Well, you started. Good story. And now we're going to start tomorrow sitting upright for five days. And with this class in the background and with the normal tendency that I'm mine, either in the background and or the foreground, I hope we can sit upright in the midst of the extreme views that our mind is capable of taking. And not only those extreme views, but the turbulence between them that's created by moving back and forth. Extreme views are, on one side, that we, one extreme view is that there are essences to things. And the other view is that there's not essences to things, and therefore, there's not even the possibility of dependable arising of them.

[01:13]

You can't even appeal to the possibility of explaining dependent horizon by these conditions which don't have essence. Those are the two extremes. And we can go in both directions. One's kind of overlooking causation entirely as empty and of no use at all. And the other one is that at the basis of our causal explanations is some actual genuine causal power that links cause and effect. That's one extreme. And I might mention that listening to some scientists, especially the scientists who teach the quantum QED, quantum electrodynamics, is that they feel like nothing can be predicted.

[02:15]

There's only probabilities. In other words, at the basis of the working of the universe, there's no basis to it. Anything can happen at all times. It's just that things have different probabilities. But anything can happen. There is no fundamental essence that's determining the way things go. And so our upright sitting is an emblem of mentally and physically cutting through the streams of existence, of inherent existence, and actual real non-existence. So when you're sitting, uprightly, you or I, we, you know, face the objects of our thought uprightly.

[03:20]

We abandon attributing the current existence, our essence, our truth, to our thoughts, and we also abandon saying that there's nothing to We, you know, give up past and future and so on. Just be upright. And that will be the way to walk through these extremes and watch how things actually happen. Not even actually happen. How things appear to happen according to the conventions of your thought processes. How they appear to happen without imagining that there's some underlying foundation to it all. As Guishan said, all sentient beings just have karmic consciousness, boundless and unclear, with no fundamental to rely on.

[04:25]

Karmic consciousness operates according to certain probabilities, according to certain regularities, but it's unlimited and unclear. and there's no fundamental to rely on it. The middle course between these extremes is to use convention as the basis for your observation of what's going on. That's the ultimate position, is to use convention. without trying to put under the convention some reality and also without rejecting convention and just saying whatever. That's nihilism. So now I'd like to turn to the text where we left off, Karaka 10.

[05:33]

And after class, a number of people talked to me about this Karaka because they thought maybe Nagarjuna was denying the Buddha's teaching of the pinnacle arising. In other words, maybe I should have a copy of the text, just like you have it. So if somebody can loan me their copy. So I'll read what it says here. In your thing, it says, as entities without self-nature have no real status, the statement quotes, from the existence of that, this becomes, unquote, is not possible. The thing in quotes is quoting Buddha, and that's the basic ingredient in his teaching of dependent core rising. From the existence of this, that becomes, or that arises. So he, Nagarjuna, is saying, as entities without self-nature have no real status of existence, then Buddha's formula for the pinnacle arising won't hold.

[06:44]

So, first of all, if you say that things that don't have self-nature or self-existence, did you say that? Self-nature. Self-nature. If you say things without self-nature, things without essence, okay, do not exist, and then like really don't exist at all, then Buddhist formula given when this exists, this will be, won't work, won't apply. Nagarjuna doesn't say that that's true, that things without self-nature don't exist at all. He doesn't say that. But if you do say that, then Buddha's formula won't hold. Things without self-nature are things which dependently co-arise.

[08:15]

So if things that dependently co-arise do not exist, then Buddha's phrase from the existence of that, this becomes, or from when this exists, so will that be, that phrase won't hold, because things that arise because of something, in relationship to something, don't have self-existence, don't have own self-nature. Therefore, they won't exist. Therefore, there'll be no application to depend and co-arising. There will be nothing like that. So Nagarjuna is saying, if you say that things exist and that they exist inherently, then you're saying that the things that exist exist inherently. Those are the things that exist. And things that don't exist inherently, they don't exist. If you say that, then dependent horizon can't happen.

[09:24]

Because self-existent things are independent. So they don't need dependent co-arising. They don't need it. Things that dependently co-arise have no essential nature. So if you say they don't exist, then there's nothing which dependently co-arises. So he's basically showing that if you take the position of things inherently existing, the Buddha's teaching of dependent co-arising is shocked. So he's stating the position of the realists, the people who say there's an essential cause of power in things. And if that's the case, if that position holds, then dependently co-arising things don't exist because they don't have essence. And therefore, dependently co-arising Buddha's teaching doesn't hold.

[10:25]

So he's not denying the Buddha's teaching of dependent co-arising here, and he's not affirming it. He's just saying, if you like Buddha's teaching of dependent co-arising, then if you also like to say that things without essence don't exist, then you're going to have a problem because you've got to throw that out the window because you're going to have nothing to apply it to. Because things without essence don't exist, so you can't apply it to them. And things that do have essence don't apply to because they don't arise dependently. They exist absolutely independently without conditions. And there's all kinds of problems with that. By the way, I looked up the word condition in addition to the word cause. Again, cause, the English word cause means something that has the power or agency to create an effect. The word condition

[11:31]

It doesn't say that. The word condition is something, I wrote it down someplace, but I don't have it, is the something that is required for something else to happen. And the root, I thought, was particularly interesting, because the root of condition is to talk together. To talk together. The conditions talk together. Causes have power in themselves to make something else happen. Nagarjuna rejects the idea of a cause and he says there are conditions because things do talk together and out of that conversation comes a story which we have existence to show for.

[12:36]

Now in the next, one, two, three, the next three karakas we have now, Nagarjuna's anticipation and articulation of a criticism of his position. Karaka 11, the effect that is the arisen entity does not exist separate from the relational condition, nor together in the relational condition. If it does not exist in either situation, how could it arise out of conditional relations? Another translation. In the various conditions united, in the various conditions together, the effect cannot be found.

[13:46]

Nor can the effect be found in the conditions themselves. So how could it come from the condition? Take all the conditions together, you can't find the effect in them. Take them separately, you can't find them there either. So how could these things come from the condition? Well, how then, if nonentity arises from these relational conditions, now then, if nonentity arises from these relational conditions, why is it not possible that the effect cannot arise from nonrelational conditions?

[15:34]

However, if a non-existent effect arises from these conditions, Why does not... Why does it not arise from non-English? So the criticism entails that something's wrong with Nagarjuna because he can't, it doesn't make sense what Nagarjuna's saying because they think Nagarjuna's proposing an effect that's non-existent, that doesn't have inherent existence.

[16:50]

So, an effect which doesn't have any inherent existence, why can't you say that an effect that has no inherent existence comes from a non-condition? That's their argument. Which doesn't make any sense, does it? A condition that you don't have. See, they're saying, if you say the effect doesn't have inherent existence, then why don't you say that the effect comes from a condition that doesn't exist? But they're saying, of course it makes no sense to talk about an effect that doesn't inherently exist. Doesn't make any sense. And to show that doesn't make any sense, I would say that if you have an effect that doesn't have inherent existence, then that must be connected to a condition that doesn't exist. But in fact, Nagarjuna doesn't go along with that in the first place.

[17:57]

He doesn't go along with the idea that an effect has an inherent existence. He in fact says, yeah, that's right, the effect doesn't have an inherent existence, and it arises from a condition which also doesn't have an inherent existence. But the opponent, you know, thinking that, of course, the effect must exist, have inherent existence, therefore if you say that's not so, then you must also say that there's no condition for the effect. But Nagarjuna actually says, no, I have effects which have no inherent existence, and they arise through a conversation with conditions which also don't have inherent existence. 13. The effect has the relational condition, but the relational conditions have no self-possessing natures.

[19:06]

How can an effect arising from no self-possessing natures have a relational condition? Yet the effect is the condition's essence, then the conditions do not have their own essence. So how could an effect come from something that is essenceless? If the effect is the condition's essence, then the conditions do not have their own essence. So how could an effect come from something that is essence-less?

[20:13]

14. Consequently, the effect is neither with relational nor without non-relational condition. Since the effect has no existing status, herein the relational and non-re... wherein are relational and non-relational conditions. Therefore, the conditions have no essence. If conditions have no essence, there are no effects. If there are no effects without conditions, how will conditions be evident? Therefore, the conditions have no essence.

[22:35]

If conditions have no essence, there are no effects. If there are no effects without conditions, how could conditions be evident? The very emptiness of the effect an effect which the realists suppose to be non-empty. The very emptiness of the effect which the opponents assume to be non-empty in fact follows from the emptiness of the conditions and of the relational conditions, relations between the conditions and the effects. The conditions are empty, and that will lead to empty results.

[23:44]

The conditions don't have inherent existence, and that will lead to essenceless results. And also, the result will be essenceless or have no inherent nature because it arises out of the relationship with the condition. So dependent core rising is simply the common sense, conventional story that you tell about how things happen.

[24:49]

It's just a common sense story. Common sense stories make sense in some way. Just a sensible, common story about how things happen. And they lack inherent existence because that's all they are. Just a story that makes sense to somebody. And maybe to several people. That is common sense. So there's a story that makes sense to me. And there's another story that makes sense to you. And there's a story that makes sense to both of us. And then maybe it's a story that makes sense to most of us. That's a kind of like conventional, coherent explanation of what happened. Even if we don't all agree, we might agree that that's the most probable story, or that one of the most probable stories. And there's no basis of it.

[25:59]

emptiness of it or lack of inherent existence at the basis of this whole process is just that. It's not taking away anything from the story. It's not adding anything to the story. The story is just a story. That's it. The results that are told of in the story, again, are just things that we observe and that we have stories about. They have no inherent existence either. They're just things we commonly observe. But if the story we tell about them has an essence to it, then they have essences too. Rather than them being something which dependently coerose by this conversation with conditions. Now,

[27:02]

I could just open up the questions now, or another possibility is that you can go through the whole text now, again. And you can do a Karaka, and then I can say a little bit, and you can either go through, or, you know, any ideas, how you want to proceed? You want to open up the questions now? Hmm? I just want to go through the text one more time. How many people want to open up to questions? One, two, three. We want people with questions to ask questions. Three questions. Jack? If things have essences, does that mean they can't change? Yes. So a forecast, chapter 24, is chapter 24 says, if something can't change, if something has an inherent existence, it can't change.

[28:10]

How could it change? If it has an inherent existence, it can't change. If it can't change, there can't be any suffering. There's no suffering, there can be no cause of suffering. Or even if there was suffering, even if somehow you say, oh no, there could be suffering, even if things didn't change. But even if you agree with that, okay, well, does suffering have essence? Does it exist? And if so, then it doesn't have a cause. If it doesn't have a cause, then it's there forever. If it has a cause, however, if it has a condition, I should say, take away the condition and there's no more suffering. And in fact, the teaching that there's an end to suffering is based on the condition for suffering not being there.

[29:16]

And the condition for suffering is, coincidentally, attributing essence to things. So not only is attributing essence to things make Buddha path impossible, but it is the cause of the need for the Buddhist path. So there's a nice thing, but attributing essence to things like attributing essence to causes creates suffering and then makes it impossible to get out. Because although you've created suffering, you've also said that suffering can't happen, so you can't deal with it. So it's a bad situation. On the other hand, If you don't have essences to things, then things can change. That can give rise to suffering because of the cause of suffering, clinging. Because when you cling to things that are changing, you get problems. And also, because there's conditions for suffering, there can be the end of the conditions of suffering, the clinging, the attributing essence, and so on. Therefore, there can be a stopping of suffering. And the path is the way to enter into studying the conditions of suffering.

[30:21]

and studying the dependent colorizing of those conditions, the common sense stories of those conditions, common sense story. And so anyway, that's how this chapter sets up the chapter on practice in the chapter of the Middle Way, which is chapter 24. That's question number one. Question number two. Okay. This number 14, is that Nagarjuna? That's Nagarjuna. Well, Okay, then for 11, 12, or 13, what seems to be what's happening there is that the opponent or whoever is talking, they just, if they don't believe that things have essence, then they don't believe that. They do. They do believe that. They either take one position or the other to say things have essence. If they don't have essence, therefore, they must not exist. That's the same position. To say that they have essence... and that if they don't have essence, they don't exist, that's one position.

[31:22]

They're absurd from Nagarjuna's point of view, and they're saying Nagarjuna is absurd from their point of view. Because they're saying, well, you know, since the effects exist, what you're saying is ridiculous. Since the effects inherently exist, then you'd have effects from non-existent conditions. But he says, right, you do. Except that it doesn't make sense because the effects in my case are non-existent effects and they go with non-existent conditions. but it would be ridiculous to have it would be ridiculous they're right it would be ridiculous to have a condition an effect that has an essence coming from a non-condition a non-existing condition that wouldn't make sense in fact if you have an effect that has essence it doesn't even need a condition all the more how ridiculous it would be to say it comes from a non-condition

[32:31]

But the whole premise of the argument for those three karakas is that the results do have essence and so on. And Nagarjuna uses those arguments, those three arguments in 14 to say, you know, therefore conditions have no essence and if conditions have no essence there are no effects. In other words, if conditions have no essence, then the effects don't have any essence, according to you. And so there are no effects without conditions. So how would there be conditions evident? You won't be able to see any conditions. Okay, number three. You're over. You're done. And... Do you know Charlie's move?

[33:40]

So I think that Nirvana is not conditioned. Nirvana is not conditioned? We have to look at that chapter. If the effect isn't given a commitment, why can't the effect come from none to you? Yeah. If a non-existent effect arises from condition, what do you say? The effect cannot be found in the condition. If the condition can't find the effect in the condition, then why do you say that it comes from the condition?

[34:42]

Why can't it affect the non-condition? Yeah. Why doesn't the effect arise from a non-condition? Right. If a non-existent effect arises from conditions, a non-existent effect, you wouldn't be able to find any conditions, right? Right? If you had a non-inherently existing effect, you wouldn't be able to find any conditions, because you wouldn't be able to find any conditions, right? So Nagarjuna says, that's what we've got. We've got nonexistent effects. In other words, effects that don't, nonexistent, in the language of the realist, nonexistent effect means an effect that doesn't have an essence. Because they can't talk about the existing, right? If you've got this kind of essenceless effect, you won't be able to find out in the condition. So why don't you say, then, that it arises from a non-conditioner?

[35:50]

What's the answer? It's a description of condition. That's right, but also even if it didn't do that, How would you deal with the fact that somebody is saying, these have an essenceless effect, that they don't have an essence? Then, of course, then you'd agree that conditions that the essenceless result, something appears, but something happens. That's something that happened. It's a result of something. You could say it's a result, but it's kind of funny this result, but the result usually comes from causes. But maybe we shouldn't say affect the result. That's already kind of like leaning that way. But we can still say it. We can say an essenceless result or an essenceless thing that appeared.

[37:05]

Either way. One fair result would be more dynamic. And we got something that doesn't have an essence. And you say at least it had a condition. Because essenceless things can have condition. But if it doesn't have an essence, you won't be able to find it in the condition. Because you're saying, it's essence though. And he says, that's right. And Dr. Jones said, yes. And in the condition, one won't be able to find it. So he says, well, why don't you say it arises from a non-condition, then? You can't find the thing in it. And the answer is, that's how dependent polarizing works. It works in a conversation between an essenceless thing that arose and a condition that doesn't contain it. It doesn't. It has a conversation with something else, not something that contains itself in it. So that's how, in fact, if he wants to know how would you... So he says, well, why don't you say then that it comes from a non-condition?

[38:08]

Because they say, if you say that it comes from something that doesn't contain it, why don't you say it doesn't have a condition at all? Those aren't the conditions we're talking about. We're talking about conditions that don't contain it, that don't have the essence of it, that don't have any essence at all, unless they don't have the essence of something else. But we wouldn't say it comes from a non-condition, because what we might mean by a condition is something that doesn't contain the essence of it. And it's different. It depends on something other than itself, because it doesn't have itself. So that's why we would say it does have a condition. That's why we would say it does have a condition. That's why we do not say, oh, yes, it makes sense. Since it doesn't have an essence, it would come down to non-condition. But again, the realist thinks it makes sense to them that if you've got something that got an essence, you can find that essence in the cause. And in fact, that's probably true. If you ever had anything that had an essence, Then, when it was caused by something, then you'd probably find its essence in the cause.

[39:11]

However, if it had an essence, it wouldn't have a cause. If it had an essence, it wouldn't depend on causes. It wouldn't immediately become a cause. So the whole thing falls apart. Every way you come at it, it falls apart when you have essences. Every way. Come at it in all these different ways, all the different arguments. So Nagar's unit just did these 14 priorities, but we could make 15 or 1,000 priorities. coming at us in all different possible ways, all different kinds of weird criticisms we could make based on different assumptions. When we come from a different world, then Nagarjuna sounds crazy. But every time somebody criticizes Nagarjuna, he said, yeah, from your point of view, that wouldn't make sense. And just comes back to, we're just talking about something that arises in the relationship as something else. It has no essence. That's why it needs the other thing. And the other thing that has no essence, That's why it doesn't cause an essence of it either. They've just given one and the other don't have it. That's all. It's just a story.

[40:12]

No more. Yes? Earlier in the past, you were talking about that people came to you and said, well, I can only do that for the time. Yes. Okay. And so the question I have... Well, after she said, can I say, she said she got to this place of uprightness, which she appreciated. She said, I can't sustain it. And so the question is, I get this feeling once for a while that in You know, within the ability and the experience that's polarized itself and the body, that what seems to happen, rather than a more distance from what's happening, is more willingness to engage in what happens.

[41:28]

And I find that a little almost alone or odd. Yes. And when you say gazed in things, do you mean gazed in like just ordinary things? Yeah, like actually argue with people with sad and crying, you know, do think that they're human. But with, you know, when they die, that's going to take it back into this. Or take it back. Yeah, that's what I think. It seemed easier to be there when it all took it back. Do you hear what you're saying? Yeah, and that's right. So this, when things are happening relationally, then your attitude is what's called an attitude that doesn't evolve.

[42:34]

Like in the fantasy truth, the Bodhisattva should produce a thought, make a thought, and it has not fixed the boat, it doesn't evolve. So when we just operate, Okay? You're not something that has an essence. You're just something that has a story. Like your name, your dress, your dress in the Zen, or your dress in the room, your history, stuff like that. There's common stuff. There's no essence in that story. And when you're that way, you have no vote. You have no essence. And you can respond to what happens. All you are is the next story. and you have no resistance to it, because you have no essence, which would tell you you can't participate in those phase of the story. But if you have some clean self, in other words, there is a self, and it's this rather than that, and then you have an idea of who you are, right?

[43:36]

That's part of the story. That's the story. But it doesn't have any basis or essence. It's just a story. And when you operate, you face that, and you let it be just that. We don't put any more reality into it. We don't take any away. We don't say, this is the wrong story. What's happening here today is a wrong story. Or finally, this is the right story. Either way, if you say that, you can't move with circumstances. You can trace the next story, the next common sense story. So the Bodhisattva can fully engage in whatever's happened. because, obviously, it was a little void between saying these things have a sensual nature, or if that's not the case, then what's happening is, it doesn't exist at all. But it's dependent across the story. It has no basis at all. But then, it has conventional existence. It had common sense existence. It's fairly coherent.

[44:36]

It has some probability. It has, you know, Not only probability, but a lot of other... There's some other things which have probability, even a higher probability, but no one will listen to me when I thought about it. So I can't converse with anybody. So I choose there's less probability. And there's some other things which have, you know... And that's all there is to it. Just like whatever story I'm telling you about this Madre Juna thing, it's just the story I'm telling you. It has no more reality than to whatever extent it makes sense to you. It has no more reality than the way you could follow it and use it. It has no more truth than that. And no less. And if you can use it more, that doesn't make it more true.

[45:38]

It just makes it more useful when you like it more. And it's easier to carry it around. However, as it becomes more useful, you might be tempted, even more than usual, to think that actually there's some kind of, like, unknown reality to this story. And that's when, like Linda was saying, as things start to get more clear, you're more susceptible to attributing some reality to this story of your understanding of . So one advantage that you have this phase of study is that you don't exactly know where to put the substance or the essence to the story. You're kind of dealing with it on the story. And that way of dealing with it is is heroic of you. That you're actually entering into dealing with this material without being able to say, well, I've got it.

[46:50]

Rather than, at this point, I have some understanding of the story, and that's all I've got. what it's like when you don't yet settle into the story so much that you then preview reality. You're settling into it, but you're settling into your experience of it, from what I feel. There still may be some tendency to look for something to grab, but for whatever reason, most of you have not been able to do that. So you're living in a situation which is like the situation in modern journalism. Even though he has a better grasp of his teaching than we do, he himself, in fact, can't get a hold of his teaching. And he lives with that anxiety of telling stories that are just stories and not going any further. And the Buddha, I talked to him the other day about the Buddha, in fact, does have feelings of, you know,

[47:59]

The holy way to do it is still has feeling, but doesn't go any further and make them into something that you can grab. You just have feelings and stories about how you have feelings, the reason why you evaluate things a certain way. But Buddha goes through that and has feelings and judgment, but that's the living that stops. And when it's pain, you just have pain. And when it's pleasure, you just have pleasure. That's very heroic. but just flat out having experience without anything, real or not. And also then you can't grasp it. And you can't have, you know, grasp it. So, in fact, before the grasping, before the grasping, there's such a thirst, a yearning to get a hold, or to get a hold of something. to get a hold of the feeling, or to get a hold of, you know, some of the feeling of the pain, to get a hold of the pleasure, to get a hold of some alternative state from the pain, the yearning to get something other than this.

[49:09]

And that leads to drive, making it into something you can grab, and have the best. But then you are practically uprights. Then you always know that, well, always treatment, practically uprights. What do you mean? whether you think you understand or, I don't know, experience and whatnot, because you know that even saying that, the people themselves could under... You mean, are you saying that if you practice uprightness, you know that you'll have to keep doing that? Yeah. So, my friend who said when she was in a state of uprightness and feeling the anxiety of that, but also feeling The rightness of that anxiety. Because in that state, you're really flexible and ready to respond. You feel like this isn't right, and yet I'm anxious, and yet I don't know what it is, and I don't have to stand this to go on.

[50:10]

In fact, you can't stand it to go on. You have to go on. You can't hold it. You have to go on. And that's also part of the anxiety. That's also part of the road side of the thing. So you just have to build it again. You don't maintain it. You don't sustain it. You give it up. I like that quote by the Zikurashi that Buddhism is not one of those religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Buddhism is when, you know, Christianity goes beyond Christianity. And Buddhism is when Judaism goes beyond Judaism. And Buddhism is when this one goes beyond this one.

[51:13]

That's Buddha. And according to Buddhism, Buddhism goes beyond Buddhism. You know, true Buddhism is when the other Buddhism, true Christianity can go beyond Christianity. But we get to call... Buddhism is when uprightness goes beyond upright. When you talk uprightness out the window, you don't know it, don't make it into something. But when you tell a story and let... Being upright is tell your stories. Tell your stories. You do tell your stories, right? But being upright is you just tell your stories and that's it. I'm going to tell a story now. A story is, you know, this is my attitude. This is what I think is right. Let's try and count. And if this is a story, the mind is calm. And I'm ready to respond. It's more than a story. The mind is disturbed, and I can't respond.

[52:16]

And also, there's some situations which I did not want to get involved in. because the reality of my story won't allow me to be in certain situations. If your story is just a story, then you can do anything after that. If your story is you're a woman, then if that's just a story, the next moment you can do anything. But if your story about being a woman is a reality, it has essence to it, you're going to have some limitations. It doesn't mean that it's a story that you're a woman that the next moment you're going to be a man. That probably won't happen. But even though you're a woman in one moment and you know it's a story, in the next moment you're all still a woman maybe, but you're open to do whatever. But the funniest thing is, if you even hold into your conventional existence as a woman, Even though you're still going to be a woman the next moment, holding to that limits you. If you're going to be a woman in the next moment, just let that be.

[53:22]

You don't have to hold to it. Just let it be if the story goes on. And in fact, a lot of sitcoms and stories do just keep happening over and over. But to hold to them, you get more and more limited. Being upright is to say, I've got this woman. I've started being a woman. I've got to start being a man. I've got to start being right. I've got to start being wrong. And that's my foot. And that's it. And being upright is having the courage to let it just be a story, which is something that, depending on the color rose, has certain conditions. There's certain conditions by which you come up with the story that you're a woman, certain conditions that you come up with the story of your name. Condition. Make the story. That's it. And everybody could follow the story, conventional story, you know, no deep thing there. It's very superficial. It's like child view of the situation, you know.

[54:24]

I don't know what age child, six, seven, five, somewhere around there. You know, like my name, you know, my name is Tenshin, and the situation gave me that name. Tenshin means rather than rare. Tenshin is like a child view of the situation. Child view of this is what? Pain. And I'm not suddenly thinking, well, well, actually, there's something else. That view, that superficial view, is thank you. It's a total dynamic working of the universe. Total dynamic working of the universe sounds pretty fancy. And in fact, just taking the ordinary world as the ordinary world, it allows the total dynamic working of the universe, allows you to, like,

[55:26]

do this fantastically, totally dynamic thing. I mean, the whole universe could work through you then if you don't have anything in the conventional world. But if you put a substance in it, you block the convention, you block the fantastic work. If you make it more profound or real, that grasping blocks this flow. And the flow, which is trying to come through the superficiality and conventionality, It causes suffering. But still, it's hard to be upright and be like a child and not be able to contribute some deep causal power of the situation. It's hard to do that when you have the ability to do it. Because that ability, just sitting there waiting to pounce, You know, the mind is like popping under this muscle.

[56:29]

They said, well, if you won't put me in this one, I'll put to the other side. So that power of your mind, like jumping from one side to the other, so you live in that dynamic, you know, between these two entities of the mind. These two extremes are creating like lightning bolts across you, across your consciousness. And the upper end needs you to sit in that field and you don't cop out and say, let's go over to one, let's take sides. Which, in a way, is less intense and more familiar. And then you've got some power. Like you're on the power side. You're over there and you can shoot lighting both the other side. Being in the middle, you've got nothing. You've got no power. No power. More call to power. You're just something that is in conversation with the condition. However, the benefit you have there, that you can respond to complete condition, then you can embrace whatever comes up. And how do you embrace it? I think, well, I have the hand, and I have the hand over there. Yeah?

[57:30]

Well, I'm living with a mission in this company, but I'm like, you know, maybe a lot of it, you know, we're going to talk about, following Robert, Mishama, and Rudolph, and that, all of it, all of that, and it's important. I'm a friend of our community here that we're in for all this, I've been [...] in for all this, It doesn't make any difference. It doesn't make any difference.

[58:36]

However, the story we tell about in Karolibaha must be a conventional story. You can be a Buddhist or not Buddhist, but the story you tell about how you get there should be very conventional. It should be something that's kind of like... No, I mean... I mean like... Applying something that we already know what that is. That's not conventional. But what I'm saying is that if you switch over from saying that what we're dealing with here is this story has some essential truth and some essential causal power in the situation, if you give that up,

[59:50]

then what you might think is, well, then I can tell a story however I want, and I don't have to follow the rules of conventionality. That would be another extreme kneel with position and say, well, I can say whatever I want. I don't have to follow the ordinary logic. Since there's no essential thing, you know, I can do whatever I want. No rules, there's no precepts, there's no nothing. But if you look at the world, if you look at the ordinary world, the realist world still sees cause and effect, still has that explanation. But they say, we have these explanations of how things happen, for example, how the precepts work, how you do this, and that happens. They follow the regular causation thing. If they go too far, then it's reality. So then if you take away the reality or the essence of the situation, then they say, well, if there's no essence to a good act, then there's no essence to a good result.

[61:00]

Therefore, if there's no essence to a good result, and you can't find the essence of a good result in a good action, you can't find the essence of a pattern that is. in being quiet in class, something like that, then if the condition has no essence, then why don't you just say you have no condition? In other words, we want to say, things happen with no condition. In other words, nonsense. You know what I mean? So the realist position is, this usually happens. When this happens, this happens. That's an ordinary story. Everybody can follow it. The realists don't make a strange story. It's just that they say, since this follows from this, there must be some essence in here that connects these people. Right? but they follow the conventional story, but then they shoot essences through the thing. Then if you take away the essences, they say, then they switch over to the other side and say, well then, you know, A equals B. That's what I mean by weird.

[62:13]

It's not weird exactly. Well, In the technological meaning of weird, it is weird that we attribute essence to things. It's weird in the sense that what weird means fundamentally, it's fate. Weird means fate. The Norse word means fate. It is our fate that we have a strong tendency to attribute essence to the process. So that's weird. So strictly speaking, the real position is that fate for our fated tendency. And that's the way we usually go. Most people aren't basically nihilists. Nihilists are the people who have had the realism ripped away from them by Narkar Jr. or somebody and then flipped to the other side. And then said, well, no, I'll do whatever I want. That's all convention, man. If convention doesn't have essence, then I'm going to be non-conventional. I'm going to be totally random. I'm not even going to be like, you know, always non-conventional. I'm going to be conventional someday, but then I'm going to switch the other side when you're not even noticing and switch back.

[63:17]

I'll do whatever I want because you said that this conventional process has no essence, so I can do whatever I want, right? Yes, you can do whatever you want. But what you'll do, really do whatever you want, is you will respond according to condition. Perfectly. And that's what you saw for that. a perfect response. And the perfect response is that when something happens, you completely embrace it. Only because it happened. But don't agree with it. And it's happening only because of this conversation. So every conversation that happens in your life, moment after moment, is conversation with condition. Conversation with condition. Conversation with condition. This is dependent colorizing. And you completely embrace this conversation with condition, which don't have essence, and conversation doesn't have essence. And because you realize it, because of that, you boldly live. However, you do have

[64:18]

But you are powerless. You're totally engaged and powerless. And everything you're engaged with is powerless. It's a conversation. In a conversation, you don't have power. When you get orders and commands, then you have power. But in a conversation, it's like there's something happening between a certain number of things. Like a conversation of flowers. I need somebody to come with attention to flowers. If they're out there just conversing, that's what's happening. But they don't have power over each other, and yet they arise together. And when one moves, the others respond perfectly. When the sun moves, they all do this thing together. When the wind moves, they do this thing together. But they have no power, and the wind doesn't have power. power to call it, they're just conversing with each other.

[65:20]

The wind goes like that. Then the wind goes over there, and they go back like that. It's just like that. That's the way Bodhisattva acts. And that's how Bodhisattva helps, by demonstrating dependent color. In other words, by being completely conventional. And that being conventional under conventional circumstances, it's possible through being upright. When you're upright, You get pushed this way, you go this way. You get pushed that way, you go that way. Because you have no vote. You get to respond appropriately. But even when we're there and we're happy, we feel like, although it is in reality, it's really right. Because I feel like I can respond. I can relate it. I can breathe. I can go with what's happening. I am what goes with what's happening. But I don't know anything. I don't have anything.

[66:21]

You know, I'm vulnerable to this time. I don't have any kind of, like, cause of power here. And it doesn't make it any easier. Well, maybe it does make it a little easier. You know, then nothing else does it. But you're not being left out. Can everybody else be on this central reality trip? No. You're actually being joined to all beings by just giving up. So now there's not time to go through it again. But I think what I might find would be, then, when I come back into plan, first class, I'll go through with you. It'd be like . In the meantime, you'll be chanting it, and it'll be running through your mind to work out some of the truth yourself.

[67:26]

And then after that, then you can use this understanding here as a kind of like an instrument or a an instrument or a way of being, kind of an upright way of reasoning, and then into chapter 24. And then they'll have a pretty long time in chapter 24. It's a wonderful chapter. And it really shows how this teaching makes Buddhism possible, and how this other work makes Buddhism possible. So it's rather nice, because it does. The way that now we're going to criticize him is nice, because it can't be job security for my younger. You have all fine people who are going to Tennessee, so you all have work to do it, help them, to teach. Yeah. I'll bring it up. It's a what? I'll bring it up.

[68:28]

Do you want anything to do it then? No. I just want to . You should read in from the list of the story. Yeah. Yeah. I'd be happy to, but I don't know how I'm going to do it, you know. I'm going in a sachet. If you guys want to do it, somebody wants to put that together and type it up and get a coffee and pack it up, people find me. But I don't have time, man. I don't have a sachet coming up and he's on your phone. I knew I could do that, but I need to conference up with it, so I'm not going to be able to. I'm unreliable in this regard. I need the time to get that together. I thought, I trust the conversation to be a reliable scholar and I think

[69:29]

by looking at the other translations, I have no problem with it. It is extremely confident, too. But I trust it. I trust the scholarship. And you have to say the parentheses that you know that you're adding that and all that. So I have no problem with it other than the clunkiness, and I do rely on clunky. But the other ones, I didn't feel so confident in that with my ability. But if you guys want to try to pick other ones, it's funky. So I don't know how you work that out. If I need to do that, I have to. And then there are books that put them in therapy to check out the administration. We copy them. Look at different sections. Yeah. You know, I say we're going through a renewed study, chapter 24, which shows how we can practice this teaching. But I feel like tonight we're getting a really excellent exposition of how it works.

[70:30]

But, yeah, just by waiting for that. Because chapter 24. Thank you. Thank you, Nagarjuna. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. And I wanted to say also that and I'm going to talk about the five precepts and how in each case, how the precepts, how Upright City would delay on the precepts and how the precepts it's a way to understand upright city. Hopefully that the teacher, the precepts, teaching the five precepts, it goes both directions to show how the meditation, the teaching of the precepts, and how the precepts did a way to get into uprightness.

[71:37]

What I wanted to say, that I am starting with, the second precept, not the first. And the reason for that is because I'd already written a chapter on the first one, which we could start, but the chapter and the second should be sick, but having, you know, hoping that the doctor's burning on us, so that they could start with all these chapters. ... [...]

[72:44]

of likely death. And the second perspective, an extension of that, meditation with likely death, even to the realm of relationship between self and other, between mind and heart. So meditation on likely death, spanning the meditation of likely death due to awareness of self and other, mind and heart. time at the end of the project period, I'll talk to them. My morning, for the first period of the event, which will face the wall, face out, and then we'll read the session and the missions, and that It's okay.

[73:59]

Someone gave me this. You can keep it. Actually, I have one. Although I keep forgetting to bring it. So once again, you know, when you're sitting upright, I like to sit upright in the conversation of conditions, okay?

[74:21]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_70.93