So the kind of simple point that I, simple to say, a point is that enlightenment is not caused. Enlightenment is a dependent co-arising. Enlightenment dependently co-arises. Delusion also, by the way, is not caused. As a matter of fact, I wasn't going to mention it, but nothing is caused. There isn't anything that actually exists, that there's any evidence for existing that is caused. So, unfortunately, my talk just expanded a little. But I wanted to focus just on to make that point that enlightenment is not cause.

[01:03]

It is a dependent co-arising. So I said that before to you, right? Did you hear that before? So because it's a dependent co-arising, it can arise. And I mentioned the other day some evidence like Buddha's robe. The actual material Buddhist robe, when made by beings who are inspired by awakening, is evidence. The robe isn't enlightened exactly, but it's evidence for enlightenment. Bowing, also when inspired by enlightenment, is evidence. Great wisdom and compassion are evidence. Great freedom is evidence. Kindness and harmony in the Buddhist community is evidence, and so on.

[02:06]

There's quite a bit of evidence for this dependently co-arisen thing called enlightenment. But it's not caused. Enlightenment depends on , but it's not caused by it. For example, enlightenment Depends on, well you tell me, what does enlightenment depend on? Tell me some things that you think it might depend on. Pardon? Depends on compassion. Wisdom. Presence. What? Blessedness. Delusion. Depends on delusion. Good old delusion. Anything else? Depends on emptiness. It doesn't depend on emptiness. Empty. Well, as a matter of fact, yes.

[03:14]

If there wasn't anything it depended on, if it depended on everything, then there would be no way to impute, to mentally and sexually impute anything on it, and it would not exist, it would not appear for us. So, for example, we don't exactly say that enlightenment depends on the fireman named Jose, who works in San Jose, dropping his pencil on Tuesday morning. We don't have that story about enlightenment. Somebody might, but most people don't. That you think about what enlightenment depends on, and that's how it appears for you. For example, enlightenment does not depend on a lack of delusion. That's a big one. Some people think it does. But the story of the Buddha is that enlightenment does not depend on a lack of delusion.

[04:27]

Now, if there is a lack of delusion someplace, that won't hurt enlightenment. You know what I mean? Like if there was some delusion over there on that seat around there, but then like down below there a little bit, there was lack of delusion, that wouldn't hinder the enlightenment arising independently with the delusion up on the tongue. Okay? And that wouldn't be part of the story of the Enlightenment. Because there's a lack of delusion all over the place. It's basically everywhere. There's no limit to it. But that's not the story. The story is that it depends on understanding delusion. And that's the Enlightenment that we can have evidence for. So actually nothing is caused. There aren't any caused things. Causation is a fiction. But all those things which you think are caused, like misery, cruelty, and so on, if you, rather than deal with it in terms of causes, you understand it's dependent for arising, you can become free of the appearance of misery in this world.

[05:52]

But if you deal with its cause, you stay in the cycle of its creation. So the Buddha did not teach cause and effect. So sometimes you see the Buddha, like Dogen Zenji has a festival called Deep Faith, and it looks like it says cause and effect. But really, it means that you have to study where there is a dependent co-arising of the fiction of cause and effect. You have to understand how cause and effect dependently co-arises. It's not that there is no cause and effect. It's rather when you understand cause and effect, you understand its dependent co-arising is empty. Ekin Roshi quoted Rajneesh one time at Zen Center as saying that practice doesn't cause enlightenment.

[07:04]

Enlightenment is an accident. But practice makes you accident prone. Rajneesh was a devotee of Bodhidharma. He really loved Bodhidharma. It was the end of his life. and he said that. And I thought, I was thinking, now, is practicing accident? And I looked up accident, and the first meaning of accident is an unexpected and undesirable event. And actually, pretty good. The second meaning is an unexpected or unintentional event. Another one is fortune or chance. And accident, the root of the word accident means to happen, a happening. So in a way, accident's not so bad that it's enlightenment or awakening is unexpected.

[08:15]

What it is is not what you expect. And it's not what However, even though it may not be what you intend, if you practice properly, and if you're deluded properly, and if you're a living being properly, it will happen, it will dependently co-arise, and it'll be too late to, you know, my intent is that you please take it back. It will have happened. Dogen Zenji says that enlightenment invariably differs from our expectation. Awakening invariably differs from our expectation. It is not like our conception of it. Whatever you think, one way or another, awakening is not a help for awakening.

[09:24]

It is not like awakening, although awakening is not like any of the thoughts preceding it. This is not because such thoughts were actually bad or could not be awakening. Although awakening is not Any of the thoughts preceding it, this is not because such thoughts were bad and could not be awakening. Past thoughts, prior thoughts, thoughts prior to awakening were all themselves actually already awakening. However, we didn't notice this because we were seeking elsewhere.

[10:44]

We thought and said that thoughts cannot be awakening. Again, he says it is worth noting that what you think one way or another is not a help. If you realize this, if you notice this, you are cautious not to be small-minded. Do you understand? No? Small-minded is like this thought you have right now. Small-minded is this is not awakening, this thought. That's small-minded. It's also small-minded to say this thought is awakening, even though this thought already itself is awakening.

[11:47]

And the thought that this thought is awakening itself is already awakening. If enlightenment came forth by the power of your prior thoughts, it would not be trustworthy. Enlightenment is helped by the power of enlightenment itself. We know that there is no delusion and there is no enlightenment, and yet enlightenment does, on some occasions, dependently co-arise in this world, and also delusion does dependently co-arise in this world. But because they dependently co-arise, we can be free of both.

[12:52]

So that's what I wanted to say. I appreciate that. I think it's very important teaching from the ancestors. So you don't practice because enlightenment, but enlightenment dependently co-arises with practice, and also practice dependently co-arises with practice. They come together. In India, they say that when two things come together all the time, They're really the same thing. However, in gaining idea, we may not appreciate that this practice which dependently co-arises with awakening, and the awakening which dependently co-arises with practice, we may not appreciate the fact that they're the same thing.

[13:58]

It's hard for us to not be small-minded. That's part of our work. Any questions about that? Does that make sense? Carol? What is the role of volition in practice? What is the role of volition in practice? It's a volunteer for the experiment of practice. It's something that volunteers for the Buddha to study. It's something to be studied. That's its role. It's a study object. It is karma. It's the definition of karma. Volition is the definition of karma, so it is one of the first things that as an object of study.

[15:04]

He says volition has consequence. That's part of the right view. So volition is something that you study, you watch how it happens and how it has consequences. You watch how a dependent core arises and what the consequences are. Have you been watching it lately? I can't tell. You can't tell? You can't tell if you've been watching? You can't say you haven't seen an evolution lately? Are you saying that you haven't seen an evolution lately? What are you saying? It seems to be more like an intention. Intention seems to be more like an intention? To come to practice seems like an intention. You could have an intention to come to practice. That's right. That's true.

[16:04]

Yes? It seems like it's intentional and voluntary. Do you say that practice seems like it's intentional and voluntary? It does. It does seem like that. So I'm suggesting you consider that practice might not be your intention to practice. That your intention to practice might be actually an intention. not practice. But practice is the way you care for and pay attention to and are present with attention to practice. Consider that slight change of perspective. And please adopt it for at least one moment completely, and then you'll be a Buddha. Yeah, that's fortunate. If you do what I ask, you'll be fine.

[17:06]

Pedro? Can you hear him, Linda and Ramon and Steve? Can you hear him? Okay, so you've heard that maybe there's enlightenment that goes beyond what? Beyond practice enlightenment. It goes beyond practice enlightenment? Practice enlightenment goes beyond practice enlightenment. Yes, that's right. It's like... Great Awakening. Great Awakening. How does it differ?

[18:06]

There's another word for the same thing. Great Awakening goes beyond itself. It is Great Awakening. If it doesn't go beyond self, it's called, what do you call it? Zen sickness, among other things. It's called, the light is not circulating completely. So it can be a great light, but the light has to transcend itself, otherwise it is stuck and doesn't fully realize itself.

[19:12]

Is that how you do the question? Volition and motivation are very similar. I mean, in some context, motivation and volition are exactly the same. Maybe sometimes it's made different, but basically, yeah, they're the same. Volition, intention, will, bodhicitta, Bodhicitta self, adult relative bodhicitta, is a motivation, is an intention, is a wish. Buddhists do have wishes.

[20:15]

They have intentions. And ordinary self-centered people do have wishes, do have intentions. The difference is that the Buddha doesn't have a self clinging attitude in conjunction with the intention. So it's just the intention. It's not coupled with self. Buddhist intentions are kind of like real simple. Sentient beings' intentions are quite varied. They tend to go shopping at this store and that store and buy this and buy that and get Be with this person and avoid that person. Help this person, not help that person. These kinds of things. These are the motivations. Buddhist motivations are very kind of like one track. They're only concerned with ultimate reality where all beings are independent and where all beings are in harmony and happiness.

[21:25]

That's the only intention of that world. Very simple. but they don't have a self associated with that intention. But they do have an intention. We would have an intention just like a Buddha. The question is whether there's any self-cleaning associated with that intention. And that's for us to find out. And if we find some self-cleaning, what do we do with it? Study. Study it. Study it as it happens. Self-clinging. Study, study, study, just as it is, and you'll see how it happens. When you see how it happens, then there's freedom from self-clinging, and then there's just, hopefully, your good intentions free of self-clinging. Now, if you had any bad intentions prior to that, they will...

[22:30]

rather than drop away. And good intentions coupled with self-clinging, and they're called, under that situation, they're called good karma. But when the good intentions are coupled with selflessness, then they're not karma anymore, then they're liberating activities. Liberation and liberating. Okay? Does that make sense? I think you said that enlightenment exists before. Is that right? No, I didn't. I said that the thoughts prior to enlightenment, all right, are themselves already enlightened.

[23:33]

It's a somewhat different statement. So what does to enlightenment or after enlightenment mean? Well, it means like, let's say like you're sitting over there and you think, you're thinking, and you look at your thoughts and you say, this is not nirvana. I'm not totally at peace. I'm not totally happy. I don't love all beings. And this thought that I don't love all beings, that itself is not enlightenment. And I better go someplace else to be happy. Maybe I should change my seat with Rachel. You don't trust your thinking. You don't trust your thinking itself. You don't trust the suchness of your thinking. So that lack of trust, that lack of faith in ta-ta-ta, effectively hinders the realization of the nature of your thought.

[24:36]

But all the while, it's self-enlightenment. But enlightenment never did exist. I didn't say that enlightenment existed before it existed. I never said anything about it existing at all. But I don't have to, because people do that for me. So if I forget to mention that Buddhism Enlightenment exists. Zen Center exists. You exist. People will remember that for me. But basically, I'm not into telling you that things exist. I'm into telling you that they dependently co-arise. Therefore, they only appear by that interdependence, and that's called conventional existence. So, before enlightenment conventionally exists, Okay? Before it conventionally exists, your thoughts are already enlightened. I didn't say it already exists.

[25:41]

You see the difference? It's subtle. Before enlightenment conventionally exists, and it conventionally exists like when there's evidence for great compassion and so on, everybody's happy, okay? Before that, prior to that conventionally existing enlightenment, those thoughts themselves, in actuality, were enlightenment. But in actuality, the way that they're actually enlightenment, in actuality they're also empty, the thoughts and the enlightenment. So they don't exist in actuality. They don't exist conventionally. Because it's not that emptiness really exists, Emptiness only conventionally exists. Just like enlightenment only conventionally exists, and delusion only conventionally exists. So your thoughts always are themselves awakening, but the in-themselves awakening is actuality.

[26:49]

But in actuality, things don't fall into existence and non-existence. They're free of that troublesome categorization system. But then sometimes when we think about that, then there's a conventionally existing enlightenment. It conventionally exists. Okay? But I didn't mention that. But in fact, that's the case. When we say prior to enlightenment, we mean prior to the conventionally existing enlightenment, there's already actually an actuality of enlightenment. But the actuality of enlightenment is not existence or non-existence. Now you got it, right? Yeah. You have it partly because you could say you didn't have it. See, so now you have it. But, did you say but? We can't appreciate the enlightenment prior to conventional enlightenment without conventional enlightenment.

[27:52]

You see, we can't appreciate the enlightenment prior to the conventional enlightenment without the conventional enlightenment. You know, I think we might be able to appreciate the enlightenment prior to the conventional enlightenment before realizing the conventional enlightenment. Yeah, that would be an unconventional enlightenment. It would be kind of like, I don't know why, but I appreciate my thoughts prior to being enlightened. Like, I'm totally happy, you know. I'm really satisfied with the thinking that's going on. I feel completely free. But I'm not yet enlightened. But I'm kind of like, you know, it's as though I were, but I'm not. Because my enlightenment doesn't ultimately exist either. This would be a kind of unconventional enlightenment. You wouldn't know you had it, you know. People would say, are you enlightened? You'd say, I don't think so. Stuff like that.

[28:54]

This would be unconventional. This wouldn't be the kind we usually call enlightenment, right? Conventional. where we kind of like all sign off on it, right? She knows, she's good looking, she's happy, she's compassionate, she's wise, you know. And yet, when you tell me that you appreciate the nature of your mind prior to enlightenment, that's enlightenment. In fact, you're tuned into the way enlightenment really is. It is what you are. So that would be kind of unconventional. But who cares, really? Well, you know, it is nice to have conventional, like, conventional existing enlightenment sometimes. There's something to say for it, like, a conventional existence is nice, right? You can find it, it's got walls, you know, you can raise money. There's some advantage in conventional existence. It's good stuff, actually. But, there's also, like, unconventional enlightenment that nobody knows about, right?

[30:01]

Yes, Jackie? Jack Kornfeld quotes the conversion in The Path of the Heart as saying that strictly speaking, there's no such thing as an enlightened person. There's only enlightened activity. And strictly speaking, enlightened activity only conventionally exists. It's empty. But strictly speaking, that enlightened person that doesn't It applies also to the enlightened activity. Strictly speaking, it doesn't exist either. They're on a par. The enlightened activity exists no more than this enlightened person. They both can conventionally exist. You can have a conventionally existing person, but strictly speaking, there isn't one. I think Stuart was first, and then came Liz.

[31:18]

Right? It sounded, though, like what we came to God at in that statement. Pardon? It sounded, though, like what we came to God at in that statement is that is that enlightenment doesn't appear that that people conduct enlightened activity, but because they conduct enlightened activity, it doesn't mean that their person is able to conduct enlightened activity, and that presumably they might be capable of carrying on unenlightened activity as well. It's just a reminder that it doesn't appear in itself. Yeah, but the same applies to enlightenment. If you conduct unenlightened activity, Enlightened activity can conduct unenlightened activity also. What do we say about activity?

[32:19]

We do? Right, but in the realm of enlightenment, there aren't people conducting activity. Does that mean that we would say, though, activity conducts activity, or do we simply say that activity takes place and people take place? Do we say that activity takes place? We do sometimes. People take place. Okay? That's next. So that still doesn't make In the world of karma, the world of karma is the world where the person owns the activity, right?

[33:27]

good karmic activity or bad karmic activity that this enlightened activity falling to that does it well let's see when when there's somebody who owns an activity that's called karma okay so where's the enlightened activity at that moment So the enlightened activity at that point is the activity which emerges with the understanding of this story. Of a person owning activity. So where is the enlightenment? Where is it? So wherever it is, there it is. Now does somebody else own that enlightened activity? No. Right?

[34:41]

Now you're ultimately working there. Right. This kind of, like, enlightened activity that's going on in the midst of karma, right there at that time, that can be, that can operate there, okay? There's no somebody, there's nobody that owns that. Okay? Enlightened activity is conducting enlightened activity. Okay. Liz? Try to be aware of it. Try to be aware of the mind making images of where it's going. That's studying your intention. For example, studying your intention to be That's a good one. it's also good to study your intention to perhaps be the movie.

[35:51]

Linda. Did you hear me say that delusion is enlightenment? No, no. I don't think I said that, but if I did, I would draw my statement. Enlightenment is not delusion, but enlightenment dependently co-arises and delusion co-arises. They both dependently co-arise, but their dependent co-arising is different Just like you and Ramon, both dependent for a rise, but you have different dependent for a rising. Dependent on delusion, yeah.

[37:02]

Just like you depend on Steve and Leslie and so on. But you're not Steve and Leslie. You depend on being a woman. Linda and so on. But you're not Linda and you're not a woman.

[37:23]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_80.77