What do you think? Have I had a great time during this practice period? Yeah, I really, really have enjoyed it. I've enjoyed the regular, you know, fun of sitting together and just the ritual and ceremony side of the practice is enjoyable. The physical discipline has been great for me, and it's been great for me in terms of it's been great for my body, and I think it's been great for your body, although I know both of us have had some difficulties, but in the end, it's been a good training of my body. My body has

[01:03]

yogically come along quite a ways. My ability to cross the legs has much greater range now, not just compared to last year when I could barely walk from my seat to the altar, but just from three weeks ago. So, for me, I think you've also learned a great deal about your body and how to work with it, so that side's been great. And last practice period was also, I thought, was the best three-week practice period that I experienced here. I'm not saying this one's better, but this one has a little bit more of a quality of going deep and being difficult than last year. That's the case for other people, that it was a little bit more difficult this time, the teaching and study, more challenging in some ways, but I just feel

[02:15]

like, you know, just really great about how we've been studying and what we've learned so far, and all the insights that have already occurred in response to these teachings. People are wanting to find a way to extend these teachings to daily life, and they're really feeling, a lot of people are feeling like they can see possibilities, lots of possibilities, that these teachings are very relevant to their basic problems in life, and that they could be applied, but that there's great resistance to applying them, and great resistance to hearing the teachings, which after you understand them you will have great resistance to applying them. You will have great resistance means there are deep habits set up by past karma,

[03:15]

karmic accumulations have greatly accumulated, indeed being causes and conditions, obstacles to the way, and people are feeling that and confessing it, and that is exactly what that verse you just chanted is about. Confess these obstacles that have accumulated, which are like resisting this teaching. Anyway, I really appreciate the resistance, because I can't really express myself by myself. I need you to help me express myself, and one of the main ways you help me express myself, or I should say one of the main ways that myself express fully is by you resisting. And so, because you've been resisting, the expression has been fuller and fuller, and this is a great joy for some people. I also felt, you

[04:27]

know, in the last few days, particularly the meditation on the teachings of the other dependent character phenomena, meditations on dependent co-arising, and someone gave me a note questioning the relationship between meditation on dependent co-arising and Samatha. I'm not clear about if there's any difference. Maybe I'll deal with that later. And I could happily spend today, continue to spend today, on encouraging and clarifying how to practice meditation on dependent co-arising, how to listen to the teaching and let it come into a meditation process. But I feel like I'd like to give you a taste, of the next step in the wisdom process that the sutra is laying out. And to again say

[05:40]

that the one-pointed awareness in the womb of light, which is the one-pointed awareness in the womb of dependent co-arising, that this is the fundamental meditation of our school, handed down by the burning lamp Buddha to Shakyamuni. This is our practice, our fundamental practice. However, even if, and if we do this practice, it's just wonderful evolution arising, practices, our behavior really becomes transformed in a positive direction towards virtue as we do this meditation on the other dependent nature of phenomena. But even though it's

[06:45]

so wonderful and the practice goes forward greatly, still, this does not bring liberation. Meditation on light, on the light, meditation on the other dependent character, meditation on beauty, does transform us in a positive, very positive way, but it does not accomplish liberation. In order to do that, in order for that to happen, we must go on to receive, study and meditate on the other two aspects of the teaching which pertain to the other dependent phenomena. So once we are meditating on the light, then we have to hear the teachings which pertain to the light, which tell us something about

[07:45]

what the light's like, the teachings which teach us about and help us understand the thing we're meditating on, the other dependent character. Everything, all objects except emptiness that we meditate on are other dependent phenomena. So, as a basic meditation, we need to continue this ongoing meditation and then take on, in addition to this ongoing meditation, the contemplation of the teachings of the imputational character and the thoroughly established character. Tomorrow, I thought I would put more effort into discussing meditation on the other dependent

[08:56]

character, because that's the meditation which I think you should understand to walk out the door of this practice period with, and to give you some suggestions about places you could look for opportunities to practice it. But again, before the practice period is over, I want to give you a taste, a peek at this kind of challenging examination of another character of all phenomena, namely the imputational character. And so this will be kind of hard, and again, I intend to continue to work in this area for the rest of the year, so if you keep in touch, you may be able to get more out of

[10:02]

it, opportunities to listen to teachings about what this imputational character is, which we need to understand. Do you remember in the chapter on Gunakara, it says that when you understand the imputational character as it is, you understand the characterless nature of phenomena, and then, because you understand that, you're able to understand what...remember what you can understand after you understand the imputational character? Then you can understand the thoroughly established. So, in other words, according to the Sutra, we need to understand this imputational character in order to understand suchness. So, Gunakara asked the Tathagata, you know, about how is the Bodhisattva wise with respect

[11:06]

to the character of phenomena, or the nature of phenomena, and then the Tathagata says, thanks, that's a great question, you're really a wonderful, compassionate being, this is really going to help, this question is going to help a lot of beings, thank you. And then he says, so listen and I will describe to you how a Bodhisattva is wise with respect to the character of phenomena. Gunakara...Bodhi is not saying this, exactly...Gunakara...Bodhisattva is saying that Bodhisattvas are wise with the character of phenomena when they understand the three characters of phenomena. Gunakara, there are three characteristics of phenomena, what are they? They are the imputational character, the other dependent character, and the thoroughly established character. What is the imputational character of phenomena? It is that which is imputed as a name or a symbol in terms of the own being and attributes of phenomena,

[12:13]

in order to subsequently designate any convention whatsoever. Remember that? So, the first definition is that the imputational character is that which is imputed to what? What would you impute the imputational character to? To the other dependent character. What's the other dependent character? Huh? What? Yeah, life. Well, not just life, but life, it's not exactly life, because it's life in the form of objects. Life as it comes to you as something to know. The other dependent character, it's what you attribute to life as it's happening,

[13:16]

you know, how it's happening. You attribute to this other dependent character, or you could say even it's what you impute to the light, in terms of what? You impute to other dependent character as a name or a symbol in terms of own being and attributes, in order to later be able to talk about the objects. Okay? So that's the imputational character that the Buddha wants us to become wise about. And so imputational character is also sometimes

[14:21]

been translated as mere conceptual grasping. Mere conceptual grasping. Mere, M-E-R-E. Or just conceptual grasping, nothing more than that. Again, we can go into more detail on this later, but the imputational character that's being discussed here does not include all imputational characters. There are other kinds of imputational characters that are not being discussed here. For example, uncompounded space is a mere conceptual grasping. The two types of cessation are imputational character. The generally characterized phenomena are

[15:28]

imputational character. Examples of those are, for example, a big one is that all phenomena have the generally characterized nature of having an arising, and all phenomena have a rising, and a maintenance, a degeneration, and a ceasing. That's a general characteristic of phenomena. Also non-existent things are generally, are imputational characters. And, in particular, the two most crucial imputational characters, the two most crucial imputations are those, are versions of imputational character which are crucial for being a source of suffering.

[16:34]

All, all the suffering of this world. And also, they are what obstruct the realization of full altruistic capacity of the Bodhisattva. They obstruct knowing all the things you need to know in order to be fully useful in this world. Maybe I'll mention what they are. One is this imputation of, the false imputation of a substantial difference between subject and object. That's one kind of imputation that's

[17:40]

superimposed, that's possible. The false conception that subject and object are substantially different, like two different beings, that's one thing that can be imputed and superimposed that false conception can be superimposed or imputed onto other dependent characters. So that makes things seem like they're out there on their own, separate from the awareness of them. And this can happen for any of the six types of consciousness, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, skin consciousness, and mind consciousness. So there can be an awareness, for example,

[18:49]

of a mental factor, like fear, or a memory, or an image of the future. Or of a feeling, or an emotion, and it's as though the emotion is out there separate from what knows it. And of course there can be a consciousness of a color, and it's as though the color were out there separate from the consciousness of the color. And actually sitting out there all by itself, separate, independent, and not like other dependent. But not depending even on the consciousness of it. But there are actually no colors appear in this world except to consciousnesses, which physicists even are finding out now. So, and

[19:51]

same with the other kinds of consciousness. So there can be a consciousness of a color, or a memory. So that things appear that way, and they appear that way innately, we're born with the inclination to see things that way, and we're born with the inclination to believe it. So the idea, or the conception that things are that way, because it's a concept, things aren't really that way, it's just an idea of the way they are. And that concept then is superimposed over the radiance of dependent co-arising, and it looks like this other dependent phenomena actually is out there, it's not a other dependent phenomena. That's what it

[20:57]

looks like. And the other dependent phenomena of a consciousness looks like it's separate from what it knows, which it's not. When you overlay the consciousness with this misconception, or you overlay the object of the consciousness with the misconception, they both look self-produced. That's the way they look. And not only that, but they look so much that way that you believe it, and you kind of like want to be on that side of the world that believes in it. I like the example of putting on glasses, you know, when you look out at a hillside and it's kind of blurry and you can't see whether there's trees on the hillside or grass or people dressed up as plants or a golf course or what it is, and then, in other words, you can't really

[22:05]

see what it is exactly. You're not sure what it is. I mean, you just see what it is, but you want to see it, you want to get a purchase on it, as we say. Put the glasses on, and then suddenly you see, oh, there's all those trees and leaves and deer jumping around, and we think that's clearer, and so on. And when you have your glasses on, you see the trees, and you put your glasses on, and you're looking at the hillside, it's very difficult to remember what it looked like before you put your glasses on. It's hard to see the blurriness at the same time you see the clarity. Similarly, once you overlay a reified subject-object split on objects or subjects, you can't remember what they look like before you impose that. And maybe, actually, you can't even remember ever seeing it without that imposition, because it's innate.

[23:07]

So, the concept dependently co-arises, but it's a concept of something that doesn't dependently co-arise. The concept dependently co-arises, and there's a consciousness that can produce such concepts. The consciousness or the imagination that can produce these concepts, the consciousness which can produce these concepts, is other-dependent phenomena. As a matter of fact, it's in some ways the most important other-dependent phenomena. The consciousness which can imagine things which don't exist is perhaps the most important other-dependent phenomena. It's called the bhuta-parikalpita, which means unreal imagination, or the imagination, this is not a definition, this is a definition, the imagination of the

[24:52]

what does not exist. So, you can imagine a concept, and the concept is a dependent co-arising of something that's not a dependent co-arising. Like it's not a dependent co-arising that subject and object are split. It is a dependent co-arising to imagine that they're split. And what you're imagining is imagined. However, when it's imagined, there's a dependent co-arising of what? What? Scepticism. Went backwards. When there's the imagination of something that doesn't arise, and then it's superimposed on things that arise, what arises on that

[25:54]

superimposition? What? Affliction? No. Skipping a step. Yeah, you're all skipping it, that's interesting. What? What? No. What arises is afflictive emotions. Afflictive emotions, huh? Pardon? Somebody said it? Who? Cedar? No, yeah, not afflictions. Afflictive emotions. I didn't hear, did anybody say afflictive emotions? Huh? Pretty good, huh? Total failure. I have just the students I deserve. Students like this make teachers. If a teacher walks in and the students already know, there's no teacher. Just a room full of teachers. But

[26:59]

students like this make teachers. Keep fighting, keep fighting, teacher has to get more and more alive. Okay, if I give you money, will you believe this stuff? Permanent money, money that doesn't change, money that's reliable, true money, truly existing money. So anyway, the next thing that arrives, you got the concept, you got a consciousness which is other dependent phenomena, a consciousness which dependently co-arises, and it gives rise to images of things that don't exist, and the images of the things that don't exist, those images do exist. They're

[28:01]

impermanent, but what they're imaging is something permanent. What they're imaging is something that doesn't dependently co-arise. There is no dependent co-arising of an actual separation between subject and object, that doesn't happen, it's only imagined, according to certain people. Once this idea imagines of imaginary existence, of an imaginary world way in which other dependent things exist, like that light is split into subject and object, really, once that exists, so far nothing much has happened in terms of problems, but when it's superimposed on the other dependent, then afflictive emotions arise. Afflictive emotions means emotions that give rise to affliction. And so you can imagine perhaps

[29:01]

how when you see something and you project on it a substantial separation from the seeing, that you might feel greedy towards it. Does that make sense? Because you really think it's out there, separate from you, and you might want to like make some effort to get it, rapaciously even. Just because you believe it's out there, you're like impelled towards trying to get it, or get away from it, or get it away from you, or perhaps you just can't tell which to do. Anyway, there is a freak-out which follows upon this superimposition and it's painful. And then, because you think somebody separate from the problem, that somebody who is self-produced can do something about this, so then activity based on this pain

[30:04]

and these unwholesome emotions and this ignorance, then action arises in response to those things. Right? So I got the three of the steps. Imputation, well, dependent co-arising of a false fantasy. There are some true fantasies. Okay? Not all imputational characters are false. Not all fantasies are false. We're talking about two big false ones, one of which you've heard. This is the easier one in a way. This is a false one, and this false one, we believe. Shucks. We believe that it belongs on top of dependent co-arising things, and then we start to feel these strange feelings for it, strange emotions, greed, hate and delusion,

[31:07]

and then we feel suffering, and then we try to do something about it, and that projects us to a re-enactment of the delusion. It's a dramatic enactment of the delusion. The separate person does something about the problem separate from the person, and then that sets a template which gets installed in the mind and the mind reproduces that thing again, so it's just round and round. Okay? So, that's one imputational character. Question? Okay. I think that's a little too complicated. Let's wait a little while. The second imputational character is the one that the Sutra speaks about, and it is the establishment of phenomena by way of their own character as reference of a conceptual

[32:14]

consciousness or a word. It's the imputational character which is the establishment, the imputation of the establishment of phenomena by way of their own character as reference of conceptual consciousness or words. Does that sound familiar? That's the second kind of imputation. That's the one the Sutra is working on. Pardon? How is it different? I'll get into how it's different in more detail, but just basically I'll say that it puts more emphasis on the linguistic function of objects of

[33:21]

words and reference, or images and reference to images. So, it's putting less emphasis on the subject-object split, although there are two aspects of believing that things have self. But we need to understand both these types, I think, really. So, this imputation is done in terms of entities and attributes. For example, an entity of a book and the book's attributes of being blue and old and valuable, those are the attributes. And then there's a non-existent imputational character of the book, or a non-existent imputational character, a non-existent fantasy

[34:29]

is imputed to the book, and that is to impute to the book that it exists by way of its own character as an object expressed in words for entities and attributes, or as a reference for conceptual consciousness about entities and attributes. Isn't that hard? So I told you yesterday it would be hard. But this is like just the beginning. You have to go over this, some of you have to go over this as many times as I've had to go over it, and many times before this starts to sink in. And I see some hands, but I think it's better to go forward a little bit before, unless you're trying to clarify terminology. Are you? By that question? Back there, Beren? No? Okay. Yes?

[35:32]

Yes? Yes? I will explain that, yes. And when this superimposition of, when this superimposition of other dependent characters exist or are established by way of their own character as reference, when that imputation is absent, that's the thoroughly established character. So, in other words, in order to

[36:42]

find the absence of it, we need to understand and be able to see how this is happening. So, again, in the next chapter, the sutra says something like, it is thus, those imputational characters are characters posited by names and terminology and do not subsist on the basis of their own character. But that's a short form of, do not exist by way of their own character as reference for words or conceptual consciousness. They do not exist by way of

[37:46]

their own character as reference for words or conceptual consciousness, therefore they are said to be character non-natures or a lack of own being in terms of character. So on one side there are things which depend on names and terminology and on the other side they do not subsist by way of their own character. Those two things, they depend on names and terminology, that's one reason why they are character non-natures, or a lack of own being in terms of character. And on the other side, they do not exist by way of their own character. Those are two reasons why they lack an own being in terms of character.

[38:47]

But you can also put them together because they are imputation in terms of names and so on that are not established by way of their own character, or they are not established by way of their own character as reference to these terms and names. So they are not established by way of their own character. Are other dependent characters established by way of their own character? Yes, they are. They are established by way of their own character. here. Are imputational characters established by way of their own character? Are imputational

[39:48]

characters established by way of their own character? Kathy says yes. How come, Kathy? Do you share what she said? Well, I disagree with you. We'll try it again, though, a little different. Are other dependent characters established by way of their own nature? Their own character? Yes, they are. Want to try it one more time, Kathy? Are other dependent characters established by way of their own character? What? Yes? How come? Use the answer that you used for the other character on that one. Use the answer you used for the other character on this one. Because if they weren't established by their

[40:51]

own character, they wouldn't be existing at all. Remember that one? That applies to the other dependent character, not the imputational character. The other dependent character is established by way of its own character. If it weren't established by way of its own character, it wouldn't be established at all. How come? The imputational character is also not understood. It could be understood. Don't you mean? Well, do you understand the imputational character? I'm sorry? Do you understand the imputational character? I have some feeling of the imputational character. Does she understand the imputational character? I have the conception that Monica has some grasp of the imputational character. Is there anybody here who doesn't understand it? Not that I know of. I can't move it up.

[41:54]

Well, I don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, the other dependent character phenomena is actually the objects of knowledge. Those are the things we know, except for emptiness. And, know means we know them. How do we know the other dependent character phenomena? By strongly adhering to it as the imputational. We know these things. These are the things we know. These are the things we work with. These are the impermanent phenomena. They are established by way of their own character. And what is their character? What? What? What? One person at a time is loudly, one person. Their characters are other dependent. Okay. So, are they established by way of their character?

[42:57]

Yeah, they're established by being other dependent. They're established by things other than themselves. Their character is the other dependent. They're established by way of that character. Their character is that the other powered. They're established by the power of things other than themselves. That's the way they're established, and that really is the way they're established, so their character is actually the way they're established. They're established by way of their character. Get it? Isn't that amazing? Some things are established by way of their own character. When their character is, they're established by way of conditions other than themselves. Imputational characters are not established by way of their own character, and that's the fact that they're not established by way of their own character, and that they are affirmed in connection with or by way of terminology and words.

[44:01]

That's why they lack own being in terms of their character. That's how they're not established, by way of their own character. They are established ... how are they established ... yeah, let's see ... by imputation ... by language, they're established by language, and imputation, they're established by fantasy, but not by their nature. The imputation arises other-dependently, but what is being imagined is not an other-dependency.

[45:02]

Even if you think you're imagining an other-dependency? Oh, I didn't understand that. Even if you think ... That's not an other-dependency, but it is other-dependent phenomena, but you can't imagine ... it's another-dependent phenomena, what she's thinking, but it's not ... I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, let's see ... she's imagining a story about how things dependently co-arise, and that image, if superimposed on something, would that be

[46:16]

an imputational character? Maybe. Okay, now I ... okay, so ... do you feel like I answered it? Well, I think ... to whose question it is? You didn't feel like you had an answer yet? Well, I just wanted to know if you felt like it was an answer. Was it an answer to your satisfaction, or do you feel like there's something there that's not? Well, I don't know if I'm satisfied, but I think it was answered maybe partially by saying that the imputational character,

[47:19]

if it's established, it subsists in dependence on names and terminology, or names and conceptual consciousness. That's how it's established, and it's not established by way of its own character, because its character is not that it's established by way of those things, that's not its character. Its character is, for example, that it exists independently. It's got a fantasy about itself, okay, that it doesn't depend on things. It's got a fantasy about itself that it's an entity with attributes. It's got a fantasy about

[48:26]

itself that it's actually something there about the other dependent. There's something about it that really is referred to by this word, which exists in the other dependent. That fantasy about itself doesn't actually get established by way of its character, it just gets established by the words and the conceptual consciousness. So that's kind of how it gets established. Well, you could say that, but that's kind of general, but specifically we're talking about, we're trying to find out the particular ones, and we happen to know what they are apparently, because the Sutra told us that it's by the words and conceptual consciousness that it's affirmed.

[49:27]

And, which goes with it, it is not established by way of its own character, because its own character is not saying, hey, there's something interdependent here. Rather, it's projecting something as though there actually is something that's a reference of these words that belongs on top of the other dependent. So that whole gesture is not the way it gets established. It gets established by dependence on these particular things, and these things are other dependent phenomena, like words and conceptual consciousness are other dependent phenomena. So it does depend on them, or in dependence on them, it's affirmed. And so that's how the arising of the fantasy occurs, but what's being imagined is not something like that. It's what's being imagined is something that subsists by way of its own nature, in terms of reference for words and

[50:34]

conceptual consciousness. So, the imputational character that the Sutra is talking about here, different from like uncompounded space or general characteristics of phenomena, is not that a name of the object is not the object. It's not that. And it's also not that the object is the name. So, we're not refuting that the name of the object is the object. We're not refuting that the name of the object is the object. We're not saying that's not true.

[51:43]

And we're not saying that the object is its name. We're not trying to refute that. We don't need to. Most people know that the object is not the name, right? Like if I say tree now, it doesn't produce a tree. So, we're not arguing with that. People don't think that the word tree is the tree, right? The thing that we're refuting is the conception that other dependent characters are established by way of their own character. As reference of conceptual consciousness or word. Objects, other dependent characters, are reference of conceptual consciousness and terminology.

[53:05]

Other dependent phenomena are reference of the concepts about them. The erroneous concept that's imputed, which is the source of our problems, the imputational character that's imputed, which is our problem source, is not that the name of the object is the object. That's not the problem. Right? I just mentioned that because you might think that was the problem. Not thinking it yet? So, that's not the erroneous, that's not the imputational character that we're worried about here.

[54:17]

That could be an imputational character that somebody would do, but that person wouldn't have common sense, right? Some people don't have common sense, and they would think that an object is the word, or the word is the object, all right? But this isn't really our problem, this isn't the problem that we all have innately, which is really like causing the world suffering. Okay? But it's closely related to what is the problem. No, I wouldn't. The problem is the conception that the other dependent character is established by way of their own character as reference of conceptual consciousness or words. Isn't that hard? Because I just said other dependent phenomena are established by way of their own character.

[55:21]

Didn't I say that? But they're not established by way of their own character as reference for words or concepts. That's the key difference. Is that reference spelled R-E-F-E-R-E-N-T-S? Reference is spelled, reference is spelled R-E-F-E-R-E-N-T-S. No, it's talking about a certain type of imputation, and what's being imputed is that other dependent phenomena, basically the objects of knowledge, impermanent things, it's the conception that they're established by way of their own character, which is true to that point that they are, because their character is that they're other dependent, so they are established by way of their own character.

[56:32]

So that's what other dependent character is, it's an other dependent thing that's established by way of its other dependents. The subtle and key erroneous imagination is that they're established by way of their own character as reference for words or conceptual consciousness, that's the error. They're not established by way of being referenced for words, they're established by way of being other dependent, by depending on it, that's the way they're established. So when you say they're established by way of their own character, yes, that's right, but then you throw in this other thing as reference to terminology, conceptual consciousness and so on, and that concept is the erroneous concept. That's the imputation that's overlaid, that is the problem. That's what, first of all, obscures the nature of other dependent phenomena, and thereby causes an appearance of things as being different from what they are, which then gives rise to these unfortunate emotions.

[57:47]

Objects are referenced to these words, they are. A book, other dependent phenomena like a book is a reference to the word book. That's true. So, what is being pointed to as erroneous is not merely that objects are not reference of conceptual consciousness, or that objects are the reference of terms, because they are. Objects are. Dependently co-arisen phenomena are. Other dependent characters are the reference of conceptual consciousness and terminology, but they are not established as such by way of their own being. Agreeing with this referentiality, or agreeing that this referentiality actually lives in the objects themselves is what must be given up.

[59:12]

So, what happens is that we actually now impute some reference to the words we use to refer to objects. We do use words to refer to objects, like I use Kimberly to refer to you, and you are you actually, this wonderful other dependent, radiant, impermanent, unreliable person is the reference of the word Kimberly. She is. I'm not refuting that. That's not erroneous. What's erroneous is to think that this other dependent character here is the referent, to think that she is established by way of that referent, rather than she's established by way of other dependents, that there's actually like a referent in there.

[60:22]

And we make that mistake, and this mistake is subtle and extremely crucial in the suffering of this world, and this is what we need to study more and more, and now there can be questions. Well, it says, there's various ways of putting it. One way is words and terminology, another way is words and conceptual consciousness. So it can be images, this is a pre-verbal thing, but it also can use words. So it depends on conceptual consciousnesses and words, or words, not necessarily and, either one.

[61:29]

So that's why it's pre-verbal, that's why it's innate, and it's not just in humans. Other beings have this too. So it's pre-verbal, innate, and beyond just the human realm. The special thing about the human realm is we have instructions which can help us turn around and look at this, and stop believing it. Other beings believe this too. They believe that the conceptual consciousness, you know, that is the referent to the thing they're looking at. Like, you know, acceptable material to cover comes through a cell wall, you know, they've got that thing going on, and the subject-object splits there, you know, they've got afflictive emotions too, they have mean cells and stuff. This pattern, you know, is deeply in us, it's in ourselves. That's why if you just change it in your head, it's not enough. You have to re-educate yourself, that's why all beings have this program.

[62:36]

So yeah, it's pre-verbal and innate, it's not there before you're born. Okay, somebody over here, yes? Oh, two of them, yes? What is another way of saying what the problem is? Not that we confuse the name with the object, but that we confuse a concept with the name. So did you say it's not that we confuse the name with the object, but we confuse a concept of the object with the object? What's implied by the word Kimberly? Like, what's implied by the word Kimberly?

[63:50]

No, I don't think that's the problem. I think you can tell that your concept is not the object, right? You don't have that problem, do you? You don't think the word tree is a tree or that your concept of the tree is a tree, do you? Maybe not on the first level, but ... Well, tentatively anyway, I don't think that's the problem. You say it's kind of the most promising way? Not exactly a better way, just more about what we're talking about here. It's more like that you look at a tree and you have this word called tree and you understand that the word tree refers to that object. But you don't think the object is the tree, that's not the problem.

[65:18]

The problem is that you think that there's something that the word tree refers to in the person through which this thing comes to be. Now, you know that, actually you're right, that whatever it is, it does dependently co-arise, and that's its character, and it does exist by way of its character, that it's a dependent co-arising, but it doesn't exist by way of something about it which is the referent to your word. That isn't the way it exists. That there's a referent in it that goes with the word, like an essence. It doesn't exist that way. However, it is the referent to the word. We're not saying it's not the referent to the word, otherwise we wouldn't be able to find Kimberly or the tree. But we can find Kimberly and the tree by using the word Kimberly and tree properly.

[66:22]

We're not refuting that and we're not refuting some other strange things which are also erroneous but we don't have to talk about because they're not that important, like people thinking that Kimberly is the tree. We're not talking about that. Or that Kimberly is some characteristic of the tree. Kimberly is some variety of the tree. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about that we actually imagine that there's something about the other dependent as a referent to the word that inheres in it and it's established by way of its character in terms of that referent. That's the mistake that we're talking about here. That's the error. And it'd be good, so we're trying to see, listen to that teaching and see if you can find that. So we're hearing teachings about the other dependent and then you can see how with the other dependent teachings

[67:28]

that you're being told that before you hear these teachings and take them in, you think things are solid, dependable, reliable, permanent, stable. You think that before you hear this teaching. And you actually see things that way. As you hear this teaching more and more, you start to enter into a meditation on that character and enter into more and more rapport with the other dependent character, which you can't know in the usual way without confusing it with this other thing, which is the problem. And you actually enter into that. And then your behavior starts to change. And as your behavior changes, you become more and more ready to, as you are now, your behavior has changed during this practice period. So now you're more and more ready to hear the next level of the teaching because that level of teaching still leaves your misconceptions, your erroneous conceptions. They're still sitting there and you believe them, probably. So now we have to look at them and get clear about what they are.

[68:30]

And that's what you're doing in this conversation here, so that we can like stop believing this erroneous conception, which we not only have erroneous conceptions, but we take that erroneous conception and slap it onto what's happening. And then we have effective emotion and suffering and so on. Okay? Yes? Well, it seems to me that there is some sense of irreverent existing in this other dependent phenomena. But what's being pointed here to is not just that you're imputing some old existence to it,

[69:31]

but a particular existence which is the reference to the word. So it zeroes in on actually that there's a reference. Like, we don't think that just Kimberly generally really exists. It's a particular thing that goes with the word of Kimberly that we might think is actually there. Getting a lot of attention today here. So, in a sense, there is this imputation in terms of essences and attributes. Okay? But the way the essences are imputed is in dependence. The imputation uses words and conceptual imagination in the process of imputing these things as a reference to the word. I'm not sure, but I think the reference is both essences and attributes.

[70:37]

Both. That's what the Sutra says. With reference to the essences and attributes. So the imputation is in terms of essences and attributes, and the mistake is that we think that the other dependent character, which we know correctly, arises by its own character. We add into it that its character is that there's something about it which actually is a reference to this word. That's a mistake. The big one. So Kimberly gets to ask a question, I guess, so she can survive. What the object being referred to by something. So, you are, whatever you are, the other dependent character that you are,

[71:38]

the impermanent and so on being that you are, the miraculously dependently co-arisen being that you are, we call Kimberly, and you are the referent of that word. Kimberly. I guess, right? We're not refuting that, and in fact you are. In that sense, you're a referent. You're not the only one, but anyway, you're one of the referents for the word Kimberly. If we need to get more specific, we mentioned your last name, social security number, and so on. But you are also the referent of a social security number. That's true, conventionally. That's not an erroneous concept. But it is an erroneous concept that an other dependent being is established by way of our own character as in that way. Other dependent things are established by their own character,

[72:41]

but not in that way that they're referenced to terminology and concepts. Not that way. But the funny thing is, we think that's the way they are established. We hear about them, and we meditate on them as being established by way of their own character, which is being other dependent. And that's why that meditation is the basis for the next one. Because as you get more and more virtuous in this meditation, you also get more and more intimate with the reality of the other dependent character. You get more intimate with the way they're actually established by their own character. You get more intimate with impermanence and other dependence. Then you're more ready to see how then you turn to these very same phenomena which you've been meditating as established by way of other dependence, and now you think they're established by way of their own character in the mode of being a referent to this terminology or name.

[73:43]

That's false. And now you're in a better position to see it's false, because you're intimate with the way it's not that way, although you can't see it that way, because in order to see it that way, you have to use the imputation. So it's a pretty subtle thing here we have happening. I see two hands, but there were some people before that. Who was a long time ago? A long time ago, I think, was Liz and maybe Martha. And I think maybe Susan next. And I don't know, Sam and Vernon. And also there's another question which I'll do before this, because this came in before the lecture. Yes, Liz? You say in part? It seems like our problem is? Could you speak up, please, if you want me to hear you?

[74:49]

I still couldn't hear you. Sorry. You can come closer if you want to, if you don't want to interrupt. If you don't want to yell, just come and whisper it to me. Do you want me to hear it? Can I relate it to relinquishing all thinking? Any particular way you want me to relate it? Could this relate to the question that was before the question? How to lighten the burden of attaching our concepts and believing them? How to lighten the burden of attaching our concepts and believing them? Well, the first step in this process of lightening the burden of believing our attachments, and I might take another step on what you said.

[76:05]

You said lightening the burden of believing our attachments, right? So perhaps one of the most lightening ways, or enlightening ways, or de-heavifying ways to deal with our attachments to our beliefs would be to see that they're totally an illusion. That's the way to really lighten them up, right? Does that make sense? And that's what we're approaching here now. We're sort of approaching the possibility of a major, a total giving up of the burden of these misconceptions. That's the goal here. You're wondering how does that happen? The first step is meditating on the other dependent character. The second step is to look at and try to understand these things that are burdening us. That's what we're doing now. Now, do you have some questions about that?

[77:06]

The second step, we're getting into the second step now, of looking at what it is that creates the burden. Meditating on the other dependent, we're kind of like getting used to opening up to the other dependent character, unburdened. Okay? And that's very good for us to be more and more in rapport with this other dependent character. It has various, you know, almost unspeakably wonderful benefits. But it's not enough, because the misconception is still sitting there and believable. Forever young and still to be enjoyed. I often think of Keith, and you know, truth is beauty, beauty is truth.

[78:10]

Something like, this is all you need to know, and all you ever will know, or all you'll ever know on earth, and all you need to know. It may be all you'll ever know on earth, but it's not all you'll ever know. You could know something more than truth is beauty. Actually, beauty is the first step towards truth. The second step is to realize the absence of these imputations in the beauty. And this relates to the question of, it almost looked to somebody as though the meditation on light, or the meditation on other dependents, started to sound like Samatha practice. I'll read the first part of this. Samatha, or calming practice, is basically giving up discursive thought.

[79:14]

The sutra says it uses non-conceptual images. When you read this to me, did you say energies? You said images? I heard you say energies, and I thought that's interesting. Interesting way to put it. Samatha is basically giving up discursive thought, or the sutra says, using non-conceptual images. But let's just say discursive thought for now. And then it says meditation on dependent co-arising, or absorption in the womb of light, is inconceivable and beyond thinking. So, if it's beyond thinking, this seems to imply also continuing to give up discursive thought. Okay?

[80:17]

Does that make sense, that question? Like, you have inhaling and exhaling, and if you're with the inhale and exhale, and you give up discursive thought, okay? Then you become calm. And maybe then you would enter the womb of light. So what's the difference between trusting everything to inhalation and exhalation, and while inhaling, giving up discursive thought? Sounds similar, right? That was the point. Part of the point, anyway. So, this way of describing meditation on dependent co-arising, or meditation on the other dependent,

[81:18]

seems to imply also continuing to give up discursive thought, and conceptual images. It's not so much to give up conceptual images, but give up being conceptual about the images. It's giving up conceptual elaboration of images, which means giving up discursive thought on top of the conceptual images. Okay? So then, how is it different from Mirshamata? The sutra says that Vipassana uses conceptual images. Okay? So in sight work, you're using conceptual images, and in the calming work, you're practicing with a non-conceptual object. But a non-conceptual object means,

[82:18]

it implies the way you work with concepts, and the way you work with concepts is you don't elaborate them. Not elaborating concepts, you calm down. Insight work is to use the concepts. So, if you're experiencing a concept like a breath, because again, when you're breathing, you're looking at the breathing through your imputations about the breathing, so you're not actually yet seeing the other dependent character. Usually, you look at the breath, you see the concept of the breath, so the breath looks pretty, you know, like the pre-substantial breath, you know. It's not just radiant. You can find it, you know. It's kind of fluid, but it's got boundaries for most people, like the breath isn't the time, the breath isn't your foot, the breath isn't yesterday, and so on.

[83:21]

So, you're focusing on this image of the breath, but you're not being discursive about it, you're not elaborating on it, and you calm down. Trust everything to the breath, it's similar in the sense that you're just trusting to the breath, but you're using this concept now, in the wisdom work, and how do you use the concept? Yeah, how do you use it? Give everything to it, and then in the process, you might calm down in the process, but basically what you're doing is you're using the object in a way such that your vision opens up. You start to see the object for what it is, and what do you see? You see the object is impermanent, unstable, unreliable. In Samatha practice,

[84:22]

you don't necessarily see the object. Now, if you've had wisdom teaching, and you've heard these teachings, and you're practicing Samatha, then your mind can flip over from not being elaborative on the concept, can switch over from not being elaborative on the concept and calming down, to not switching to be elaborate, but using discursive thought now, using discursive thought of trust everything to this breath, and leap into the womb of light. Trust everything to this breath, and open to dependent co-arising. Because now what you're trying to do here, what you're devoted to, is to see the nature of the object. In the other case, you were not trying to see the nature of the object. If you were trying to see the nature of the object, when you're doing Samatha practice, you weren't doing Samatha practice.

[85:25]

You were calling it Samatha practice, but really you were doing insight practice, because you really wanted to see what is the breath. This is a wonderful enterprise called wisdom practice. You're training yourself in wisdom if you want to understand the nature of the breath. When you start looking at the breath, at first you don't see the other dependent character. You see the other dependent character strongly adhered to as the imputational character. So it looks permanent, out there, and so on. And you accept that, hopefully. And you don't say, well, since I'm not seeing the real other dependent character, I'm going to look at something else. No, you completely work with this, because the fact that you see it this way is also a dependent co-arising. And as you work with this in this way, of giving yourself entirely to it, which is a kind of concentration, but it's not a calming type, it's an insight focus. You start to open.

[86:28]

You can't see impermanence exactly. You can't see the instability, but in fact you do understand it. You sense it. You smell it. You taste it. You intuit it. You feel it. And you can reason it. You can think it. You can think it out. But you can't see it with your eyes, but you can sense it with your eyes. In other words, you can become absorbed in the way things are. And then you can also feel the impulse of invitation start to crop up and so on. People have had glimpses in this practice period of the other dependent. They saw the light. And it was a light that you can't see. It's the light of rather than seeing

[87:32]

that you are doing the practice, that the practice is doing you. Rather than you're doing the breathing, the breathing is doing you. Rather than you're walking into this room and practicing here, the room happens and then you happen. This is... How do you see that? You can't see that, but you can see it. So, the difference between these two is the difference between two intimately related dimensions of meditation. They're not zillions of light years away. As a matter of fact, they're yearning to be united. And in the end of insight practice, because they're so similar, they can be united. The calming, the giving up discursive thought, can be united with using discursive thought in order to penetrate to the nature of the object. And you can use instructions, a wisdom practice, to penetrate the nature of phenomena,

[88:34]

like breath. Various words like trust everything to breath, trust everything to some dependently co-arisen phenomena, trust everything to some other dependent phenomena, which you don't yet see as other dependent as the way it really is. But you know all the things that are candidates for this vision, namely everything you see. So, you pay attention to something like your breath and you give yourself completely to it. But your agenda is to see it, to understand it, to open to a vision of how it's other dependent. And you hear these teachings over and over. Whatever it is, breath, body, feelings, this phenomena depends on things other than itself for its arising. You hear that teaching, you hear that teaching, you hear that teaching, and you... What? You get ready. How do you get ready?

[89:35]

Watch the thing that you want the revelation about. What do you want to understand? The object in front of you. Look at it. Now, it doesn't say look at it and get all excited about it, but you look at it and you sort of, a little bit, remember the instruction that you're looking at this to see what it is. And in particular, you actually want to see some particular aspect about it because you're told, let's first look for the other dependent character of the phenomena. This is the other dependent character. Let's see if you can see that that's so. So, you actually are looking and using your discursive thought to some extent, hopefully, eventually, in the way that will help you realize this. Or... Yeah. So, can you see a little difference between the two? Do you have any more questions about it? Did that sort of clarify for you? Yeah. But they're very close.

[90:37]

And once you use your discursive thought to look at this object, to look at that concept and use the concept as the opportunity for penetration and vision of the radiant other dependent way it is, then you're ready to practice virtue spontaneously because the way you see things is that you do not any longer get excessively involved with them because you don't get involved excessively with impermanent unreliable unworthy of confidence other dependent things. You love them. You're devoted to them. You enjoy the light. But you do not get excessively involved, fortunately, for everyone concerned. Devoted without excess. However, you're not completely free of excessiveness

[91:38]

and not completely free of attachment because you still have this lurking misconception which could come in there and obscure the whole thing again and cause you to become excessive. You're always vulnerable to start thinking, Oh, God, this one is permanent. And then become excessive towards something which is very beautiful to you. There's still the impulse to get a purchase on the light, get a purchase on the beauty and start selling it and become a great famous artist. See the difference? Now, in order to avoid slipping in that way, eventually, we're now turning to look at the main slippery concept that we have been overlaying on the other dependent for a long time and always inclined to do so

[92:38]

even while we're meditating on the other dependent, this can come back. So it's right available to us and based on that we're not going to look at it. And this is the hard work, the subtle work of spending a lot of time getting really familiar with it. So then, after we know what it is really clearly and get a feeling for it and can confess it left and right because we're still caught by it, then we have a chance to look carefully at the other dependent and see that really this thing never reaches it. It only can be superimposed. It never gets into the other dependent. It's never in there. The stuff that's trying to... and that's what other people often report when they see the...

[93:29]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ