I pointed repeatedly to a place in the Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra, which I suggest is a description of the key process, or the process by which we are able to realize emptiness, realize suchness, realize the thoroughly established character. This is the part where it says, in dependence upon the absence of strong adherence to the other dependent character as being the imputational character,

[01:02]

thoroughly established character is known. The character of dependent origination can be known. That's a different thing. The thoroughly established character can be known by not clinging to conceptual superimpositions. The thoroughly established character can be known by not clinging to conceptions superimposed on dependent existence. All existence is dependent existence, and we know dependent existence through imputations superimposed upon them.

[02:27]

Through clinging to imputations superimposed upon them, we know them. We know them through imputations imposed upon them. By not strongly adhering to these imputations by which we know dependent phenomena, we get to know suchness. Everything, every existence is dependent existence. that the only kind of existence there is. And we know dependent existence by adhering to conceptions superimposed upon dependent existence as we

[03:37]

loosen as we do not strongly adhere to the superimpositions on dependent existence. In that not adhering we come to know suchness. But of course at that moment where we don't adhere to the impositions and open to suchness we also lose our way of knowing dependent co-arising. As we open to the vision of the thoroughly established character, we lose our way of knowing dependent existence. This is part of the reason why it's difficult for us to dare to loosen our grasp on the conceptions which we superimpose on every dependent thing we experience or every dependent experience we have.

[04:48]

Because as we loosen we also lose our way of knowing dependent existence which we are used to. Even though it is a false way of knowing dependent existence it is our conventional world And letting go of that grasping is letting go of the conventional world. Letting go of knowing the conventional world, I should say. So as we let go of that, we open to thus, to suchness. This sutra and many Mahayana sutras are here to encourage us in this process And as I suggested before, various Zen ancestors have also tried to encourage people to stop adhering to their conceptions which they have of their dependent existence.

[06:04]

I told stories yesterday and before about the so-called coarse methods of Wang Bo. Wang Bo used what has been called coarse methods or harsh methods. Is it harsh to slap people in the face or other parts of the body? This Wang Bo, as you may remember, this Wang Bo slapped the future emperor. He didn't know he was the future emperor, but anyway, he slapped him. And that emperor, when he became emperor and could bestow titles, he bestowed the title Course Acting Zen Master on Wang Bo. One of the high ministers who was Wang Bo's student got Emperor to rename him. But anyway, his methods were coarse. And some people, I appreciate your expression, I do, I do, say, you know, that there's been something good about all this talk about this sutra, this practice period, but basically it's kind of, not basically, but it's also kind of frustrating because they want something more immediate.

[07:35]

So when I hear that, my position, my feeling is, well, do you really? Are you really ready for something more immediate? You know, I'm not sure. I know you want something more immediate because this sutra is so kind of like difficult. It's actually kind of immediate. It's immediately difficult. It's immediately frustrating because you want something more difficult. that you can get a direct impact of the difficulty. But somehow the causes and conditions aren't here for me to twist anybody's nose yet during this practice period. I almost have. I've almost slapped a few people, but I thought, no, no, I don't, not yet. It's not the right time. Now, but besides, what do you call it?

[08:38]

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. You know that expression? It's an English-American expression. When kids insult each other, we used to say, sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt me. Actually, they did hurt you. This was a defense mechanism that kids would say. You'd say, you're a jerk. And they'd say, sticks and stones will break my bones, but your words will never hurt me. Ha, ha, ha. You should learn that. So should you. Huh? You already know it? How come you're sitting farther away today? Did you work that out with Anna? The Doans put you there. How can they put her farther away? Huh? Feeling sorry for her? So although this slapping may not be right, what about me insulting people in private or in public?

[09:50]

How about insulting people as a way to encourage them to not strongly adhere to their conception of what is happening while they're being insulted? Have they dependently co-arising insult to help you not grasp the concept of this dependently co-arisen insult. There is an insult. Yes. It's just not your idea of the insult. The way the insult appears doesn't exist. There is an insult, though. So anyway, it's a little difficult for me because I've got this boring old sutra which is like trying to help you, and then there's waiting for the opportunities for something which is a little faster. So anyway, those of you who are frustrated with the sutra, you may be getting a treat any minute now.

[10:55]

And those of you who are interested in the sutra also may have the sutra taken away from you quite soon. Chapter 7 of this sutra is called the questions of paramartha-samut-gata. And one translation from Tibetan says, unfortunately we don't have the Sanskrit anymore. We may find it someday in some cave in Asia. But anyway, right now we don't have the Sanskrit text. We have Tibetan and Chinese. And from the Tibetan translation is, Then the Bodhisattva, Paramartha Samutkata, questioned the Bhagavan.

[11:59]

Bhagavan, when I was in seclusion, there arose this thought. Quotes, when the Bhagavan has spoken in many ways, the Bhagavan has spoken in many ways of the own character of the aggregates and further spoken of their character of production, their character of disintegration, and their character of abandonment and realization. Just as he has spoken of the aggregates, He has spoken also of the sense spheres, dependent origination, and many other things. He talked about Bhagavan has spoken in many ways of the own character of phenomena. That's the way the Tibetan translates.

[13:05]

The Chinese translated as the Bhagavan has spoken of the specific characteristics. Another translation is the Bhagavan has spoken of the individual characteristics. So this is that term, this very key term for the sutra. The original Sanskrit probably is Svalakshana. Sva means own, and Lakshana means mark or characteristic. So in early Buddhism, spa Lakshana was understood as those characteristics which apply to this particular phenomena. So in that sense, they're the characteristics of... its own characteristics, its specific characteristics.

[14:15]

And when we have direct perception of a phenomena, we see the specific characteristics of the phenomena. When we have a conceptual perception, conceptual awareness of phenomena, we have what is called general, we see the general characteristics of the phenomena. And the general characteristics are the way that phenomena can be categorized as a concept, can be categorized in such a way that it is put into a category where what it is about it that's common with everything else in the category is what's used to put it in the category.

[15:27]

what we see is the common characteristic of the phenomenon. So we see a woman, when we see a woman conceptually, we see the common characteristics of her. The general characteristics When we see her directly, not conceptually, we see her particular characteristics, all the particular things that make her at that moment, not the things that categorize her as woman, Zen student, or whatever. So part of the The difficulty of this text is that the two Chinese translations say specific characteristics and the Tibetan translation says own characteristic.

[16:33]

So, own can mean specific to the particular phenomenon. The own can mean specific or individual in the sense of this particular one, but own can also mean that this thing, for example, this category of form, the aggregate of form, the aggregate of form, this category of color, this conception of color, is established, this characteristic is established by way of its own character. So again, one way of understanding this is that the Buddha taught the specific characteristics of things. Another way is that Buddha taught the own characteristics.

[17:37]

In other words, the Buddha taught the way that things were established by way of their own character. The way the Lakshana were established by way of their own Lakshana. And in the Buddhist tradition there are these two ways, in a sense, of teaching what things are like. One way is this particular thing is like this, The other way is to imply that this particular thing is like this because this particular thing is like this. I think that the structure of this chapter is such that I think the structure of the chapter is such that I think that the

[18:41]

term own characteristic maybe is more bearing down on the process of liberation than the term specific characteristic. In other words, and that's the way the Tibetans translate it, that's what the Tibetans says, it says own characteristic. So in this sense, I think the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit, I think, is more in accord with the structure of the teaching of Chapter 7. Because it's starting out by saying, the Buddha that you taught, that things have an own characteristic, And what you meant by that was you were suggesting, Buddha, that things have a character which is established by way of its own character.

[19:46]

I think he is, in a sense, accusing the Buddha... of implying a self in these categories, the way he put it in the first turning of the Dharma. Now you could read it the other way and say, you taught that things have specific characteristics. You taught the specific characteristics. You told us about what forms are like. You told us about what feelings are like, the category of forms, the concept of form, the concept of feeling. You told us the general characteristics, not the general characteristics, the specific characteristics of these categories. You taught us that.

[20:51]

And then, after telling us about all this stuff, So I'm the Bodhisattva Paramartha Samankadha thinking about this. The Buddha taught us the own characteristic of all these things. And then I'm thinking that the Bhagavan has also taught or also said that phenomena lack own being, that all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start, and naturally in a state of nirvana. So, So I'm wondering, what were you thinking when you taught that all phenomena lack own being, all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start and naturally a state of nirvana? Again, this is very dynamic because, for me, because he's saying, well, before you kind of said things have own characteristic, and now you're saying things lack own being.

[21:59]

Now, you didn't say own being about all these phenomena, but you kind of said own being because you said that they have own characteristics, implying that their own characteristics gave rise, they were established by way of their own characteristics. The things that characterize things make the thing happen, right? Things arise in dependence on things other than themselves. And part of what they arise from then is their own character. But that gets into that they're established by way of their own character. And it's almost like that implied that. But then now you teach that things lack own being. They didn't say, how come you taught the own character first? He says, what were you thinking of when you taught the lack of own being? but I'll just telegraph this for you now. When he teaches us what he had in mind, what he had in mind was three kinds of lack of own being, and one of the kinds of lack of own being was the character lack of own being.

[23:06]

So he taught a lack of own being in terms of character. He thought, he was thinking of a lack of own being of character when he taught. that things have own character. He taught that things had own character, which has the implication, if you think about it, that things are established by way of their own character. But he had in mind at the same time, his own world he was living in was a world where all phenomena are not established by way of their own character and in fact therefore do not have, they lack, own being in terms of character. He was thinking of a lack of own being in terms of character when he taught that all phenomena have an own character. The Buddha, the enlightened mind, is thinking about a lack of own being in terms of character.

[24:11]

That's what Buddha's mind thinks about. And then the Buddha taught an own character, knowing, directly perceiving a lack of own being in those very terms which the Buddha taught. But Paramahansa didn't say, what were you thinking of when you taught own being? I mean, own character. He said, what were you thinking of when you taught that all things lack own being? But he could have said, what have you been thinking about since the moment you were first enlightened? He said, well, I've been thinking about three kinds of lack of own being. And while thinking about three kinds of lack of own being, I did the first kind of teaching. Namely, I taught the own characteristics of the aggregates, the own characteristics of dependent core arising, the own characteristics of the Eightfold Path, the own characteristics of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, and so on.

[25:26]

I taught all these things, I taught all these things, but actually I was living in a world where what I was actually thinking about in my own little Buddha world was a lack of own being in terms of character. But Paramartha didn't, Samadgata didn't ask him how, what was he thinking of when he did the first teaching. He didn't ask him what he had in mind when he was teaching the first turning of the Dharma. In the second turning he said, all dharmas lack own being, are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start and naturally in a state of nirvana. That's the second, that's the prajnaparamita. Paramahansa said, what were you thinking of when you taught that? But he could have asked, what were you thinking of when you did the first turning? If he'd asked that, I think the Buddha would have said, I'm repeating myself, I was thinking of three kinds of lack of own being because that's what I'm always thinking about. But I didn't teach the three kinds of lack of own being because the time wasn't right yet.

[26:32]

I would have been brought back. into a formal grievance procedure. As a matter of fact, Buddha did teach that at the first, and people just walked off. What were you thinking of when you taught the own character of the aggregate. I was thinking of three kinds of lack of own being. But also I was thinking that if I taught these, you auditors would not be able to practice the precepts. So I didn't teach it to you. I taught you this so that you could practice the bodhisattva precepts and the monk precepts. I taught you because it was time to teach you that.

[27:36]

Then I taught the second turning. I turned the wheel a second time and I taught all dharmas lack own being. I was thinking of three then too, but now I thought you were ready for one of the three. I still didn't think you were ready for three, so I taught you just one. And I taught you one I taught you the second wheel to free you from the first. Because although you were practicing precepts and things were going along quite nicely, you were getting stuck. So I wanted to alleviate your being stuck in the own characteristic of things. So that's why I taught the second wheel. But I was thinking about the third wheel, waiting for when I could give it. And now is the time. However, when I talked to second, a lot of people who were into the first walked out. Some people didn't go for it.

[28:38]

But some people did. The ones that didn't go for it, they just kept rolling along in the first wheel, which is pretty good. It just said it was getting a little out of style. It wasn't appropriate anymore, but it's not all that bad. But some people picked up the new wheel and... rode along nicely on it. However, some people didn't understand it properly and they got stuck in the second wheel. So now I give the third wheel to free them from the second wheel so that they don't become nihilistic. And if you look at the sutra, you can see the later parts of this chapter, you see people who misunderstand the teaching of all dharmas lack of own being. They interpret it as meaning that they don't exist and they get in trouble. Remember that part? So to protect beings from that mistake, we have these three types of lack of own being. Okay, so now we're in the part of the, I've just gone up to the part of the chapter where Paramartha Samadgata wants to ask the Buddha, what were you thinking?

[30:06]

And the Buddha says, what a great question that was and how kind he was for asking. And he says, I will explain to you what I was thinking when I taught the second wheel. And In about 1300 years, Rev. Anderson will explain to you what I was thinking when I turned the first wheel. And then everything will be all set. What I was thinking when I said that all phenomena lack own being, all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start and natural state of nirvana, I was thinking of three types of lack of own being of phenomena. A lack of own being in terms of character, a lack of own being in terms of production, and an ultimate lack of own being.

[31:23]

Thinking of that, I taught all phenomena lack of own being. from Chinese, paramartha-samutgata, you should understand that in reliance upon three kinds of no-essence, I explain that all things whatsoever have no essence. descriptive marks have no essence, arising has no essence, and ultimate meaning has no essence. This translation has quite a different effect on me than the other one. Descriptive marks is own characteristics.

[32:30]

So one way to say it is a lack of own being in terms of character. lack of own being in terms of lakshana. And the other way to say it would be, lakshana have no essence. First you taught svalakshana, own characteristics, and now you're teaching, and now it is being taught that these characteristics lack essence. And it also says, production arising has no essence. But I... Some people don't agree with this.

[33:41]

I mean, some people at Zen Center don't agree with this. Some people in this room don't agree with this. But I think that... When you say arising has no essence and sometimes that's misleading, because in a way arising does have essence. The essence it has is that it happens not by itself, it happens in dependence. So the essence of the way things arise is that they arise dependently. But the essence that they don't have is they don't have the essence of producing themselves. There's no self-production. In productions, there's no self-production. In arisings, there's no self-arising. And then, instead of saying, and then I also taught an ultimate lack of own being, this one says that ultimate meaning has no essence, which doesn't contradict the first one.

[34:46]

It just makes a different point. ultimate lack of own being is also that ultimate meaning has no essence. You should understand that when I say things have no essence, I am alluding to three kinds of essencelessness. essencelessness of characteristics, essencelessness of birth, and ultimate essencelessness. I just want to share with you, if you say it even now, when you're teaching now, what are you thinking when you're teaching? And part of what I'm thinking is, This is only the third day of Sesshin. You may not be, you know, enlightened yet enough to understand what I'm saying, but I'm continuing to talk.

[35:48]

Probably if this is the last day, you'd understand what I'm about to say. And so would I. Oh, by the way, here's another difficulty, another difficult teaching point. Wang Bo, that coarse-acting Wang Bo, sort of following his teacher's example. You know the example of Bai Zhang coming up into the hall, and then when the monks were assembled, he used a big staff and swung it at them, and they ran to the door. Remember that story? When he got to the door, he said, what is it? He said, hey. And they turned around, and he said, when they turned around, he said, what is it? And then Wang Bo did the same thing. Bai Zhang was kind of a skinny little guy. And Wang Bo was really big, big guy, bigger stick.

[36:51]

So he comes in and swings a stick at the monks. You'd think they'd run even faster. But they were so scared of him, they didn't move. And then he said, you people are, if you, you people are dreg slurpers. trying to, you know, encourage them to get over their conceptual grasping that they superimposed on this big guy with the stick. But I just wanted to point out that he said, you guys are drag slurpers. He didn't say, we are drag slurpers. But if I say, or if someone says, but if I say, you people are the worst group of Zen students I've ever seen, then afterwards some dear disciple comes to me and says, you know, I'd be able to hear that better if you said we. You know, we have some limitations here.

[37:54]

We're kind of like, we got problems here at Zen Center. You know, we're kind of like holding on to our conceptual graspings. And, you know, we don't want to see suchness here. We're like chicken here. Chick, chick, chicken. You know, that I can hear, you know. However, I can not only hear that, but I can go right ahead and keep on holding on to my conceptual graspings. You're not very shocking at all. And I'm not going to do a grievance procedure against you. Because you're like, you know, with us. You're not like sitting up there on your throne talking down to this miserable slob. Which, you know, I'm like, I'm not up for that. Just like, cool it. It's not time for that yet. Just calm down, fella. Easy, big boy. Easy, easy. Get back in your cage. So then when they tell me, they say, oh, yeah, okay, I'll try. I'll say we. We sentient beings have various problems rather than you.

[39:00]

You unenlightened ones. You unenlightened ones. You, you, and you. Parmartha Samudgata. What is the lack of own being in terms of character of phenomena. Well, at this point in the sutra he says it is the imputational character. And be careful not to take that as completely like, you know, what do you call it, like ordinary, like identity there. Okay, so what is the lack of own being in terms of character? It is the imputational character. Later he says, independence upon the imputational character, I designate this lack of own being in terms of character.

[40:05]

In other words, the imputational character is something we depend on to try to elucidate what this lack of own being is. We've got the imputational character working very nicely. What we're trying to learn about is its lack of essence, or the lack of essence not so much of the imputational character, but of all things. So because we project the imputational character on things, we tend to see that things have their own character. In other words, they look like they are established as reference for words and conceptual consciousness by way of their own character. They look like they have a self. That's because of the imputational. So that self that's put on there is done by the imputational.

[41:11]

That is the imputational. That's self, right? But the thing actually doesn't have an essence. It lacks essence. It's not produced by way of its own character. So it says that the lack of own being in terms of character is the imputational character, but in a way that's not really just like is. It's like the imputational character is the superimposition of the image that something is established by way of its own character as the referent. to words and so on. It's done in terms of words and essences. It's the projection of this essence upon things.

[42:15]

What's the lack of own being? Is it that? It's that that doesn't exist. It's showing you what doesn't exist. The lack... of own being in terms of character is how this doesn't exist. But this is being shown to you to show you what it is that doesn't exist. How is this so? Why is this? The imputational character is a character posited in names and symbols, but it does not subsist by way of its own character. Therefore, it is a lack of own being in terms of character. The character does not subsist by way of its character. Is the kitchen going to leave now?

[43:32]

This is actually, you know, this is an additional type of information about lack of own being that was not offered in that earlier Prajnaparamita was not offered in the all phenomena lack own being and so on. It's not offered. This is new information and this lack of own being in terms of character is really pivotal because you see the whole chapter is set up by starting out by you taught, Buddha, you taught own characteristics. What were you thinking? Well, first of all I was thinking of a lack of own being in terms of characteristics when I taught the second wheel.

[44:43]

First I taught own characteristics, then I taught everything lacks own being. Now I'm telling you about a lack of own being in terms of character. It is that character is not established, characteristics and characters of phenomena positive in names and symbols do not subsist by way of their own character. Character posited, a character that's posited in terms of names and symbols does not exist by way of its own character. This is really new. It focuses in on the self. It shows us more about the self that isn't here. And then there's two more types of lack of own being. This is the hardest one, in a way. The next one's not so difficult, I think.

[45:50]

I'm just going to read the other ways of saying this first type of lack of own being. Descriptive marks have no essence for all things. Descriptive marks have no essence for all things are characterized by imaginative clinging. See here it doesn't say that the lack of own being of descriptive marks is the imputational. is saying that the descriptive marks have no essence because all things are characterized by descriptive clinging. When we look at things, we think that their character has something to it, but that's because

[46:59]

of the imaginative clinging. But without the imaginative clinging, the character of things does not establish the things. The character of things is not established by their character. But because of imaginative clinging, it looks like the character of a thing is established by its own character. The fact that it's not is its lack of own being in terms of character. And the fact that it appears to be established by way of its own character is its self. That's the self which is from the imaginative clinging. We don't say, Self, we don't say self of glasses, self of person, self of tree. We say the character of the tree establishes the character of the tree. The character of the tree, the way the tree is, is established by the character of the tree.

[48:03]

That's the self that is imaginatively superimposed on the tree. There is a tree, a dependently colorist tree. The tree exists there dependently. But it seems to have an essence by which we imagine that the thing is established by way of its character. The character of the thing is established by way of its character. But the tree actually has a lack of own being in terms of character. It is not established. It is positive using the word tree and the image of tree, but it does not subsist by way of its own character. It does not subsist in that way. It subsists in other ways. It exists in other ways. It's established in other ways. The one way it's not established is by way of its character. But we imagine that its character is established by its character.

[49:06]

What is the essencelessness of the characteristics of all things? It is their conceptual grasping. Now this one again translates it as the essencelessness of characteristics is the conceptual grasping. The other one says that the descriptive marks have no essence because all things are characterized by conceptual clinging. Poor words, you know? They just can't get it. That's why it's nice to have lots of translations because none of them make it. They're just trying to get as intimate with this no essence of characteristics of things. So the two of the translations make it sound like the essencelessness is the clinging.

[50:17]

Why? Because the characteristics are defined by artificial names, not by inherent definition. Therefore, it is called the essencelessness of characteristics. Paramartha Samadgada, what is the lack of own being in terms of production of phenomena? It is the other dependent character of phenomena. Why is this? The other dependent character of phenomena arises through the force of other conditions and not by itself. Therefore it is called a lack of own being in terms of production. Paramartha Samudgata, what is an ultimate lack of own being of phenomena?

[51:21]

Phenomena that are dependently originated lack own being due to the lack of being, due to the lack of own being in terms of production. That's a repeat. They also lack own being due to an ultimate lack of own being. Why is this paramartha-samadgata? I teach that whatever is the object of observation of purification of phenomena is the ultimate. Since the other dependent character is not the object of observation for purification, it is an ultimate lack of own being. So the other dependent pattern, other dependent character of phenomena, the way things actually exist or the way things come to exist. Everything that exists, exists in this way, this other-dependent way. And this other-dependent way that things exist, based on that, we find there is a lack of own being in terms of production.

[52:39]

In this other-dependent situation, in this other-dependent way that things exist, right there in the way things exist dependently, there is a lack of own being. It's right there in terms of production. It doesn't produce itself. That's pretty simple, right? Most people get that. The next part is, it's also an ultimate lack of own being in the sense that it lacks being the object of purification. Dependent co-arising is not the object of purification, this sutra says. It's not by observing dependent co-arising that your mind is purified of all obstructions to enlightenment. The other dependent character is not that object.

[53:40]

The object which purifies your mind is called the ultimate. Therefore, the other dependent pattern is said to be an ultimate lack of own being in the sense that it lacks being the ultimate. Now some would say, why didn't they just say, why didn't Buddhists say that the other dependent has a little brother ultimate lack of own being or something like that? I think the reason for saying it is because this particular way is saying, first of all, it's telling you it is an ultimate lack of own being. People say, yeah, right. You can use the other dependent pattern as a way to purify your consciousness of all obstructions to enlightenment. And then they say, no. In this case, what we mean by lack of ultimate is that it lacks being the ultimate to remind people that you cannot meditate on the other dependent only and reverse the process of delusion.

[54:57]

Then the sutra goes on to go into a wonderful discussion more about the next part will again go deeper into this lack of own being in terms of character. And it doesn't go right away into say what the ultimate lack of own being, which is the ultimate, is. So one kind of ultimate lack of own being is not the ultimate. And another kind of lack of own being, one kind of ultimate lack of own being, is not the ultimate. Another kind of lack of own being is the ultimate. And again, I'm justifying the sutra putting it this way because one kind of lack of own being which is not the ultimate gets called a lack of own being to help us not fall for it being an ultimate. In other words, it's called an ultimate lack of own being to draw our attention to that as we get in pretty deep into the meditation, we might think that the other dependent pattern is the ultimate.

[56:20]

So it gets called, it doesn't get called the ultimate, it gets called an ultimate lack of own being. To And it's so difficult to understand this point that when you do, it really helps it sink in that you've made all this effort to understand how the other dependent is not the object of purification. And this strange way of putting it helps you get it more than just not mentioning it at all, that it's an ultimate lack of own being. Why even tell me about this? Because You'll understand it better if you take it in this kind of painful way. The ultimate is also a lack of own being. An ultimate lack of own being. It is the ultimate lack. It is the ultimate type of lack of own being. But also, it is also a lack of own being.

[57:23]

And the ultimate lacks own being too. But they don't talk about that next. They postpone it for some reason. So I'm going to just honor that the sutra doesn't put you through quite a bit more before they get you to take the next step. So he already told you the three kinds of lack of own being, and now the Buddha's introducing the character lack of own being, the production lack of own being, and also an ultimate lack of own being which goes with the other dependent. So the other dependent character is two types of lack of own being. Right? Do you understand that now? You might. So, the other dependent character based on the other dependent character, are two types of lack of own being.

[58:29]

A self-production lack of own being and an ultimate lack of own being. By coincidence, we chanted this this morning, right? This part right here? Didn't we? Yes? Is it correct to say it's ultimately lacking on being? Yes, but all things ultimately lack own being. All things ultimately lack own being.

[59:37]

Okay? And yet I'm saying what? I'm saying that the other dependent has a more firm what? I can't hear you. I'm saying what? Yes. I'm saying it has a more firm ultimate lack of own being. No, I wouldn't say it has a more firm lack of own being. I wouldn't say that the other dependent has a more firm lack of own being than anything else.

[60:46]

Okay? I wouldn't say that. Did you think I'd say that? No, I'm not saying that the other dependent has a more firm lack of not being firm. I would say it has a different type of lack of firmness than other things do. it lacks on being in terms of production. Now does the imputational lack on being in terms of production?

[61:50]

In a way it doesn't lack on being in terms of production because the imputational is, what are you going to say? The imputational is the idea of something that exists without being produced. In other words, it's about something that doesn't exist. So this thing that doesn't exist, which is that things exist by way of their own character, in some sense it isn't a lack of one being in terms of self-production. That applies to things which arise. But the imputation is about something that exists by way of its own character. And things that exist by way of their own character, do they arise? They don't arise. That's what it goes on to talk about in the next part. And the ultimate is not really a production lack of own being.

[62:57]

The ultimate lack of own being is not really a production lack of own being. It's selflessness. And again, the sutra is just saying to us, and I also want to tell you that this other dependent character is not the ultimate. Don't forget, it's not the ultimate. Heard? Please understand it's not the ultimate. And to help you remember that it's not the ultimate, we're going to tell you that it is also an ultimate lack of own being in the sense that it lacks being the ultimate. Whereas the ultimate is ultimate lack of own being and it's the ultimate. May our intention equally penetrate

[69:54]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_90.31