I had a discussion about how I feel I've been involved in the first day. But still, it's appropriate to come back to me. What's come back to me? I don't know, but, you know, the doors of Hong Kong's community, you know, you know, you know what I mean. Well, that's good that you say that, because that's actually where we're at most of the time, is that we are compelled by things. And the reason why we're compelled by them, it's partly because we think that they are canonically distant. And therefore, we are in slight. So it's really good. You are doing your service here by saying that in a minute, we all feel that way. We really do think the law is solid. . It's all very compelling.

[01:05]

Now, the way to make it less compelling is to observe . Is it the same . No. Well, suchness here that dependent core arising is itself also not a thing. You can't, if you say, did you hear what he said? Did you see what he did? She did the same thing Roberta did. Okay. I don't know if he raised his hand before or after. I said, I can't talk, but dependent co-arising is okay. Then he switched over and said, is dependent co-arising such? In other words, is dependent co-arising in that reality?

[02:06]

Well, is dependent co-arising the same as dependent co-arising? Pardon? No, it isn't. Definitely not. If it were, then the Pentecostal rising would have an essence, and it would be identical with the Pentecostal rising. And then it could be the actual powerful cause of everything. To say that everything in the Pentecostal rises does not mean that there's this thing called the Pentecostal rising, which is a quality thing to happen. It does not mean that, but we slipped into that. Let me back up to another thing that we're ready to know. Is the Pentagon rising a conventional description? Yeah. Yes. That's what Nagarjun is saying. He's saying, the Pentagon rising is just a conventional description. That's all it is. That's all we actually have is these stories about what things happened. That's it. And therefore, there's nothing but that. They're just conventional stories.

[03:08]

There's nothing to them. And, however, we don't just say in a random, like I don't say Roberta Compton. I didn't say Roberta Compton, I'm talking about acorns today. Why don't I say that? Or tonight anyway, why don't I say that? It's not conventional. Stop it. [...] The better ones are the conventional.

[04:16]

That's the point. Those are the ones that get to be conventional, the better ones. At once, the thing about reverted becoming acorns, it's not a very good one, actually. Isn't it possible for there to be cultures that are ideological in some way where their conventional views may not in fact be what we want to call in a different society's different, better ones? There is a thing called evolution. And there are societies within which the conventional world, the conventional view, in other words, how they think things dependently co-arise. There are societies in which they have stories. And the conventional ones in that society are what they think are the best one, basically. There are variations, but then there's some pressure to come along with that, OK? And Japan is, I'll get to that later, but Japan, there's a lot more pressure for everybody to agree on what dependently co-arising is in America.

[05:19]

Now, is it possible that two different societies in which there are two different conventional worlds? Conventional reality means that in different spheres there will be different conventional realities. Absolute reality doesn't vary from sphere to sphere. Isn't it possible that this one could be better than that one? That's what you're saying, right? No, the society, conventional reality could be better than this society. I don't want to say better than any sort of absolute point, but I want to say... Exactly, exactly. Not from some conventional point. Like, for example, which one will reduce? Something like that. Yeah. And as a certain philosopher, who I respect a lot, said, he said, well, maybe this fundamentalist thing is not going to work. Maybe these people you know in the Middle East, maybe they won't do that. In other words, maybe they'll get all limited. Maybe they won't be a cap to reproduce. These things do happen. Again, there's a conventional story about how that will or will not happen.

[06:20]

If it does happen, if they cease to exist, if that form of existence can't live on this planet of people going around bombing everybody, if we kind of like eliminate that thing, then there will be a story about how that happened. They won't be around to tell their story anymore if they get eliminated. And there will be a conventional story on the planet about how that group of people didn't get a chance to keep going. And the best story over the whole planet or different things will be that's the one who will live. And that's history, too. It's the same thing. See, again, the tricky thing of you use history to prove this is really true, but if you use history to prove it really true, it isn't really true. It's only conventional truth. You use these reasons for why she's dishonest. She convinced me she's dishonest. Then, obviously, if you're not dishonest, then if you take away one of your reasons, suddenly she's just sort of dishonest. If you take away two, she's a little maybe dishonest. If you take away three, she's a person.

[07:23]

Then also, if she's really a person, then the reasons for that take away the reason why she really is a person. In other words, all there is in this world is these stories which they conventionally tell and which, anyway, most everybody could follow. And you don't have to attribute any metaphysics to it. However, we do. And the reason why we do, deep down in us, there's a very strong drive to a tricky substitute thing because of our self-clean. And because of our self-clinging, we're basically insecure. And because we're insecure, we want to, like, project our self-clinging, I think, because we think that we became under control. Like, that would make us more secure and so on. Margaret Jr. is gracious. They're trying to get us seen there and to let go of this stuff and realize that it has to live without projecting this substance all over the place. And it wills to buy a certain amount of time without it. If we keep it, we're just gonna be miserable from now until we drop it.

[08:28]

It seems to me that one of the reasons that one falls into attributing essence is because of not recognizing kind of ordering of importance or significance of these conventional stories that aren't only relative to, say, a particular society's views at the moment, but maybe relative to this experience of having a separate, having an embodied, being embodied. So that even though, in a sense, we might, I mean, we can say that we don't believe that there's an essence to the separate embodiment. Who says we don't believe in it? Well, we do believe in it. We do believe in it, but we might also believe that it's only based, given a certain relative standpoint, that this separate embodiment appears. At least I believe that. So, but I also believe that it seems that all these other apparent bodies around here are probably going to also take, you know, believe that or believe in the kind of significance of that.

[09:40]

That is, I mean, it's a very important story. It's a much more important story than acorns, for example. The important story is that we have separate bodies and we want to keep them going. That's a more important story than the acorns? Well, to me it is. It's a more important story than, you know, than believing in DNA or this or that. I mean, it's, and it's a story that, you know, that seems to run through all apparently human society, apparent society. Are you saying that what you think is the most important story is that we think we're separate? Well, I'm saying that there's stories like that, that there's some story that, I mean, just to say that they're all stories, I agree that they're all stories, but I think there's some stories that given...

[10:46]

the way things seem are almost inevitable stories. And that they're so important to us because they're tied to our kind of experience of ourselves that we then take this extra step and say that that's the way things are. I mean, we can't say that all things are relative, but some of these relative standpoints are extreme. I cannot say that. Well, we have trouble. We have trouble saying what? That, you know, that all appearances are relative, but some of these relative appearances. Why is we have trouble saying it? Because it's somehow more subtle. We're not, I mean, we want to be able to respect some of these relative standpoints, very much, you know, like the fact of separate embodiments all around. We want to do that. We want to do that. Yes, we do. We do.

[11:47]

We do. But we don't, and we do do it. We do do that. And it's confusing, I think. It's confusing. To say that's relative. And so that it's easy just to say, well, that's where you are. It's incoherent. The whole thing is incoherent. In-coherent. We told you. Do that. Right. And thank you for doing it again. Thank you. How have I done it again? You did it again by telling us a story about how some stories are better than our stories. No, I'd say they're inevitable. Some stories are inevitable and other ones are not. And that story has essence. That's not just a conventional story. It's told that only holds up by convention. It's actually got an essence to it. Worth the essence? Inevitability, I don't know. Put it up high or something.

[12:48]

I don't know what you said. There was a, there was, there was a wreath there, uh, something to what you said. Sounds very similar to things you said before, like, it's our fate, do this, and, I mean, not, but, we told you to work weird, too weird in the North Port of each state, and you said, that's right, it is weird, it's our fate, and a fake metal sounds similar to me. It sounds, what are you trying to say? You're trying to say, I knew the same thing, but, huh? Huh? How do you think I can spot this stuff? Huh? It's in my DNA. I'm just, you know, I'm not going to give all the examples in my own thinking. You need to come forth and demonstrate your own attachment to essences. And you're doing it very nicely. Yes. Yeah, good. I can't take care of, like, by the... Listen, there's some time very, like, a sample.

[13:55]

Yeah. I said that. I agree. I agree. I agree, I agree, I agree. Harvey, I don't think that way or act like that. I have to admit that. But there is this thing that we, although you're right, it isn't such a thing. Most of us act like there is. And a big part of our practice is to express ourselves so that somebody can spot that we finally found something really good. We finally are like we saw. We see the Dharma, and the Dharma is really

[14:58]

Why don't we just make it more straightforward and, you know, hiring their folks at me for a special? My name is Papa. My parents who were sent to it. And now it's how it is. But mostly you don't get locked up. Sucks is fine, but tell us what it is. Tell us how it works. That's the point of the program, is for you to show us how you do it. So I said, you can see what it is. I have to just start by saying, you're not sure. Show us an example of that. Do you think that you really are such a thing? No, I don't. I mean, that you're not an essentialist. I can't buy any of my own hyper, because every time I... You can't? No. Really? He thought that was a true story, didn't he?

[16:06]

You definitely have a story about how you did. You definitely have a story about how you did. You got more than 100. You got stories for every situation. And by that story, you know, there's some credibility to what you think. But that's why it's tribal story. That's right. But that's enough for us. That's what we're talking about. That's what we're using. Okay? That's what we've got here. Tribal story. Now, are you agreeing that it's only the tribal story, or are you agreeing that it's at least the tribal story? If I say it's only the tribal story, then I'm going to slip into something there, too. I'm just going to say there's nothing more than that. Or are you going to say that you can't know that there's something more than that? I'll say that too.

[17:07]

In other words, I'm not talking about benefit. I'm not talking about knowing something else out there beyond what I can see and touch and all. You know, like the essence of acorns, essence of Tom's stories and all that stuff, and essence of this higher level of story. Well, the higher level that I'm talking about, I mean, there's something else about that, which is that it's a cheap fix, you know. I mean, that's what I was trying to say, that if, you know, if you believe in a certain, in the same essence as that other people believe in, then you're less likely to get locked up. Or to get killed. If you're with those people. If you're with those people. Which we seem to be with. I think the institutions are full of people who will agree with the story. Going along, yeah, story completely. That won't even work?

[18:13]

If it worked, would we be here? This is an institution. It seems to me that a lot of this way of seeing everything has to do with the meeting in our school system, that if this, that this, and not only that it's been this, then this, but I believe that because if that is that work before. And that's continuing that process, especially based on that just recreates that every time, even though that's not, yeah. So it's a constant, it's so good to think that when I feel it's very difficult. And what it... Forever. Yeah. What then I feel as I say that is what makes me think that there are

[19:20]

there's a wisdom in the... Like, you can't... I feel so... Well, I don't think I can get rid of myself because then I don't think I could be... Well, I read. Right. But... But the willingness... No, that's just something you're thinking. Actually, it feels sort of less than I believe. Yes. And then I'm willing to have conversations like this. I'll be in a room with people doing it. You know what I mean? Okay. Some people care. And then we'd explain to him, oh no, no, they put out the fire.

[20:47]

But we should have said, yeah, it's all wrong. You know, they should call the fire extinguisher table or something like that kind of firemen. And that's what that very stupid credit would do. Well, yeah, sure. But firemen are fired. And then I laughed. It was actually not very easy to convince on that point. When we say that the Sun was caused by the activities on their part, we call this substantialism. We call that substantialism. When we talk about Pentecostal rising, To say that their son was caused by certain activities, to say that there's a genuine powerful link between your activity and your rising of the sun, that's causation in the sense that a lot of people need, right?

[22:06]

But you could still say that their son is connected by conditions to their activity. In fact, that's a story we tell. What is true about, we do tell a story. Right. Let me say that this table actually exists as an inherent existence. We call that substantial. That's a conventional view. That's a conventional view of substantialism? Yes. That's a conventional view that we call substantial. Yes. The pentacle rising is also a conventional view. We call it the budadar. Oh, he did. The teaching of the Pentecostal Rite. Maybe it got me wrong on me. But he didn't teach it. But he also taught that people attribute it to their existence. If these are both... He taught both the things. That people do attribute that.

[23:10]

But he also taught that there is the Pentecostal Rite and he prayed. Right. In other words, he thought that the story that people tell about how things inherently exist is actually just a conventional story. And that's it. That's what he thought. Uh-huh. But did he teach that the story of the political writing is just a conventional story? Yeah! That's very important! He thought that, too! Very important. I thought that the Pentecost rising is Jesus' story, too. The Pentecost rising is not good, Don. Good, Don. Good, Don, that is a word. Isn't anything that the name that Yes. Including what is true.

[24:14]

Including what is true. Unquote. So the question I'm asking you... Are some potentials very useful for liberation than other people? [...] More potentials you'd say? No, more useful, I'd say? No, more useful, I'd say. No, useful. Uh-huh. Every conventional story could be wrong. Every conventional story could be wrong. When we hear a conventional world and all this conventional story, and don't add or subtract anything from it, you are a white, like what Lee just said. You are enlightened when you understand that this thing about free will is just a crass stupidity. But then, you know, don't take something away and say there's no call to that.

[25:19]

Copenacolarizing, the way you understand things are nothing more than stories. And that is a story, too. And understanding things are nothing more than a story, just understanding it's just empty. There's nothing more than just a story. And so is the pinnacle rising. This is a great thing to point out. It's that the pinnacle rising is empty, too. That's why the pinnacle rising is not substance. Emptiness is not substance. The way you understand all the stories are and everything is just a conventional story. If we don't have a conventional story for it, Bruce MacLeod will talk about it. If I say, example, you don't want to tell me that yet, then we're not talking about anything yet.

[26:25]

But when it started to become clear, then suddenly something appears. Something seems to be there. So it's just because we clarify the story. And then very quickly we can make it into the essence of the whole thing. Because we have this powerful bride in us to attribute self to things. Emptiness of self is also empty. Therefore, itself reemerges, reemerges in the world as a radiant possibility of liberation for all people. Otherwise, everything is extinguished by its vision, and everything is going to be gone. It doesn't happen. It itself reemerges, once it's liberated, it gets right back into the story. ... [...]

[27:58]

For now, we have been dealing with the explanation between the question. It's coming out of the human mind. Again, every explanation will be dropped simply. So that's why we are now buying it. Buying it? Total. Because whatever we are going to escape, it's coming out of our own protection. But it's wonderful, this thing about self-esteem, that they've said the prehistoric person in doing that. That's where it started. It took a long time to figure out that that was the problem. That self-centeredness, that self-projection on all systems of the world. Yeah. And now we know the problem. So this story, depending on the rising story, is a kind of de-centering story? De-centering?

[29:01]

Yes. I mean, in the sense that it contrasts with this. It's an empty story. It's one of the main ways that the Buddha taught to take the essence off, in terms of your own way of thinking about it. You have a means to make them substantial. If you watch how you make them substantial, it's a story you tell. If you watch the story, that's the very way that you let go of it. That project is also empty. So if you listen, you can tell a story. Again, at this point, from the point of view of liberation, Do you know what's the story about these musicians that you want to start?

[30:13]

Right. And, um, We had a plan to make sure it's been like last year. The positions were things that build up and build up to become completely a kind of experience so that they become a lot of people. beyond thinking or pre-thinking. Disposition is like disposition. This is set up by thinking. This teaching came before that teaching and that teaching came

[31:18]

as a kind of supplementary teacher, because this teaching is so radical. You can keep pulling the court. And that teaching went back and talked about the dispositions that arise when the court's still in, and how the dispositions, you know, what they all were. So Nagarjuna's history of Buddhism, he came before that school. And that's what came to sort of show people a little bit about the landscape around this process. It's more accessible to stories. This could tell you that you're telling a story or not. But what you tell a story, you can stand to be right before your story. Yes, what board is this continual, how you find yourself coming up with some kind of sensual or, yeah, I don't know why, but then you're the club song and you're kind of, yeah, you keep applying.

[32:25]

The teaching of Italian polarizing, you keep applying, teaching, look at your stories, watch the stories, see how you build the world, keep applying that, and keep emptying things. You feel funny about something, you have a disposition towards somebody, you have a disposition in certain situations, and you look at how, what story you're telling behind that. And you watch the story, and you're like, it's a story, it's a funny story. And then, and you get faster and faster than that. And you get more flexible and quicker at catching yourself and noticing what you're doing. And so pretty soon, you're affecting yourself more often at triggering reality to what you see. What you see is an eventual story telling. But you could probably get a few people on your way to join in with you and say, yeah, that's a good story. They need to have a lot of trouble in negotiating, but that's the, there are some troubles, but there are some differences in the story. People often have some troubles about that.

[33:27]

But the real trouble is not the difference in our stories. They make our stories into, that's the truth. And then it will work hard. But I can find that different stories. If you're catching up, it amplifies your appreciation of the reemergence of your story of yourself and your story of others. And it graciously uproots these applications. And the fabrication is not the same as story. a story of a form of gravitation to contribute lessons to the process and make these powerful connections between things, the direction of what's associated Are there better and worse ways to do it?

[34:53]

You know, my mom, you said that was, one time I was in Mexico and I woke up in the morning and looked at the ceiling in my room. We wake up in the middle of the night and we don't know what country we're in. On a race, San Francisco, New York, Boston. But anyway, one time I was in the So the next one, I went to, I went to read a long time before I decided which conventional story I was able to read. You could say, we feel as we have to choose one. How long can you stand before you settle into it? How long can you sort of say, San Francisco, Texas, Clarence, blah, blah, blah. How long can you live in that world where you're running to a conventional story? Each one is a conventional story. If one you could discuss with me, somebody would come to the room and say, is it political? Spain?

[35:55]

What is it? And they would say, well, it's Mexico. And they'd say, well, blah, blah, blah. And they'd actually have a little debate about it. And they'd say, oh, actually, you're right. It's possible. I think you probably might just say, no, I'm going to keep thinking about it today at Cuba. You might do that, but a lot of times we just feel like it's not that much fun. It's more fun to do it if you guys show one. I choose Mexico because most people in Mexico choose Mexico. If you choose Mexico, you choose, say, Boston. But if you killed Mexico, then if it was actually, if it turned out, if you... Are you talking about magic? No, I'm talking about it.

[36:58]

If you stick to Boston, you're not conventional anymore. I don't know what you want to call it, but conventional, when you're in Mexico, the convention is called Mexico. I guess I'm... They changed the name to some of this... Right? They changed the name. Now they call... They call this over there, Deutschland, right? They used to call it something else, you know? They used to call this something. Now they call it America's Convention. That's all. I guess I'm thinking about There are some scientists who are pretty alert to the fact that, you know, most scientific stories don't get to the middle of the future. They're just the best story, and what they're going to be of stories. And it is a consensus among scientists, let's say, about what story can emerge as a best story, and then what they have to come. They do come to that decision, and, you know, some of them are pretty . But in order to take into a scientist, They need to make some sort of decision. I'm wondering if maybe it's an inappropriate topic at the time. And there are other descriptions like that that aren't scientific.

[38:00]

But we have to come for a human purpose. We have to come up with the best historical story, which is great to me about what it is. What do you have to say about the situation that we're putting? I feel like it's not an appropriate question. It's like the Russian one that I'm asking. It's a type of thing. The same kind of thing you're trying to find some essence. Well, I'm not saying that there is an essence, but I'm saying that don't. I didn't say you were saying that there is essence. I said, I'm kidding you. I'm guessing you look like you're looking for essence. I don't get that. You look like you do. There may not be what I'm doing. I know. It's my story. It's my story. The story I see, you look like somebody looking like for an essence. That's what I see. I don't see all scientists looking for essence. I see sometimes the software I hear from scientists, the ones I think are most interesting, are they saying, it must say that something, something is going to happen.

[39:02]

Certain things you can say, something is going to happen. And you can predict that it will happen. Okay, up to like 18 decimal points. You can get down and it'll happen. Figures you can protect the subsets, they will come out up to 18 decimal points. And you'll get it like, basically you'll get it to be that. If you go one more digit, try to make it a little bit more exact, like reading it down to the essence, it suddenly goes from probability to zero. Zero. So what these people are saying is that nothing can be predicted. everything has a probability, but they don't say necessarily, they don't say the things with higher probability are better stories, they just say, this has a higher probability. Well, then they tend to do more work with them still, and they do chores in some ways to work, they ignore the stories with lower probability, and I'm a scientist with higher probability.

[40:03]

No, no, no, not the scientists I think are interesting. If you like both guys, that's your conventional thing. The ones I like are the ones who don't then say that the one with higher probability is a better story. For example, It's a high probability that light goes straight. Why would a kid, they said light goes in straight lines, that's the other goal. It's a high probability that it does, okay? But the scientists, I think they're interesting, do not say that light goes in straight lines. They just say it has a high probability of doing that at certain circumstances. If you try to make it on a high level of resolution trying to go straight, it will never go straight. I mean, basically zero, the probability of going straight under certain circumstances where you really try to make it go straight. Well, you don't let it go wiggle at all. If you try to do that, then it will never go straight. But still, they do say most of the time you go straight as long as you don't try to make it go really straight. If you let it go the way it go, which is not straight, but sometimes straight, most of the time straight, and you try to combine it.

[41:07]

And that's the thing we're talking about here. If you try to make yourself like the story, the perfectly good conventional story, if you try to make that the way you really are, it goes from like probable. It's something we can agree with. It's like way, way off. And the more you try to make it really that way, the more it's you and the more reality rebels. And when you finally get it all the way down, it's totally under control. It blows you out of the world. You know? If you're soft about it, our stories work pretty well. And if you're soft about it, we can change it. If you're tough about it, it's way off. Excuse me, I just like to point out, if we don't stop soon, we'll have to adjust the schedule for the morning. Yeah, but I think...

[42:17]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_54.86