Nature, meaning, and therefore there is only frustration and hindrance if we are independent. This understanding of the earth of emptiness and purpose, the purpose of emptiness and the significance of emptiness must be correct. As a consequence, you are harmed by it, harmed by your independence. And the first chapter of Henry's first book, Fixed Characters, are the opponent's criticism and questioning of Nagarjuna's teaching about emptiness. And I was touched in the find a reference to a place where Buddha was criticized and recognized for a very similar teaching of the non-inherent existence of the human consciousness, human being.

[01:28]

he did not accept that there was a permanent, inherently existing being. So, during his lifetime apparently he was criticized and heard about it. And he said, referring to this, so saying Bhikkhus, so proclaiming these things, I have been facelessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and Brahmins thus. The recluse Gautama is one who leads astray, who teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of existing being. As I am not As I do not proclaim, so I have been basely, vainly, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins.

[02:40]

Thus, the recluse Gautama is one who leads astray, teaches annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of existing being. I took the middle leg the same, the first section, so it's 1, 140. He took both one leg, and now What I teach is suffering and cessation of suffering.

[03:42]

If others abuse, revile, scold, and harass, and to target to that, and to target to that, on that account, feels no annoyance. bitterness, or dejection of heart. And if others honor, respect, and venerate the tathagata for that, the tathagata on account of that feels no delight, joy, or relation of the heart. If others honor, respect, and revere the tathagata for that, the tathagata on that account thinks thus. They perform such services as these for the sake of what had earlier come to be fully understood. That means that they come to perform such services as these for the sake of what we have earlier come to understand as bystanders.

[04:56]

for the sake of Christ. So, you know, if Bakuda... gives a talk about, he teaches about suffering and the cessation of suffering, and some people revere, honor, respect, and venerate the Tathagata while the Tathagata speaks about the suffering and cessation of suffering. If they venerate and so on, they do so for the sake of what we Buddhists have previously understood as the Pātas Cāngas. In other words, they're venerating Pātas Cāngas. which I'm not talking this way. They're talking, the five skandhas are going, suffering, the cessation of suffering, here's how suffering is caused, here's how suffering, here's how causes drop to earth, here's how suffering ends. This is five skandhas talking. And sometimes people venerate the five skandhas when they're talking this way.

[06:05]

So, if that should happen, when that happens, what the target thinks, oh, these people are generating what I have previously understood as five skandhas. Therefore, I do not become delighted in someone's veneration of the five skandhas. Similarly, if they harass, revile, scold, and abuse, I would also understand this as in the service of what had previously been understood by Sanders before he met the objective. This is one of the main stories that attracted me to Zen in the form of Coquelin when he was, first of all, reviled, harassed, abused, criticized, put down, and punished. And he said, ah, is this happy?

[07:10]

Yeah, I see. And then later he was revered, honored, venerated, and pretty much understood the same thing. He did not get overjoyed at the veneration. So, you know, there we go. Therefore, bhikkhus, bhikshunis, monks and monkesses, If others abuse, revile, scold, harass, and nickname you, on that account, you should not entertain the annoyance, bitterness, rejection of heart. And on the other hand, if others honor, revere, respect, and venerate you, on that account you should not entertain any delight, joy, or elation at the heart. If others honor, respect, and revere or venerate you on that account, you should think thus.

[08:15]

They perform such service as it be for the sake of what had earlier come to be fully understood, as the past count does. which means you know you don't take it personally but also you don't take it you know just personally either it's not they're not talking about somebody else either Sort of like somebody else. They're talking about five skandhas. Anyway, so the Buddha teaches the five skandhas, teaches selflessness, gets reviled, and then when reviled, practices selflessness, continues the practice, does not get excited for all the joy of the press. And Mr. Evans, too, he didn't mention it. It is nice because it shows that even the Buddha had some hassle, some flack for this teaching that he was giving, just like Nagarjuna's giving it.

[09:19]

But basically the same message. That's a good thing. It's a good question. Is it a good thing? I don't know. be questioned. Are you questioning me? Is it a good thing? Well, that's good. But I'm not going to get elated about it, right? Because you're doing some service of what has been previously understood. Well, I think it's good. Or deafness. You don't have to go back to the Buddha. You don't have to come back. Well, the Buddha wasn't accusing those people of being attached. He was just saying that I was reviled and so on, and I didn't get up. Was he questioning you? Or did they really attack you? Well, he said reviled. He didn't say they questioned me, but they might have done that too.

[10:24]

He didn't make it mentioned on that list that they questioned you. In this text, it isn't... In this text here, where Nara Jun is quoting it, it's not really a revilement. It's more like questioning. Okay, just not agreeing. In this text, it's kind of like questioning and not agreeing, but Buddha apparently got a little rougher treatment. And it's... I just, you know, it's comforting for me to hear that Buddha got these revilement, harassment, and abuse. Even his cousin tried to cut him off. Sorry. We shall see. Anyway, then the next one, number eight, is the teaching of the Dharma by the various Buddhas is based on two truths, namely

[11:25]

relative worldly truth and absolute supreme truth. The word absolute can just mean complete, but some of the leading we've been doing makes it sort of sensitive to the word absolute as though there's something substantial there. Another translation is Buddha's teaching of Dharma based on two truths, the truth of worldly convention and the truth in ultimate truth. Another one is the teaching of the doctrine by the Buddhas is based upon two truths, the truth relating to worldly convention and the truth in terms of ultimate truth. Those who do not know the distinction between the two truths cannot understand the profound nature of the Buddhist teaching.

[12:42]

Those who do not understand the distinction between the two truths do not understand the profound truth embodied in the Buddhist message. I know you can. Without relying on everyday common practices, absolute truth cannot be expressed. Without approaching the absolute truth, nirvana cannot be attained. Without relying on worldly convention, the ultimate truth cannot be taught. Without understanding the ultimate truth, freedom cannot be attained. Without a foundation in the conventional truth, the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is now achieved. Does that make it sound like there's a lot of preparation you have to do for liberation?

[13:58]

You have to study. We want to call study preparation. But you don't have to study with the sense of preparation. You don't have to think of it in those terms. You could, but you can just think that study is necessary. Because without study, liberation is someplace else. Study is what brings you to realize intimacy with God. Like study appreciated? Yeah. If you appreciate diamond, you might study it. If you study it in an effective way that you appreciate it, it wouldn't be that you study it with some prejudice against it. And of course, true study would actually be you wouldn't even have prejudice for it.

[15:04]

But you might start with prejudice for it. That's what a lot of people do. But that becomes later something that you have to draw in order to really begin with the Dharma. So you can see the preparation, but just see it as the way to enter the realm of realization. It's like just taking your seat. Now, realization's all over the place, but if you don't take your seat, somehow, you're never even more perfect. So if you want to say, taking your seat is preparation for it, you take your seat back. The world of truth or the world of adventure.

[16:20]

And so studying this character made me think a lot about the book, you know, about token precepts. Because there are worldly conventions in terms of what we call conduct or morality. So the Buddha said that, you know, he defined good as good is that which is fruitful and bad is that which is unfulfilled. There's another chapter. There's two other chapters which are related. Deep faith can cause an effect or condition an effect.

[17:40]

And the other one's called comic retribution of good times. And in there, the conventional, the more conventional way of putting it is in the classical, you know, don't do anything evil or refrain from doing evil. That basketball deals with those three precepts. I mean, to frame them all, you will practice all good and benefit all beings. And in a sense, it is more the ultimate perspective. Or you could say it's a teaching about moral principle from the point of view of ultimate fruit. That chapter in Sobo Genzo is teaching the moral principle which you need to understand in order to realize awakening and liberation. So in that chapter, Dogen says that the awakening of all Buddhas is refrained from all evil.

[18:50]

And if you don't have refraining from all evil, then you don't have the awakening of the Buddhas. So the perspective of that fascicle is like the perspective you need to have in order to attain liberation. But before you read that fascicle, that fascicle teaches the significance of the ultimate. Before you read that fascicle, you need an invention. which you didn't mention, which you read in other chapters before that, but you do actually, and that's what this person is saying, is that you need to understand the conventional truth before the ultimate significance gets taught to you, or the moral principle in terms of liberation is taught to you. Well, a functional tribal theory on Buddhist conventional Buddha would be that which does not lead towards fruition.

[19:56]

Well, not fruition, but truth, I think. Because all actions have fruition. But you said that the quote here is saying, fruitful and unfruitful. And the Buddha recognized... that views about good and bad are, in most cases, relative conventions. The views, most of the time, views about good and bad are relative conventions. And so pushala and apushala, are conventions that vary depending on the situation. So these are ways of the world, and they're characterized as in Pali.

[20:59]

Sound working. So in this translation work, ,, the way to understand this is that the conventional situation is how you define, in different contexts, the kinds of behaviors or whatever that leads to a fruit.

[22:09]

And one of the words for fruit is parta in Sanskrit, or in Pali. for the conventional truth, which is about things that are fruitful, that have fruit, and then there's the teaching about what has the ultimate fruit, which is paramartha, paramartha or paramartha. Open fruit. And so wants to emphasize that paramartha is about ultimate fruit rather than about ultimate reality. The outcome? Yeah. Yeah. Outcome. Yeah. So yeah, outcome. Yes. Is the ultimate truth a karmic truth?

[23:15]

Or being an ultimate truth? Conventional truth is often in terms of karma. Ultimate truth is usually not in terms of karma. But before they talk about an outcome that's not permanent, you need to understand the rules of time. So you need the conventional moral teaching, and you need the ultimate moral teaching, the moral principle. So that the ultimate moral principle that guides you through to perfect alignment with awakening It has to be. According to the Dolem, this ultimate principle that the significance of which guides you to achieving liberation still has to be.

[24:23]

We pray to Maulika. We practice our good and clarify the mind. It still has to be that precept. So that's part of what You know, I'm struggling with this, obviously, with the discussion of precepts, how to lay a foundation of discussion about these precepts and moral issues according to conventional way of understanding. And then how to use that as a base for the discussion in principle that's necessary to liberation. You could also have a conventional understanding of other things besides moral. issues for behavior. But it turns out that, in some sense, the way Margaret Geary uses this term about the electoral truth is that's going to be focused on moral issues that wouldn't have to be necessarily.

[25:35]

It is, in fact, what is both very helpful to me I'm just a little confused about what fruit means, whether it means something that leads to wholesomeness or whether it means something that implies, like, a sense of liberation from a substantial view or, you know, what and how it would be differentiated between a conventional and an ultimate aspect. Well, in the conventional world, If you do that, it has a result. But I guess, in some sense, in the conventional world, fruitful means maybe something that you appreciate or something that you really intend. So again, the word kushala means skillful.

[26:42]

And akushala means unskillful. So when you're skillful in the conventional sense, that goes with, in a particular context, skillful then means you learn the rules and conventions of the situation and apply them skillfully, and that's truthful. You intentionally realize in the conventional world. You could take it on that conventional level. But you can also discuss earlier what that means and arrive at, in this situation, We can arrive at another situation where the determined understanding of what fruit means or what this girl means is gone. And that discussion, that discourse, will bring around a conventional meaning. And you can't skip over that. And I think you can understand, without understanding that, you wouldn't be able to understand the ultimate.

[27:48]

If you think about that, you might have an interesting thought. I try to think how you've heard any teachers about the ultimate. We were teachers about things from the perspective of the ultimate. Try to imagine how you would understand it if you had no understanding of the conventional. Imagine what kind of mind you'd have if you had no understanding of conventional, or you had no fluency in conventional discourse, or you were unwilling to participate in it. Imagine how wacky you might be in your interpretation of the ultimate. And if you're afraid, you know, just straight-line ultimate message. And imagine how you might get into kind of a crazy space, Some people reject, you know, they will not listen to conventional truth, but they are willing to listen to ultimate truth, or ultimate teaching, or the truth from the perspective of liberation.

[28:58]

Some people are willing to do that because for some reason it doesn't... It doesn't, you know, irritate some kinds of attachments that they have, or doesn't bring up some conditioning that's very annoying for them, which they don't want to deal with. It comes up in a certain stuff, things like, you know, the exact, you know, the result of something. Are we following this? I mean, is it a little bit different? And then, now somebody who refuses to deal with conventional reality and stops right there, this is just a resistant person who's in trouble because they won't face, they won't study cause and effect. They're in trouble, but in some ways not in as bad trouble as if they may just like jump into thinking that they were enlightened. It's pretty bad to not be willing to discuss You know, and not giving credit will cause an effect. That's a pretty bad situation. That's considered to be a very bad situation for a day to be in.

[30:03]

But you'll be in your state if you've been hearing some rumors about the ultimate voltage. You'll talk, oh, how do you go with that? And then you get in this very... creating space. In some way, if you don't recognize cognitive effect, you get into a very miserable situation. But the misery is in some ways something that we could deal with. But then you sort of skip over even the misery and go into some elevated state. Then you're maybe more in multiple systems. That's why we don't intend to bring up the ultimate teaching until the person is grounded in the conventional truth, the ultimate teaching of the truth from the point of view of the ultimate attainment before the person is willing to get out of the truth in terms of conventional discourse.

[31:04]

So I think I have another question. Well, not that one would understand it. There's nothing special means you should be willing to deal with the reality as a basis for the final, the final structure. Just a question. I wonder if you would agree that, I think you brought up the example before, but like the middle, some of the Middle East terrorist organizations, you know, that are associated with some fundamental religious group seem to be, to me, in that group where they've skipped over conventional reality and ignored that and think they have some absolute, you know, truth that they're acting upon and therefore whatever they do is justified. Like they can blow up airplanes with innocent people on and so forth. So they seem to be, to me, in that group I don't know what's going on in their minds whether they're skipping over the conventional truth or not.

[32:05]

It might be that they're still involved in conventional truth and they're saying, we will, in the conventional world, do these things which are according to conventional truth, what we call it, bad, and we'll do that for the sake of this. They might say, no, we're not ignoring it. but be willing to do that for their religious eviction. But I think that, again, you might say that they're not skipping over it, but they may even understand it. But it's hard for me to assess their understanding. I don't know. I haven't actually talked to them. Well, you can even find out. If you can speak to them, you can find out for the past where they worked or where they're from. And you can assess where they stand. Well, it just occurred to me what Kerr was saying, that in the Theravadin tradition, we only use the term mundane and super mundane. So I think it's at the point of the same distinction between conventional and ultimate.

[33:12]

In this case, though, in this discussion, I don't see the term. There's logica. The word logica would be worldly. And logica means of the world. And then there's a word called locotra. Locotra. Loca plus utara. which means beyond the world, of the world and beyond the world. That particular terminology is not being used here. The word loco is not being used here. The word that's being used here is or . So they're using the word conventional relative to the word . They're using conventional whole-worldly to kind of emphasize convention. Because convention is like, we have a convention, right? We have discourse and we talk about what we believe. So part of what the congenital meaning is that we can read, we have a discussion, we have some commonality of discourse.

[34:30]

And according to that, we have truth. And that truth is relative to the discourse, and it could change. And the truth there is not universal. It's not a universal truth. It only applies to this situation. In this case, when the absolute That's one of the few instances where, I mean, I don't think the translation to me doesn't seem irrelevant. I mean, it just seems to me really off the mark because of the connotations of absolute moon. You know, I can buy supreme or truth of the highest moon or ultimate truth or something like that. But it absolutely seems to suggest that exactly the opposite of what that parakeet is trying to say, that emptiness... as a concept it's universally applicable and the higher concept than all the others and the goal is fixed and it's exactly what monger dean it seems not to be so i don't know if you would agree with that but it's kind of what do you think for me off to see for me well you you're uh i agree with you uh you're a little bit more

[35:38]

give a call about it. What? Vehement. Yeah, vehement. That's a good word. You can say more vehement than I am, but I agree. I like these other translations better. That's why I read them in addition. Rather than... I like ultimate. In and, you know. And ultimate also means vehement. Ultimate or final. The point of it all, you know. More like the point of it all rather than something substantial or something real. So again, I think it's from the point of view of cessation of suffering. So what is the meaning of certain things from the point of view of the cessation of suffering? So what's the meaning of phenomenon from the point of view of the cessation of suffering? Well, the meaning of, well, one meaning from the point of view of cessation of suffering is the meaning of self. From the point of view of liberation from suffering, from that point of view, you teach no self.

[36:43]

From that point of view, you teach no suffering. You teach no other and so on. That's the kind of principle you need to tune into to liberation, but before that, You have to put it to the teaching of self, to the teaching of suffering, to the teaching of separation, to the teaching of anxiety, and to the teaching that those truths have to be accepted. And those truths are not inferior to the other truths. The truth of what is suffering and what is suffering and what isn't happening, that truth is as much of a truth as hope that there isn't. It's just that that truth will not get you liberated. However, if you accept that truth fully, the other truth will either be given to you by somebody, like somebody will say it to you, or you open a book and it will say it there, or it will come up in your own mind.

[37:48]

If you didn't read a book, that said, no self. He was just looking at the self, and suddenly, I don't know what happened, no self popped up in his face. And that is the perspective of what liberated him. Now that that happened to him, it's like, it's kind of like, what do you call it, it's on the grapevine, that this thing about no self. So you can hear it all over the place. And if you say, accept the teaching of self, the teaching of truth itself, if you use the truth of suffering, if you've accepted that and so into that, humbly, supremely, then you've done your job with the first truth. Then you're ready for the significance of the ultimate truth. There's a lot more here, but we can go on.

[39:18]

We'll come back later. Wrongly conceived sannyata can ruin a slow-witted person. It is like a badly seized snake or a wrongly executed incantation. A wrongly perceived emptiness ruins a person of meager intelligence. It is like a snake that is wrongly dressed or knowledge that is wrongly cultivated. So again, you know, it's interesting that the word kushala, as I mentioned to you before, comes from the word kusagras. And Kusagrass had a very sharp edge.

[40:22]

And Buddha recommended that people use kusagrass for the meditation sense. So collecting this grass, this kusagrass, it became gradually developed the word, and it coined the term kushala, which means skillful at collecting this grass. And skillful at collecting kusagrass, kushala became the word for skillfulness in general. So you see that learning the conventions of collecting snakes and swords or sharp grass, learning how that works in the conventional world, Whereas in some districts, you use crucigrass. In other districts, you use something else for your suit. Like maybe in North America, instead of using crucigrass, we use another South-East Asian product, k-pop, which throws on trees. But if you don't handle k-pop properly, you could do damage to your lungs.

[41:26]

So we could call up a new word for school called kip-tok-a-la. And it would come from working with the conventions of the materials of our environment, and by learning how to handle this in a way that was fruitful, so that you could collect the stuff, get in your living room yourself, and sit down without getting sick. like collecting the grass without getting your hands cut too much. What that involves, though, part of what is involved in learning conventions is maybe just somebody found out that . After a while, it makes you sick if somebody found out that you cut your wounds on grass. So that's a convention. And by learning that beforehand, you can learn how you can handle snakes. You learn how to handle them. You can handle swords, you can handle incantations, you can handle emptiness. Because emptiness is closely associated with phenomenon. And if you handle phenomenon very skillfully, very intimately, very respectfully, thoroughly respectfully,

[42:43]

The emptiness of the phenomena is revealed. But if you were exposed to emptiness before developing intelligence by working with conventions, emptiness could be harmful to you. Does that make sense? This bottom translation is, shunyata should be handled with skill. It does great harm if wrongly understood. So what's a skillful way of hanging impudence? What? Empty hands.

[43:45]

Don't grasp. What else? To know that it's not outside of convention or to refrain from making it outside of convention. In other words, study convention. Take care of convention. Fairly. Okay, number 12. Thus the wise one, the Buddha, once resolved not to teach about the Dharma, thinking that the slow wave might wrongly conceive it. Thus the sage is thought recoiled from teaching the doctrine, having reflected upon the difficulty of understanding the doctrine by people of nigger intelligence. having repeatedly refuted, oh, you have repeatedly refuted shunyata, but we do not fall into any error.

[44:57]

The refutation does not apply to shunya. Furthermore, you, if you were to, yeah, there's a lot of title to it. If you were to generate any obsession with regard to emptiness, the accompanying error is not ours. That obsession is not appropriate in the context of the empty. If you were to generate any obsession with regard to emptiness, the accompanying error is not ours. The error, I guess the only error in this case, is if you bring up things in the wrong company. Then if a person has obsession, certain obsessional tendencies, or hysterical tendencies, too, I think would be okay.

[46:05]

But anyway, if they have obsessional tendencies, probably worse. Then... then it's not my fault that you get harmed by grabbing emptiness and dealing with emptiness in an exceptional way. That obsession is not appropriate in the context I'm worried what the reason is for them. All diamonds are not protected. It's a ladybug. That's a good question. Well, I could, if they wouldn't mind, I could turn, I could do it with them a little bit. was done with no way to have this discussion without an obsession, and it's defined as something horrible.

[47:09]

Because these two truths are not, you know, they're not really separate. They're kind of victory, which is the point of view. But, you know, just take one step back to what Jack said. He said that he felt that maybe the reason why there's a need for The obsession is not appropriate in the context of the empty, saying that because the point of emptiness, the point of the teaching of emptiness, or the virtue of the empty, is that the teaching of emptiness is given to relieve obsession. Obsession is relieved by the empty. But that's true. But I was kind of thinking even more in context, not so much of what would your way of being if you're empty in a recessional way, how would that be a problem?

[48:12]

And what would the other way of being be in such a way that that if they would work. This part of the piece would be important to, if you're ready, if you have enough background in the conventional, then you can contemplate how would you deal with phenomenon. If they were empty, how would you deal with them? Or how are you going to do it? It's cool. You're cool. It's cool. It's a cool situation. You have a cool head. So, there are no more paramedics. When you're at phenomena or anything, everything...

[49:14]

I mean, that's right. So this story couldn't be interpreted in this context, because this one is busy. That's the conventional one. And this one is not busy. Well, From the point of view of wisdom, you're not. But from another point of view, these are two different realms. But it's hard to say which one is which. You can say whichever one you want, but really, that all didn't answer the question. It didn't say which one of us would be walked off. I guess what I'm trying to do is, it's kind of difficult to tune in to the meditation.

[50:45]

It would bring up the topic of anchorness and of obsession. If you have a problem with that. If you said media intelligence, so maybe what that means is that media intelligence goes with obsession. Well, furthermore, if you generate obsession with regard to entity, the company bearers, the encore, previous target that filled with your intelligence, that we'll have a problem dealing with. So somehow they're having this session. But, you know, we all know it, and very close to people having sessions. So would you like to send it? Yeah? Well, it's me trying to refer back to one of the three that I

[51:50]

And the way I've been thinking about that is that in our everyday common life, we have what we call the form, which is how we wear clothes and how we do our oriole team and how we greet each other in a certain way. And it seems to me that If I can follow those instructions, kind of every day come and practice it, show me all my expectations, thank you. Say, you know, my discouragement or my discouragement of how to do something or what I need to do something. And all of that, you know, so that you know what kinds of things that come up around the simplest things like eating. You know, that's what I've got to learn because it's so simple. My very favorite book that I read was Book of People's Love.

[53:03]

But all of the instructions we read about, we didn't have a particular point. We read my book about how I want to do it, how I want to wear my clothes, and how I want it. And it's back then, very, very difficult. That's how these do it. Well, I make that key. Everybody follow what you said, sort of that? But what I don't think was clear necessarily is how that applies to the next one. You see how it applies to the next key? But dealing with, working with conventionally, if we have some convention here, that's a hot, very good point. If you're working conventionally, your possession is certain. Does that make sense, that part? Mm-hmm. So she's had obsessions like how she wants to do things. That one obsession, that third one is COVID, right? Another obsession is how you are doing it. You have a certain understanding of how you're doing it.

[54:04]

You're really good. Some people are really good at all this. Some people are not so good at all this. It's an obsession about what you're doing. Pardon? There have to again. Yeah. How I look. What I think. Right. What is it? How does it work? Right. So that part most people got probably about how our forms bring our sessions to the surface. Did everybody follow that part? So the next step, then, how then would that kind of practice be a basis for practicing inventiveness? Once you're aware of your obsession, then how does that prepare you? How does that prepare you for getting inventiveness? They're just conventions that we've set up, and then we attribute our identity to them and cling to them and form fixed views upon them.

[55:11]

But they're just kind of the story that we've kind of gathered around together to follow for a short period of time. And then really the obsession has no basis upon which it can really hold on to, because then it's just like it's imagining a thing that we do every day. Where does that lead? It leads to just realization that there's no basis for that story. It's not really a substantial thing that we're following them in. It's really good that we're doing that. That's not really a substantial story anymore. So it sounds like you're going off in one direction. I feel like you're going off in the direction to see the dependable arising of the convention. Is that where you're going? And therefore to see its emptiness? Well, I'm not necessarily seeing the dependable arising of it. I'm seeing that it's not... uh, of substantial form. I'm not necessarily seeing like it's dependent of horizons. I'm not perceiving its substantiality. See, he said he wasn't seeing it as pedagogy, but I heard him talk about it as pedagogy. But you didn't necessarily... In other words, it's okay that you didn't hear yourself do it, but I heard you do it.

[56:17]

It's like that thing, you know, where she didn't say so, but it's like Sherlock Holmes talking to Dr. Watson, and Dr. Watson says blah, blah, blah, and Holmes says, of course, that's it. Because you describe the process that you went through to arrive at the facelessness of the form, of the facelessness of the convention, right? Meaning that the convention arrived by the various conditions coming together to make the convention, right? So you just described the dependent co-arising of the convention, the story, the history of the convention. And then you did that, and then you said, and then you said, and therefore, it faced me. And you didn't notice that you were using a kind of polarizing to empty the convention. Right. I guess it's mainly because... I don't see it as something that I imagine the pinnacle horizon would be like if that were to be presented in front of me, that it would be different than what it is now.

[57:24]

What it's more like is just that I'm not perceiving it as a real, the right way to do it. You're not perceiving the convention as the right way to do it. Yeah, yeah. So then I guess that's the same as seeing it as a pinnacle horizon. That would just be the new discussion. And you would just sort of say, well, what you just said there would be just, would you say nihilism? I would nihilism. And what you just said there was nihilism. Wait, that I'm not perceiving the, I'm not perceiving that this is like the right substantial thing or way to do something is nihilism? Yeah. This is the slide that sounded like that. The first time you went through and you emptied it by dependent polarizing, The second time, then you said, well, I don't see it as dependent on polarity, so you took away the argument that dependent on polarity just took away the existence of the thing. and then it sort of moved over to what was new. No, I think we're miscommunicating.

[58:25]

We're not hearing each other clearly. It's your language. It's your language. I don't know what's going on with you. Sure. So then I... And it sounds, first of all, it sounds like that he sounds like the other. And it's hard to hear yourself when talking what school you're representing from. Right. Well, you also, well... We can go over it again, but I want to point out something else. You brought up this other thing, which was fine. You emptied it. You just went ahead and emptied it by an empty convention, by an argument that depended on writing a story. And it's a story by which the convention would arrive. It's a story. You could tell a million stories for a million conventions. That's why it's empty. But what I was trying to draw out what Wendy said, and that is that you can become aware of your obsession by studying the conventional world.

[59:31]

Then if you should happen then to hear about emptiness or see emptiness, you would be well aware of the fact that you're an obsessional being, and you would watch yourself obsess about emptiness. So it'd be like if you were, you know, I don't know, if you were working with something and suddenly it turned into a snake, and you knew your obsession with working with other material, then when suddenly a snake appeared, you would be somewhat familiar with your unhealthy responses to it, and that would help you not obsess about the snake, and then be still for the snake, too, because you develop skill under the circumstances of your obsessions. You can get skillful at ordeal, and you can get skillful at lying, and so on, while at the same time being aware of your obsessions, plus the skill also surfaces your obsession. So then when you move beyond skill, you move into a realm where skill's got no meaning anymore, where there is no skill and non-skill, where there's no you or a skill, and there's no thing you've done.

[60:37]

And that's the realm you have to enter into in order to liberate yourself. But if you haven't become aware of your obsessions through working with the realm of still and not still, your obsessions that go there, they'll be applied to the realm beyond convention, and you'll get in a bit of trouble. That's where I'm drawing up some of the sheets, which I didn't think would draw me. And David moved over to another aspect of it. First of all, they have an example of how to empty the convention. A middle page on their dependent core algorithm, which is good. But even if you empty them, You empty them in the process of studying them. If you haven't become aware of your obsession, and then you empty them without becoming aware of your obsession, then your obsession will come over and jump on the emptiness, or jump on the empty. And when you jump on the empty, you turn the empty into emptiness. When you turn it into emptiness, then you can grab. When you grab the empty, turn it into emptiness, you're in trouble. You're abusing yourself.

[61:37]

That's why you have to do that previous part of working with the convention. But isn't that part of it that we always have to be at the same time? We have to be very pleased. That's not even that. We will absolutely have to be in a reaction to it. We are good at convention work. Because you always go back and you have to begin again. Say it again. I agree, but say it again. I would hesitate to trust you that the press has to know the conventional and then you can go to the ultimate. Yes. And I thought, no, I think it's always, I would say, current because I... No. No? Not really. If you get the ultimate at the same time as the conventional, you won't be able to follow the conventional. It doesn't go ultimate to conventional. It goes conventional over there.

[62:44]

Once you get to... You always bring the conventional along with you, yes. It doesn't go in the other direction. When you get to the ultimate, when, you know, the ultimate meaning of it, The truth, the truth from the ultimate point of view, once that's conveyed to you, then you can achieve the ultimate. When you achieve the ultimate, you can dive back into the conventional. But that's not the truth going backwards, that you being able to reenter the world. But when you go into the ultimate, the conventional is the basis, but the conventional is not the same as the ultimate, but your understanding embraces both. So they're both there. But you can have the conventional way without being able to see the ultimate. As you look at the conventional more and more clearly, the ultimate comes forth from the vision of the conventional.

[63:45]

Like that story of that Sufi who got imprisoned and got a prayer run, right? He bowed in prayer run, he bowed in prayer run. He kind of was upset that they sent him to the prayer room and he sort of saw her. He just kept bowing at her anyway because, you know, why not? Gradually he realized that he was a big diagram in the prayer room, a little unusual. He kept bowing at her, he kept playing. Finally he realized it looked like a diagram of some kind of a machine or something. And you kind of realize that when you die down with a lock, you die down with a lock. So the ultimate's like that. It's like if you just keep following this prevention, the pattern of liberation starts to surface to you. And the pattern of liberation is not nothing. It's the interdependence of everything in the conventional world. So the emptiness of all the things you're cleaning starts to come forth. But through the things and the way they're related. And similarly, as soon as it appears, and I've seen this many times, people are taking good care of the conventional.

[64:55]

I don't know if you used the word of being, did you? Anyway, people who are following instructions are obedient. Some people are very obedient to the instruction. They listen and they accord to the instruction. Through that obedience, the emptiness of the instruction comes forth. But they have not become sufficiently familiar with their obsession that we're Look at the obsession. So when emptiness comes forth, the obsession is coming to play, and it's a big reaction to the revelation which comes to the obedience. Paul, you know? What kind of reaction? Well, like they're terrified. Terrified of, well, the abyss, right? This happens to some people when you're making love. They're very obedient to a process of love making, and as a result, emptiness of their being opens up.

[65:59]

The fact that there's not really somebody there, or somebody other there either, opens up, and then they move out. Because they have not been observing sufficiently their obsessions while they study the conventional world, so they put their obsessions onto the empty, and turn the empty into emptiness, and grab the emptiness. And then they're in trouble. Fortunately, a lot of these people then go and report their trouble and their terror and they're told what is happening. And then they go back and meditate with more awareness of their sessions. And then they realize that it's not the emptiness that's the problem. It's no problem at all. It's a big relief. But if you make it into something, it's the most terrible monster of all. You do well to be terrified of it. Because it's not just the self, it's the annihilation. It's exactly what people criticized Buddha for when they heard his teaching.

[67:03]

These people, apparently, were not aware of their obsession. So when they heard Buddha's teaching, they went, yikes. They said, this guy is an annihilating human being. Annihilating human consciousness. He's really misleading people. And he responded very nicely. When this pie town is producing, when this thing is empty of itself, these kind of talk, people will revile it or praise it. But there's nothing there, apparently, to correct their excitement about it. Because before we started teaching this stuff, we previously understood this. So you cycle before you keep this. Of course, you were previously understood the emptiness of the student before he started teaching. And he carefully reviewed the whole clinic before he started teaching. And still he got in trouble. But he didn't get vicious in response.

[68:08]

It was very nice, but of course, he said, you need to be able to trust with people now and then, but not usually with these departments. You've got to trust with the bibles who Some churches, but they kind of like the four vehicles, the burning house. There being only one thing, but now there's that fourth thing, which I feel a lot of regretting now. He meant a tree. Sorry. It's okay. He had one, but he told me it was a tree. And when they got out, they found one. And they felt okay, too, but the question was, why? You feel an echo here? Yeah. Yeah, it probably is.

[69:13]

I'd want to point out to you, getting close to the end, just something for your abuse between now and the last, and that is that in the first six cards, the criticism, and particularly the final criticism, which says Delving in shunyata, you will destroy the reality of a truth or attainment, proper and improper act, and all the everyday practices dedicated to the spirit of truth. Careful. Well, the criticism of them, not only did he destroy, this kind of powerful knowledge destroyed his ultimate goals of the ultimate fruit of practice, but you're also eliminating the conventional morality of the good leads to good and the bad leads to bad.

[70:25]

You're denying the process of the relative reality. Because of that criticism, He needs to respond to his business without separating the truth from the reality. Apparently, in the early ages, the formal truth dealt with conventional reality and ultimately truth. It looks like by them bringing up that not only does this part of emptiness bother the ultimate, but it also bothers the conventional. In other words, they probably wouldn't have mentioned the conventional, except that they now have a different standard for their Buddhism. So he could just apply his teaching of dependent core writing directly to the form of a fluid.

[71:26]

But you need to be able to be two levels in reality and help make sure that it's formed on his own, that he happens to choose a mind. Because he wants to, rather than teach on different levels, he wants to put everything in his own future. But you think that when he's one teacher, he wants to bring everything together and have one response. But in order to bring everyone together, you have to go through the process of . So you can unify the conventional ultimate level in a dual . would be dependent polarizing. That's part of what we're doing here. It combines the . You can store the high and the low. You can bring the high and low together, and you deal with both in terms of dependent polarizing. Fortunately, it's a bit artificial to us, because we only get this to choose. which might not have surfaced here, if they had criticized it in a unitary way, in a unified way.

[72:37]

So now we get this, we got, so it is, you know, this peck, now we get the teaching to kind of go right, you know, but kind of fortunate in a way, it's pretty simple. The way that they do it in one week, you know, whatever, I mean, because it's a two-level attack, And so you have to do the truth to unify this present reason. But I still read you with the famous, I think, very interesting question. What would it be like to read these sessions? Because if you meditate on the way it's like to meet people in a session, that's the way you would meet things in the context of emptiness. So rather than try to imagine what emptiness is, you can imagine the way it would be appropriate to be with emptiness.

[73:47]

Now, since most of us are not without obsessions, it's not that I'm asking you to imagine what it's like to be without obsessions, but rather actually imagine what it's like to be with obsessions. And when you imagine what it's like to be with obsessions, you have a chance to imagine what it's like without obsessions. And, or, if you see how you are with obsessions, what would it be good to be with if you had obsessions? This kind of thing. Because the way we are with our obsession is not the way we should be with emptiness in the world. So we're like, in some sense, we're not suited for emptiness with our obsession. So then we're really in the conventional world. And again, in the conventional world, our obsession should be flaring up. Very nice. Well, are they?

[74:55]

If so, you're in good shape. then the teaching, all the teaching can come to you. If you're engaged, you're aware of your obsession. Are you aware of your obsession? So that would be a good thing for us to meditate on to what extent are we aware of our obsession. So now we can sit for three days, ready to go to our session. Yeah. I think the last part of that project, sorry, you know, you, Jeff and Judy, you know, I've been, I've dealt with that, you know, the child, but I've been learning with the children, but I assume Jeff didn't know. Anybody have that book here? I know it's two articles. I have the book, and I think I know it's two articles there. Perhaps, if we're lucky, they'll be written in the scholarly. He's so polite, he's... Yeah.

[76:16]

I remember at the beginning of, I think, the practice period, you said that, saying, what is it, the horse arrives before the donkey leaves. And it seems that really is such a wonderful saying, and if I'm applying it correctly to the context of what you're saying right now, what you've been saying. Right. So keep track of the donkey. And if you're on the donkey when the horse arrives, you know you're in good shape. If you don't know you're on the donkey when the horse arrives, you'll miss this for the horses, for the donkey. It would be kind of a problem. If you're reviled, abused, and so on, you may not be of a great response.

[77:20]

And now we're going to the pit, right? The pit? The three-day pit? Yep. We put it all around.

[77:38]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_75.83