the appearance that objects are out there cut off from you. Can you identify that appearance? Can you get a feeling for that, how it seems like that's the way things appear? And without you working that hard at it, they appear that way. As soon as you wake up in the morning, does the ceiling appear? Does the dark appear to be out there separate from you? Like I'm here and there's the darkness? So can you notice that appearance? So catching that appearance is also insight work. It's not noticing with the emotions, it's doing it somewhat deeper. Like sometimes when... Maybe sometimes when you wake up in the morning, you don't immediately feel angry. It's possible. Have you ever had that happen? You don't immediately feel like, you know, lustful. You just wake up kind of like...

[23:51]

Objects. I'm aware of something. What is it? And at that moment, you know, the afflictive emotions haven't kicked in in a way. You're just like, cool. How early do you have to get up? Approximately. 4.40 is good too. Pacific Standard Time. But sometimes, on the days when we have... You know, on the 4 and 9 days, or 0 and 5 days, actually, 6 is okay. Something like that will also work. But just when you wake up, mindfulness practice is to be aware

[24:55]

and then see if you can catch that what you're aware of seems to be out there, on its own, really. And it very well might. If not, well, we've got something interesting here. Like, it's out there, but... Wow! Where did the separation go? Now we're talking... That might happen too sometimes. I think it does sometimes happen to people. They lose it. They lose the delusion. Anyway, catch that, and then... See if you can catch that you believe it. If you can catch what? See if you can catch that you believe that those objects, people, your body, you know, trees, see if you can catch that they're out there, separate from your awareness of them. See if you can catch that. It's possible, if you can catch it. And that's insight work too. It's a little bit more subtle than the other one.

[25:57]

But I think you might be able to catch that you believe this appearance, which is the invitation. You actually now are seeing the invitational character of the moment. And you're seeing that you believe it. This is pretty good. And this can be done quite often. You can start it when you get up, and you can continue maybe all the way to brushing your teeth. And then, forget it. And you might also notice when you... If you are able to catch it, you might notice when you stop catching it. And when you notice... I have spent quite a while not noticing. Hey, I believe this. One time, a long time ago, I was having an argument with someone who I'm not allowed to mention who that was. And this person was really angry at me. And I said, Oh, you believe that I'm actually here. And then what?

[27:08]

Actually, she regained her presence of mind. It worked quite nicely. Because I was genuinely surprised. I sort of got it that she thought that I was actually out there. And that was really bugging her at the time. The next point, after noticing that you believe this misconception, that you believe this appearance, which is not really true, the next step would be to notice, identify, confess, how, as a consequence, if you can notice and catch how as a consequence of believing this appearance, painful emotions arise, like hatred of him or her. See if you can notice that. It actually is supposed to sometimes happen that we are confronted with this appearance, that our nervous system and so on, our history and all that, presents us with this appearance. We believe it,

[28:10]

and then we have painful emotions. See if you can notice that, catch that, admit that, that you believe it, and there are consequences, and there are painful consequences. The sutra here says there will be afflictions when you confuse what's happening with the imputational. When you let the imputational blur over the way things are happening and apprehend it as what's happening, afflictions will be generated. See if you can catch those. And this again is, you're getting pretty deep now. This is good. Then, that might be the end of the story for a lot of you in this process. You just keep catching the painful, catching the delusions, catching that you believe them, catching that you believe delusions, that you believe misconceptions apply to something. It's true that the conceptions are there, that's not a delusion,

[29:11]

but that those delusions would apply to the way things happen. But we, ordinary people like us, we fall for that, we believe it, and it's painful when we believe it. See if you can catch that. This is a practical application of these teachings. This is a practical application of how to apply them. Then, see if you can notice the next step, which might or might not happen if you're successful at this step I just mentioned. Partly depending on how well you're able to catch and admit and notice this level of the painful emotions, if you don't stay really mindful of them, then sometimes the impulse, when the impulse to do something about this terrible situation arises, that you might then stop noticing painful emotions and then get into trying to get rid of them or something, do something to make them go away. Get busy. Yeah, get busy. But this is the busyness based on afflictive emotions,

[30:14]

based on believing and so on. So, at that point, notice how karma starts to come in and notice how the karma... This is more difficult. It's not so difficult to notice how the karma kicks in, but what is difficult to notice, and probably at this point you won't be able to notice it for a long time, is to notice how that karma propels you back into the process again. And that next step, the vision of that is not usually available. The insight work usually you can't see how the karma has the consequence of keeping you in the cycle. So we're told that it does, but usually only a Buddha can see how that works. But you can see the karma. So that's part of how to turn this. At each stage you can turn the process around by mindfulness. If you're at the karmic level, you notice that you're going to town based on afflictive emotions, based on belief and so on. If you start meditating on the karma, that starts to get you back into the karma.

[31:16]

And as you get more into the karma, you start to then back into the afflictive emotions and as you start to be mindful of them, that backs you into the belief, that backs you into the misconception. And as you're back into the misconception, you start to be able to analyze deeply the misconception and talk to the misconceptions and talk with others about the misconceptions. So that's what we're doing here, we're talking about the misconceptions. So in that sense, our conversations are very deep. We're getting close to the root problem here in these conversations and these teachings here. But we can easily move away up into these grosser levels very quickly. And then when we're running around doing karma based on all this, it's hard to turn around, but it's possible. And then each step, you can turn the process around by this. Maybe you hear this as a practical application at whatever level in the process you discover yourself to be. And basically, we're in this process of dealing with...

[32:18]

Like it or not, we're in the process of dealing with reality all day. We're like reality junkies. We're into it. Because in fact, reality is unavoidable. Bob? How do you overlay relative versus absolute? Pardon? How do you overlay the relative versus the absolute in this framework? Well, actually, the first type of reality was... I don't like the word absolute too much, I prefer ultimate. The first kind of truth that I mentioned in reality was the ultimate. The other ones were conventional. Actually, really the conventional one was the second one. And then belief in the conventional one is not exactly conventional. It's that you believe conventional to be ultimate. But you can catch yourself at believing that conventional is ultimate. So if I go up the driveway,

[33:19]

up to the road, and I find myself on the road with a broken leg, and there's a car stuck there, and my leg is broken, there's a dent in the car, it's been called car. So, I mean, those things exist. It's on one level. It's where you get your aesthetic. But then, at another level, there's nothing substantial about any of that. Right. And I think on some level, cars... Cars are... Well, cars are basically... I mean, really, cars are examples of other dependent character. And broken legs are examples of other dependent character. And they do exist, and there's some debate about how they exist. The mind-only school, which uses the sutra as its

[34:22]

base text, it says that these dependently co-arisen things, like cars, really do exist. And other schools say, no, they don't really exist. But they do agree that those are the... that's the only kind of phenomena, other than thoroughly established, that have any kind of existence. They have conventional existence, anyway. The imputational... Some of the imputationals exist, and some of them don't. We'll get into that. But the imputation of essence to the car, and attributes, the imputation that the car is separate from the broken leg, that doesn't exist. Nobody's... None of the Buddhists say that that exists. Well, none of the Mahayana Buddhists say that exists. The actual... The appearance of substantial separation between the broken leg and the car. But the dependently co-arisen aspect of the... Well, the leg is a dependent co-arising,

[35:25]

the car is a dependent co-arising. And they do exist, at least conventionally, according to most Mahayana Buddhists, and all the earlier Buddhists would agree to. Now, the car is composed of other things, but that's what it means to be dependently co-arisen. The broken leg depends on other things than itself for its existence, and that's what it means to be a dependent co-arising, is that it's not produced by itself. But this school, the Yogacara school, the Mahayana school, does say that the leg and the car do come to be established by other conditions, but they're established by way of their own character. At the same time. I'm with you up to where you say something like the broken leg and the car

[36:27]

don't separately exist. This may not have been exactly your words, but something like that. Don't substantially exist separately. Yeah, yeah. They just appear to be. Yeah, and so I guess that's why I asked you a question about an absolute where on a relative, on one level, it's like, OK, there's a car and there's a broken leg. But then on another level, OK, it's all energy appearing in different forms. Yes, so you're wondering on a relative level, does a separation exist? Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're saying? Is that your question? It might be. Let's go with it. Let's assume it is. What do you think? We hear that ultimately

[37:33]

the separation between the leg and the car and between the person with the broken leg and the car or this body, your sense of your body and the car, ultimately that separation is not substantially existent. But I guess you're asking, well, is it conventionally existent? The separation? Yeah, I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think it even exists conventionally. I don't think so. Yeah. But according to conventional realities it would exist in that reality, right? According to the reality of where it appears to exist that way, there is a sense, there is an appearance that things are out there separate from you.

[38:34]

OK? There is that. It's true that things appear that way. But it's not true that the separation is true. Conventional truth doesn't say that really there is a separation. It's just it's true that there is a sense that there really is a separation. There's a truth that it appears that way. That's true. It does. But we're not saying that it's actually convention, that there's a conventional existence to that separation. So, how is it that the person with the broken leg is experiencing pain but the car is not experiencing pain? How is it? Yeah, that seems to kind of reify in the conventional reality

[39:36]

a difference, a differentiation between the two other dependent characters that makes me think that they're separate. Like, if it was my broken leg, I would definitely feel different than the car. So, therefore, it makes me think I'm just separate than the car. Well, you mean, but does that mean that if you bump into somebody else and you both break your legs, that you feel less separate? Yeah. No, no. I wouldn't feel any less separate. It doesn't matter what the object is, really. It seems like it's out there. Because, you know, no matter what it is, I'm here by myself. I don't need you. Which means that I'm not looking at the other dependent. I'm distracted from the other dependent

[40:38]

by the imputational. So, we need to focus on the other dependent. We need to learn how to study that. Because that's... And then, again, catch how we don't believe that teaching that we're confusing the other dependent quality because of our imagination. Yes? When you said that I just don't get this, that the imputational is permanent because it doesn't really exist, I can't... It's permanent because it doesn't really arise or cease. Right? Or, you know, essences and attributes don't arise or cease. The thought of them does.

[41:40]

Thinking about them does. Right? Again... So the process... We don't think that rocks think of essences and attributes. That's a kind of dependent co-arising there, but the kind of dependent co-arising humans are is that they can think and they can imagine and they can imagine... They can conceive of essences and attributes. They can conceive of that what they're aware of is that they're separate from themselves. They're independent of what they're knowing. People can conceive that. Conceiving is a dependent co-arising. That's an impermanent thing. And that's what we... That's the center of our meditation is to watch our processes of conceiving and misconceiving and believing and all that. But the imputation of the essence, the actual... That imputation, that's not the imputing. That's the actual essence. That essence doesn't arise. Essences don't arise and cease. If they arise and cease,

[42:44]

they're not essences. They're dependent co-arisings. They're not, you know... They're not permanent things. But things that don't arise and cease are permanent. Conceptualizing is co-dependent realism. That process. But what do you conceptualize? Some of the things you conceptualize are permanent. Because you're conceptualizing a permanence. You conceptualize something that doesn't arise. If essences arise, they're not essences. So we go ahead and think of things that don't happen. And therefore, since they don't happen, they're permanent. Because if they don't happen, they don't cease. I can. Can you give one? An essence is an example of something... What we mean by essence is something that's self-existent, that doesn't arise depending on things. So we sort of know that things arise

[43:46]

in dependence on things, and yet these things that we know that arise in dependence on things, we project an essence on them, that they're out there on their own, rather than see things as arising from many conditions. When you see how things arise from many conditions, when you see that, then of course you don't project an essence on them. When you see that you're arising from various conditions, you don't project essences on them. So the rock doesn't have an essence? Hm? The rock does not have an essence? Right. It doesn't. But we... So essences, or another example of something that is permanent, is the separation between self and other. That's kind of permanent. That doesn't arise. The projection of it arises,

[44:47]

the imagination of it arises, but the thing you're talking about, you don't see that arising. If you saw it arise, you wouldn't believe it was substantial. Rockiness is permanent, isn't it? Rockiness is permanent? Rockiness. Rockness is permanent? Yeah, rockness is permanent. Rock is the essence... Rockness is the essence of rock. But there is no rockness. In all the things, all the attributes of rocks... That's why I said before, the funny thing is, we project essences, and then we project attributes, and the attributes are kind of like to substantiate the essence, but why would you have something to substantiate something that doesn't need any substantiation, because it's substantially self-existent? So what do you, you know... Again, well, what do you have that for? Well, because... it needs it. But it isn't sufficient, except for us and our friends. So these imputations are permanent.

[45:48]

Now, some imputations that are... Some other imputations, which are also permanent, do exist. However, they also don't arise or cease, because they're permanent. In what? Space. Uncompounded space. It's just an imagined thing. You can't perceive it directly. It doesn't arise or cease, but it does exist. Time. I haven't heard that one. But the process of arising, the general characteristic of all phenomena, that they arise, last for a little while, deteriorate and cease, that is a general characterization of phenomena. It's an imagined thing. You can't find it. When you look for it, all you find is phenomena. That's this type, the imputational type, is what we call

[46:51]

the two types of cessation. And one type of cessation is the type of cessation... cessation of affliction. There's two types. One type comes through practice, which Shakyamuni... It's a name for what happened to Shakyamuni. Part of what happened to Shakyamuni on the Votari was he attained a cessation of affliction due to his yogic practice, due to his insight. He attained the end of outflows, the cessation of affliction that happened. But that doesn't arise or cease. But it's imputation. It's an imputation. It's something which we imagine. But it's not the imputation of essences and attributes. And you don't have to, like... In the dependent co-arising world, we don't, generally speaking, confuse that with what's happening. We don't confuse the...

[47:52]

what do you call it? Pratica... the... what's it called? Pratisamkhya Naroda. We don't usually confuse the cessation due to yogic practice or due to effort. We don't usually confuse that with a ball or a tree. So, to be thoroughly established, it's not that we don't confuse cessation with another person. That's not a problem. As a matter of fact, the cessation is a wonderful thing. It's just that it's imaginary because it's actually just that there's no more suffering. That's not a thing in the sense of something arises and ceases. It doesn't arise or cease. It's just realized. And then there's another kind of cessation which is called apratisamkhya naroda or it's a kind of cessation of misery and affliction that arises when you don't have a body anymore. Or, you know, parinirvana, perfect nirvana,

[48:55]

has this quality, but it's not actually something you can observe. You can't really observe... You can't observe this absence or the end, the cessation. You can't really observe the cessation of affliction. Okay? But you can imagine it and it does exist. So, sorry, but that's the way sometimes things are taught. It's on the list of things that are happening. Not things. Not things that are happening. These things don't happen. Some things, some phenomena don't happen. And I've just told you some. And then there's one more that doesn't happen which is our best friend. It's called the thoroughly established character. It doesn't happen. It's permanent. So the impermanent phenomena are surrounded by permanent, in a sense, in this presentation. These two are permanent. This one's impermanent. But the impermanent is the central meditation.

[49:56]

Always meditating on the impermanent. You always stay here in the world of impermanence because this is where these other truths come. This is where people, you know, there's a dependent co-arising of people who believe in misconceptions and suffer and so on. This is Buddha's home base. And this is what Buddha teaches first in meditation. Meditate on the impermanent. Meditate on the dependent co-arising. And then we can start looking at the one kind of permanent thing which is these imputations. And we can also study the dependent co-arising of the imputation, of the imputing. So you can study the impermanent, unreliable, unpredictable, uncontrollable process of imagining permanent things. And that will help you. But that's based on the impermanent. And then by studying that and understanding that you can also see how when we have the absence

[50:56]

of the imputational in the other dependent, if we then look at that absence, we start to undo the whole process. We can actually change ourselves who are normally built to misconceive and believe our misconceptions and suffer. So then emptiness or suchness or the thoroughly established is a permanent phenomenon too. And we can actually perceive it directly. But we can't directly perceive any cessations conceived. And you can't perceive space. But it's proposed to you that those are phenomena. And they exist. But there are some things, some of the imputational things don't. So some of the imputational things do and some of them don't. So a self doesn't conventionally exist at all.

[51:58]

It's just completely imagination and it's not an existent imagination. But none of that stuff's our dependent co-arising. They don't arise and cease. But our imagining these things that don't arise and cease, that imagining doesn't arise and cease. That imagining is actually other dependent character. Okay? So this stuff is supposed to be happening so you should be able to find it. Unless this literature is just kidding. Or misled. But supposedly we're all involved in these processes. Okay? Yes, Cedar? So there's this line that says independence upon strongly adhering to the other dependent character as being the imputational character. The other dependent character is known. It sounds to me like... That's one of the big surprises of the sutra. Can you explain this? Strongly adhering to the other dependent

[52:59]

as the imputation of the other dependent is known. This is a big one. Another way to put that is the only way you can know the other dependent is by confusing it with the imputational. So it's a dirty window but it's the only window we got. It's a dirty window but it's the only window we got. Yeah, right. It's... yeah, right. Through a glass darkly, that's it. Yes. However, if you don't want to look through the glass, through the dark glass, fine. But you don't get to see anything on the other side of it. However, I thought Helen's point was interesting the other day when she said, well maybe it's by insight that you know the thoroughly established and maybe in shamatha

[54:01]

in a sense you... I don't know what you said but... Did you say no? Or understand? Understanding might be different from knowing. So in a sense, prajna or insight in terms of Buddhist psychology is not exactly the same as cognition although it's a factor that can pervade a cognition or an awareness. So awareness is, generally speaking, have objects and... but prajna in a sense isn't necessarily like knowing something or maybe just understanding something. So you're looking at an object but you have an understanding of it. So maybe when you're in a state of tranquility you have... you have, what do you call it... given up

[55:04]

certain processes of imputation and therefore in that way you calm down. So maybe when you meet objects in this state of tranquility you're more willing to like, you know, give up knowing them. In other words, give up using the imputation in order to know them. So in that way maybe through... that's one of the advantages of the tranquility is you can get closer to things in a way, be more intimate with them. That's, you know, you give up the wonderful... the wonderful facility of the imputation which makes it possible for you to talk about what's happened. So in tranquility you're not so much like trying to make a living off phenomena anymore. So would that be like getting up early in the morning, tranquility? In a way, yeah. So, yeah, so that's... maybe what the sutra means is that the price of knowing things... Huh? What?

[56:06]

Is what? What did somebody say? The price of knowing things is adhering to the other dependent as the imputational. And certainly the price of speaking about things involves this imputation. Otherwise we just really feel... we feel like ungrounded or unwarranted in talking if we don't really think we're talking about something that's actually there. We feel kind of silly when we think we're talking about something that we don't think is really there. Right? But sometimes you can be with something without really thinking it's there, and somehow... and not talk, and yet here you are with it, but you can't talk about it. Thinking, well... Okay. Fine. Is that enough cedar on that for now? Thank you. I don't know, I think you were next. Richard. I wondered if... I was wondering if you could address the relationship

[57:09]

between imputing and discursive thought, and it sounded like in your last answer you... Well, in fact... When you give up... Imputing is not the same as discursive thought. You can impute, in a sense, without running around in your mind. Imputing is more like faster than that. Just suddenly things appear. Just boom. So when you see a red ball, that's already imputed, usually. That's not discursive thought. Discursive thought is going back and forth with that red ball. But when you give up discursive thought, you also start to lighten up on the imputing. Although deep in your mind you still have that proclivity, that disposition, due to past karma. You still have that disposition towards imputing.

[58:10]

You haven't eliminated it. You still may believe that the appearance is out there. You still may have that sense. But you've calmed down so much, you're so relaxed with it. It's attenuated considerably. And then you're not going into afflictive emotions. And karma. But you're not also going down and addressing that belief which is still there and uprooting it and being convinced that it doesn't really hold water. And you really can't. It's not really, really there. You're not doing that work in the Samatha. However, this way of being, once you are convinced and have done that work, this way of being brings additional light

[59:12]

to the situation and brings you closer to the situation that you've had insight with. So it deepens the insight. But it doesn't really create the insight all by itself. And it doesn't have to, so no problem. I don't know who's next, but... Yes? When you were saying about Helen's point that perhaps in Samatha practice you're not knowing the way to insight using discursive thinking, what I thought of was in the Bodhisattva Sutra, it seems like the first chapter, he's basically... there's a clear crystal. There's thus the realization of the Buddha. In the second chapter, skill and means, where then the only reason to talk or enter discursive thinking is to help other people. There's a motive for it. The only reason for Buddhas

[60:14]

to enter into discursive thought is to help people. That's right. And they can do that. They can... They can... make conventional designations. Now the question is, do the Buddhas need to go through that same process of checking in to an imputation hotel so that they can have the ability to make conventional designations? And I would think that they have to. They have to sort of come into the hotel too. And that they can do that. But they also remember at the same time that this imputation is not confused with the other dependent. They just use it... Skillfully. They just use it skillfully in order to be able to talk to people who still have some confusion about the imputation's relationship to the other dependent. And then they can hear instructions about how to look at that confusion from the one who understands... who understands the confusion

[61:16]

and has seen how to resolve it. Yes? I think I have a confusion. It's just a statement that I think I wrote incorrectly. So I'm just going to... I want you to give me feedback. Okay. Okay. When you see the other dependent through the... the I.C., can you see the T.E.C.? So she wrote down when you see the other dependent through the imputational character, you see the thoroughly established... Oh, good. When you see the other dependent... Thank you. When you see the other dependent through the imputational, you see a delusion. Thank you. When you see the imputational as the imputational, you see the imputational. It's not a delusion. It's not a delusion that the imputational is the imputational. It's the adhering to the imputational, to the projection of...

[62:16]

It's particularly... And in particular, it's confusing the imputation of essences and attributes or substantial separation between self and other, that that's projected onto the other dependent. That's delusion. Like they were saying, to think that the clear crystal is a ruby, that's delusion. But just the red color in the cloth, the red color in the cloth is the imputational. You know that example? It's the red cloth that the crystal's sitting on. The red cloth is the imputational, but the red cloth is the delusion. It would only be a delusion to think that that applied to the crystal, but it doesn't apply to the crystal. The crystal doesn't really have the red cloth with it, and also the crystal is not a ruby. But when you confuse the red cloth, the imputational, you lose track that the imputational's a red cloth and the crystal's a clear crystal.

[63:17]

You think, ah, you have a ruby. See, that's how it works. So, no, when you see the other dependent through the imputational, you don't see the thoroughly established. Matter of fact, you don't see the other dependent or the thoroughly established at that time. You just see the imputational, and you think that's what's happening. However, looking at the imputational is different than looking at the imputational when it gets confused with the other dependent. So, you see, when you look at the imputational, you see a red cloth. When you confuse them, you see a ruby. Really, it's more interesting than the red cloth to some people, unless the red cloth is made of very high-quality silk. Does that make sense? Yes. I don't know who's next. Rosie? Mine's quick. Good. You've got to go to work. So, you just said when you see the imputational, when you see the other dependent through the imputational, but before,

[64:17]

didn't you say there's no other way to see the other dependent? There's no other way to know it. Well, I didn't say there's no other way. I sort of did, though. I defied it. Because the sutra says by adhering to the other dependent as the imputational, the other dependent is known. There's no other way to know it. It doesn't really say there's no other way to know it, but maybe that's the case. In order to know it, you have to make that confusion. However, understanding that process, it says later, by understanding that process, you understand the afflictive phenomena. Isn't that what it says? Well, this is in our chapter, right? No. No, it's in this chapter. So, if you study the way that we're sort of drawn into this confusion in order to know what's happening. We want to know what's happening because what's happening really is the basic meditation. But in order to know what's happening,

[65:18]

we have to also mix in this fantasy stuff. But then we also notice what's happening is affliction because affliction arises in conjunction with this confusion. So, by studying this dynamics between knowing and the holding to the other dependent as the imputational, by studying that process, we understand the afflictive character. Are you saying the studying of it is the imputation? Studying the process. Studying how that in order to know the other dependent, we must hold to it as something that it isn't. Which I said before, it's like in order to know a Rosie, I have to think Rosie as Carolina. That's the only way I can know Rosie is holding to Rosie as Carolina. But that's the way I can know Rosie. It's not right, but it gives me some access

[66:19]

to Rosie in terms of knowing her. But, again, it may be that in tranquility, although I don't know you, I actually understand you. But when I meet you without that, I actually understand you, but I don't understand you the way I would understand you so I could talk about you and make a date with you or something. In order to do that, I need a little confusion in order to negotiate certain things. Yeah, so talk to me first. Grace? It seems to me that there's another sort of imputation

[67:21]

that's going on that we're not really talking about. For example, we take the blue and we do the crystal and then we confuse that sapphire. Sapphire is an other dependent process in all of our brain waves and discursive thought that's there by virtue of a long history of mind or whatever we want to call it. So it's that's another other dependent characteristic that's arising that then makes it possible. Isn't this correct for the imputation to be taken as the imputation? But here's the color, here's the crystal, here's the color, and then the third thing over here is here's this repository of images, experiences, history that is sitting

[68:23]

just like the crystal over there but isn't really. That repository, when things that arise from that repository, those are other dependent phenomena too. However, it's possible that well anyway, that's enough for now. Anyway, yeah. Let's see. David? It says in the sutra independence upon absence of strong adherence to the other dependent character as being the imputational character the thoroughly established character is known. Right. And it seemed to be it seemed to be you said before that the absence of the imputational was the thoroughly established. This sounds like it's saying the absence of the other dependent is the thoroughly established. Absence of the other dependent. Would you want to read it again?

[69:23]

Do I want to read it again? Yeah, would you read it again? Sure. Independence upon absence of strong adherence to the other dependent character as being the imputational character. Yeah, that's the absence. It's strong absence of adhering to the other dependent as the imputational. Absence of that adherence. Absence of the adherence of this as being that is the thoroughly established. Now, it's not the other dependent that's absence. It's the adhering to it as something that it's not. So when you don't adhere to what's happening as what it's not in the absence of that adherence you're open to suchness or the thoroughly established. But once again I think there is circulating in the Buddhist community of people who are studying this teaching a view that the thoroughly established the other dependent in the absence of the imputational

[70:28]

that that's the thoroughly established. In other words, that the other dependent is the thoroughly established when it's cleaned up. Or some other people think that the essence of the other dependent is that it doesn't have that it's empty of an imputational. They think there's an essence in there. And when you realize that then you realize that through the through the other dependent you realize thoroughly established which is right. The thoroughly established is based on the other dependent being having not having the imputational. So it's based on it but it's not it. It's when you don't adhere to the other dependent as being what it's not So another place it says that the other dependent is not established in everlasting everlasting time as the imputational. That's the thoroughly established. Putting it positively the thoroughly established is established in everlasting time as the absence as the other dependent not being the imputational.

[71:30]

Either way you want to put it. The sutra puts it in a non-modern way. Rick? So the absence is the belief that what you're saying what you think you're saying is actually what you're saying. The absence of that. The absence of the absence of that. Right. Let's see. Allison I think? This was earlier. I just wanted to clarify tranquility practice Yes. Intimacy without necessarily insight Yeah. It's intimacy It's intimacy with what's happening without insight. And if you bring in insight then I think you've brought in something that's not necessarily included yet. But tranquility sets the stage for insight work.

[72:32]

So I've recently been I presented this scenario. Scenario is like kind of a sketch of a narrative or a play. Not the whole play. So the scenario is trust relax play create understand That applies to this process. So the relaxation part is the tranquility practice. The playing is when you start studying the nature of phenomena. You start interacting with them. You start probing them. And let them poke at you and poke back and get kind of excited a little bit there. But you're doing it in a relaxed way hopefully. And as you get into this play with phenomena you enter into creativity

[73:33]

or you enter into actually enacting the other dependent. As you enact the other dependent one more you realize to what extent the imputation is getting in there and causing suffering. And you find the mode in which the other dependent is there in the absence. And then you see the absence and you understand. and then you're liberated or liberated. trust is the foundation. Trust relax play create understand liberate. Or trusting relaxation playing creating understanding and liberating. Or trust relaxation playfulness creation

[74:34]

understanding and liberation. I didn't realize I was putting it as abstract nouns verbs and what else was it? I was wondering if you could give us like a practical breakdown of an example of this in terms of using the example of war as other and then it could Yeah, so I was actually talking to someone about that today. So you have this phenomenon of war arising or let's say you know actually you're meeting a war a war is going on and so and you're you're aware of it and so you want to practice insight with this war

[75:34]

that means that you would you would actually become aware that you you'd catch this this appearance that the war was out there separate from you or you'd catch you'd actually catch the imputation that there was an essence and attributes to this war scene you'd catch that. Then you would then you would notice that you believe it then you would notice the afflictive emotions arising then you would notice the karma based on those arising then you would notice that you start acting or interacting with this thing in such a way as to propel the process of misery in relationship to this phenomenon called war. That's what most people would do, right? Can we back up a little bit? You can back up all the way to the beginning and catch the beginning and then you see the war and you catch the imputation and you snuff it

[76:36]

and then you don't go into this process of defilement and contaminated action and misery. So would snuffing it be not believing that I'm separate from it? It would be not so much not believing that you're separate from it but sort of that. It would be even more like that the belief that you're separate from it would now be absent which is slightly different than you not believing it. But sort of like that. In other words you'd be paying attention not to... you'd be noticing not so much that you don't believe it but that the belief is not there and also even the appearance is not there. And then you'd be looking at the war and realizing emptiness on that occasion. You'd be liberated and then in your liberation if you then can... if you happen to be also practicing for example Samatha or tranquility meditation

[77:38]

and patience and the precepts and giving if you joined up your compassion practices with this with this insight you have now you might be able to like go and teach the people who are involved in the war something to help them also start to become liberated from their their life of seeing war out there and thinking you're separate seeing the enemy seeing the non-believers or whatever. So that's a possible response to war. In other words it's possible to look at the war and look at suffering and be liberated while looking at suffering your own or other people's suffering even looking at situations where people are like being cruel to each other to meet these situations and be liberated is a possible is a scenario that's being offered as a possibility and when liberated if you do the other practices so we have the wisdom practices we're talking about now if you do the other practices

[78:40]

which are compassion practices of giving precepts patience enthusiasm and concentration so those those five culminate in tranquility practice so tranquility practice in some sense assumes the previous compassion practices so you bring the compassion together with it and then you become actually able to be effective in relating to this ocean of misery which has war it has some peace but people are unhappy in peace to people in a peace situation but they're inwardly afflicted so they take drugs and stuff like that and then they start shooting each other so anyway it's this ocean of misery arising from misconception from delusion from ignorance and if you meet this ocean this war with that way then hopefully you can make a positive contribution to a war scene although you might not

[79:40]

actually go in the war scene you might go visit the the generals who are sort of like miles from the war scene you might go visit them and teach them first but you might actually walk into the war scene perhaps or you might be forced into the war scene and then the way you behave in the war scene might contribute to some people waking up if you're in a war scene it's possible sometimes to be kind in a war scene there are examples of that where people who are fighting against the other side actually are kind to the other side and where it doesn't get them in trouble and you know it's possible to teach compassion and teach wisdom in a war scene I say that but really it's more like I think that would be wonderful if it were true I hope that that's possible I've heard stories of it I love those stories I've heard stories of

[80:42]

people being in war scenes and making it worse those are exciting stories too but I like the ones of people being in war scenes and doing this very unusual thing doing something good but in a sense you know we are always in some kind of relative situation of conflict in this world can we meet these conflicts and do something good and the idea is that if we have wisdom and liberation and compassion we might be able to make a positive contribution and sorry to say I mean sorry to talk like this but even if you can't make much contribution at least you're happy and free and not causing any trouble until you get in your SUV I have a solution which is a nose my god am I going to confess

[81:43]

this now no I was wondering if you could because I'm a little confused on the definition of absence yes and if you need to have something first in order for there to be an absence absence or if there can just be an absence without it ever being it's in relationship to phenomena and in particular the suchness of first of all it's in relationship to actually three kinds of phenomena or actually many kinds but it would basically the most important I think the two most important types of absence are the absence in relationship to dependently co-arisen phenomena which are the

[82:43]

center of our life you know birth and death bodies trees trucks people these are dependently co-arisen things that's our basic thing we pay attention to we meditate on the absence is in relationship to them it's an absence in them of the imputational that's one kind of absence but there's not absence if you take away that the basic kind of absence has no meaning the absence of the imputational doesn't mean anything except absence of the imputational in the other dependent but there also can be the absence of the imputational in the absence of the imputational that's another that's the second type of important absence because once you find the suchness of phenomena which is what we focus on in order to develop once you find

[83:44]

that suchness which is the absence of imputation in the other dependent it's also possible then to project the imputational onto the suchness so we also have to then have the second type of absence or suchness of suchness which is that suchness doesn't have an essence or attribute either so those are two kinds of such two kinds of absence or emptiness but they're both based on something they both have a base we're not concerned with absences just free-floating there's also absence of essence and attributes in these other those other imputational factors but they're not in some sense they're not that important for most people that we we don't have a big problem of attributing a feeling like the cessations are out there separate from us because we almost never run into them and space too it's not that big a deal it would be good

[84:47]

to actually be able to see that you're not meditating on a dependent co-arising that you're meditating on imagination and an imaginary thing but that can also be what's with mathematics to some extent that can also be unproductive so we do that too but the two most important are the absence in relationship to dependent co-arising phenomena and absence in relationship to the absence so they're both based on something so I don't know so we have Max I think was next you said that the imputational character and thoroughly established are permanent correct? sometimes the imputational character and the thoroughly established character are permanent did you say that? yeah I did I said yeah these permanent things surrounding the impermanent phenomena are impermanent the phenomena are impermanent some phenomena are not impermanent space no space

[85:48]

and the two kinds of the two kinds of cessation are phenomena they're listed on the phenomena list they're phenomena and they're permanent but they're they're permanent and there's one other thing which is a phenomena in a sense it's the phenomena the lack of the imputation in the in the other dependent it's a phenomena too it's a permanent phenomena which is the thoroughly established character pardon? which is the thoroughly established character right the thoroughly established character is permanent it's a permanent phenomena a permanent character phenomena it's established in everlasting everlasting time it's always the case that whenever anything happens actually always whenever anything happens there's an absence of the imputation so everything that happens has this

[86:48]

wonderful quality of being free of our ideas of it so you don't have to worry actually you just got to get with the program which is hard because we have this tendency to not be with the program to actually we actually think it appears that what's happening does have the imputations but really that's just occasional and very common but just once in a while less than always that's why although the imputation itself is a permanent thing the imputing is impermanent you don't always you're not always imputing but always the imputation doesn't make it there's always an absence of the imputation so that's the suchness that's thoroughly established that's permanent okay thanks you're welcome Nelly

[87:49]

I was wondering if there are equivalent psychological terms to the established imputation or the unindependent sort of equivalent and if you want to you know next class I'll bring it up it's a bit much to bring it up at this point I think it's a bit much but if you remind me I'll speak of this a little bit more psychologically next time this actually is although it may not appear this way this is psychological this sutra is teaching this sutra is a sutra which is teaching about ultimate reality in terms of psychological processes but also philosophical because some of these things are not some of the objects so that for example the absence of misery the absence of affliction isn't really a psychological process it's the end of psychological process it's a sort of philosophical thing but it's Jane? I want to go back

[88:50]

to the appearance that objects are out there cut off from you and separate from your awareness yes so then you could also you could say that objects co-arise with your awareness correct that's exactly the way some Buddhists put it that the [...] awareness and the object come up together it isn't like the awareness comes up and says okay well come on we're going to make something happen you never have awareness coming up sort of unemployed awareness doesn't come up at the head of the object and the object doesn't come up at the head of the awareness either objects don't mean anything without a subject phenomena aren't objects by their nature they're objects only in relationship to subjects trees are not

[89:51]

objects without a subject so it does the tree forest no no wait I'm not done so anyway when when objects come up subjects must come up they come up together and according to this school they come up from the same seed so they're actually one event it seems like two so this would also question mark be a way of describing how objects are not separate from us exactly it doesn't mean we're the same as objects we're the same as the objects we're in this dependent relationship right very good and well I just wondered if there's any more yeah there's the rest of our life you just made a good point and now you can talk about that and study that and share with your friends for the rest of your life this is

[90:51]

a fact which she managed to come up with there this is a teaching good good teaching anybody who has not got a question please go ahead and call me I think I asked a question okay I was wondering but maybe it's not the right time the other day when you were talking about art I think you mentioned Van Gogh yes and some glimpse that artists might have yes that would still not be wisdom but would be some kind of freedom ah well what I was referring to was a glimpse that's not yet wisdom it's some wisdom it's some insight certainly artists have some insight in other words what I was speaking of is that many people some of you perhaps have seen beauty did it happen

[91:53]

so far in this lifetime have you seen beauty ah you can see it but you can't know it once you know it what happened what you confused it with the reputation so in some sense we can in a sense see beauty but we can't know it and I was actually thinking that some people in some works of art the way that somehow the way the way causes and conditions work when we meet them ah in some in a sense we go into a state of of grace where we actually like meeting the thing without the incantational meeting a dependent co-arising without the incantational and so we're actually like impacted

[92:54]

you know we're affected we're transformed removed by actually how things are happening and we experience beauty at that time and so like my grandson kind of does that for me he strips away my imputations I just become a slave Zen master slave of course basically there's something about this this sense of separation is kind of stripped stripped away it's like I can't hold up this thing and be separate and some teachers are that way some arts are that way you just look at them and suddenly you're stripped of the appearance that the art is out there and sometimes some art is very upsetting because it strips you of this sense that it's out there and some people are upsetting that way too they strip you of this sense that they're out there and you're over here

[93:54]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ