According to the teaching of the Buddha, do phenomena dependently co-arise? Yes? Are there any phenomena that do not dependently co-arise? Huh? What? Yes, what? Pardon? Emptiness doesn't? Hmm? No? Huh? Space? Is space a phenomenon? Are there any phenomena that do not depend on the core rise? Um... What's something that doesn't dependently co-arise?

[01:05]

What do you call that? Huh? A delusion? What else? Inherent existence. Inherent existence is that which doesn't depend on anything, right? Huh? Emptiness. Wrong. You just said emptiness was inherent existence. Huh? You said that? Oh, that's what Alex said. No, it does. It dependally co-arises. Do you know how? Apparently not. Do you know how, Christina? It needs to be perceived. That's how it dependally co-arises. Yeah. But what's the key factor in how it dependently co-arises? What's the one that Nargajuna mentions?

[02:06]

Oh, that it's not separate from the form. It depends on form, yeah. It depends on mental imputation. Emptiness, that being a mental imputation, is the middle way. So, we have this great school, Buddha school, which has ultimate truth, that depends on conventional designation. So our ultimate truth also dependently co-arises, so our ultimate truth, which is the lack of inherent existence, also lacks inherent existence. That's the middle way. Now, one of the implications of this neat thing is that I think it's really neat. Now, is the belief in inherent existence good?

[03:07]

What kind of question is that? It's a Reb question, didn't you know? Don't you see who asked it? It apparently co-arises with Reb. I noticed some people think that emptiness is better than inherent existence. In other words, emptiness is better than the belief in inherent existence. Emptiness is better than... It's like the ultimate truth is better than the appearance that things inherently exist. But Buddhism doesn't say that, I don't think. that deceptive things are inferior to non-deceptive things, that untruths are inferior to truths, or truths that appear to people who don't have wisdom are not as good as the truths that appear to the people who do have wisdom.

[04:20]

Now, the truth of those who do not have wisdom may well be that the truth of lack of inherent existence, emptiness, is better than the misconception of inherent existence. People who believe in inherent existence, they might well think that the lack of inherent existence is better than inherent existence. They might even think that liberation is better than suffering. Does anybody here think liberation is better than suffering? That the end of suffering is better than the beginning of suffering? That the middle of suffering is better than the beginning? That the end is better than the middle? Such views are views, right?

[05:25]

Such a view is a view. And That's it pretty much on that. It's a view. Some people might think that view is better than some other view, like that the end of suffering is not better than the beginning of suffering. But another view would be that both of those views should be relinquished, and they all lack inherent existence. And I have quite a few other things to say, but since this might be the last class, I thought maybe I would see if you'd want to bring anything up right away.

[06:35]

I want to bring up this question of whether Is it the path to relinquish false views or to relinquish views? Who says what? Excuse me, can I handle that first part? Is it the path to relinquish false views or to relinquish views? It is the Buddha path? It is the Buddha path to relinquish all views, including correct views. should also relinquish correct views. Correct view is... What's correct view? It is simply the person who doesn't take on either extreme.

[07:39]

Yeah. The view which relinquishes extreme views is the right view. And the view of, for example, phenomena that relinquishes views about phenomena is called the middle view, or the view of dependent co-arising, or the view of emptiness. But even the view of emptiness and the understanding of dependent co-arising, and even the relinquishment of extremes, should be relinquished. How do you recommend one do that? Do you take on the correct you first and then relinquish it, or do you relinquish the correct you? Just a second now. Do you want to ask the question in parts? You said, how would I recommend doing it, and then you started giving me alternatives. Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay.

[08:39]

Do you want to do it that way? Do you want to give me alternatives? Multiple choice? Yes. So how would I recommend, what's your question again? How would you recommend what? To relinquish views, yes. In the practice of relinquishing views, yes. could think of two ways easily, and I'm sure you can think of one. I mean, one would be to relinquish them all from the very beginning, and another one would be to take on right view, and then relinquish it later. So, in the practice of relinquishing views, we have a suggestion that perhaps you could relinquish views right away. As soon as views appear, relinquish them. And the other process would be grasping for a little while the good ones, and then later let go of the good ones.

[09:46]

And after letting go of the good ones, the job has been done of relinquishing views. That's a possibility? Okay, I would recommend relinquish him right away. That's what I would recommend. And because the other way is, is that you have to have a false view in order to figure out, you have to hold on to a false view in order to grasp the right view. Because you have to have the false view which says this is the right view and that's the wrong view. Now it's true the Buddha did say, This is wrong view and this is right view. He did say that, but he didn't hold on to a false view when he said that. I wonder if he couldn't take on right view at the beginning without holding on to it. Could you take on right view at the beginning without holding on to it? Well, you said, I think you said, how about relinquishing them right away?

[10:50]

Okay. But no, you just said that, right? Okay. So now here comes right view. Now we're going to relinquish it right away. She said, can we hold on to her a little while before we relinquish it? You can hold that on long enough to have the experience of right view. I mean, you can't relinquish it unless it happens. You don't have to relinquish, for example, the realization of emptiness before it happens. Any of you who have not realized emptiness, you do not have to do this super big thing of relinquishing even that realization. However, after you do understand emptiness, after you do see dependent core arising clearly, as soon as you see it, that's time to relinquish it. You don't have to hold it even for like a half an hour. Most people do. Like there's one article I read, this guy's talking about direct perception of emptiness, and he asked on behalf of the readers, how long does it last? And he said 15 or 20 minutes. Huh? What?

[11:50]

Oh, it could be longer, yeah. So, how long does it last? So anyway, this is conventionally speaking, I suppose, that now we have this, we have the realization of emptiness is now something that lasts. the realization of relinquishing views of eternalism, that realization lasts not eternally, but it lasts for like 10 minutes or whatever. This is conventionally speaking, that something lasts. But still, aside from whether it lasts or not, you know, it's like, okay, the world says to you, this is lasting, face it. This is the same thing happening again and again. This is like anti-Buddhism happening to you. Face it. But you don't have to attach to that. You can still keep relinquishing it. So if you had some realization of, if you had some insights, then I think it's best to relinquish them immediately.

[12:59]

Now how about hearing, forget about insights, how about, well some insights, how about hearing about right view, mundane right view. You hear it, and how long should you hold it before you relinquish it? Long enough to hear it. Because you heard it. But if you haven't heard it, I wouldn't say, well hear it. I'm not going to say that. But if you do hear about right view, for example, karma has fruit. There is rebirth. There are mommy and daddy. Some people have attained the way. This is right view, the Buddha says, right? When you hear that, that's long enough and let go of it. They say, but I forgot it. You forgot it? That's almost like letting go of it. Pretty much the same. Congratulations. I want to hear it again. Okay, here it is again. Karma has fruit

[14:06]

Now that I'm remembering it now. Fine. You can remember it without holding on to it. You can say, tell me again what's right view? Karma has fruit. There is rebirth. Blah, blah, blah. You got it. Now are you holding on to it? Yes. Well, okay. Do I relinquish it? Yes. Is it relinquished? Yes. Okay. Now we're set. Now we have super mundane right view. at least on that particular event. Okay? Yes? This might be the same question, in a different form, I don't know, but I have this particular idea that seems really strong, and I'm wondering how you cope with this idea. This notion that, say,

[15:11]

Something has happened this morning. Yeah. And something has happened since January. Yeah. Yeah. And this something is ongoing. Yeah. Yes. I really believe. First of all, you saw these notions, you see these notions, and now you believe these notions, so you have a view about these notions. And what is the view? That there's an ongoing process, a series of events. You have a view that there's an ongoing process, a series of events, okay. I don't see any problem in that so far. Well, is that something that exists? Is that everything exists?

[16:21]

Well, if you're saying that there is this thing called an ongoing process, rather than you say there's this appearance of an ongoing process, of like, there's the appearance of January 4th and February 4th and March 4th. These things appeared. They dependently co-arose. And there also is the appearance of a sequence connecting those dates, and that dependently co-arose. And those events and that sequence have no inherent existence. If you have that view, that's not a view of that they existed, that they really existed. It's not a view that they really existed. And it's not a view that they didn't exist at all. It sounds like the middle way, if that's your view. And that view should be relinquished, too, because that's a really nice view. That's a liberating view, and it'll even be more liberating if you don't hold on to it.

[17:24]

And there's also many more, much more specific views that get added onto that view, like say, well, practice period, not just date, practice period, and it's going to end in a week. I have a variety of feelings about that, and I think it's really going to end, and something is really going to discontinue, and people are really going to leave, and that's really going to change Yeah, this sounds more like you're forgetting the dependent core arising. Now, when you talk like that, then I feel like you're making clear that you're not seeing the dependent core arising of the things you're talking about. Yeah. So then, if you don't see the dependent core arising of these appearances, then most likely you'll think that they have inherent existence, that the practice period has an inherent existence. And each of the days has an inherent existence. But if you see that a day depends on a beginning and an end, and there wouldn't be a day without a beginning and end, then you might be able, that might be enough for you to see that the day lacks any quality that doesn't depend on anything.

[18:36]

It's totally a relational event. And therefore, it can happen. If it wasn't a relational event, it couldn't happen. I mean, it just couldn't happen. But even though it couldn't happen if it wasn't, we see things and forget that, and then we think, since it didn't need to depend on a bunch of stuff to happen, it really exists. That's our innate misconception is that these appearances really exist because they don't depend on anything. But we just don't see that they depend on anything. That's our ignorance. We ignore dependent core arising and therefore we can hold this innate misconception that something exists without depending on anything. And everything that happens can have this... this misconception projected on it.

[19:43]

But if we can be present with, even while that misconception is going on, we have a chance to see the dependent core arising of the misconception. And we have a chance to see the dependent core arising of suffering based on that misconception. And then we have a chance of seeing that the things which we usually ignore their relational side, we can start to see the relational quality of ourself, of others, of days, of nights, of practice periods. Then we have noble right view. Then we see dependent core arising, we see emptiness, and if we're, you know, we see that all these things, we see that all phenomena, including dependent core arising and emptiness, depend on, particularly, all of them depend on this key factor of conceptual imputation, and that keeps us from grasping these correct views, because they also depend on mental imputation, so they also are empty.

[21:03]

So then we don't grasp the vision of lack of inherent existence. We don't grasp emptiness. We don't grasp dependent core arising. And that's the middle way. So we don't even grasp the right views. But again, right views would become wrong views if we forget that they depend on something too. Yeah. No, they don't become wrong views. Our view gets off when we forget that right view depends on something. Okay? So, by the way, I just wanted to just mention one of the things which I was going to say, which I was going to give up saying, but now I'm going to say, because I gave it up, was this importance of beginner's mind and the importance of no gaining idea. So, again, if I think about all we could learn, okay, I think about that, then I would think, geez, we haven't learned very much.

[22:17]

And if I apply then gaining idea to that, then I feel like, oops, we didn't learn very much. If I don't think about how much we could learn, then I don't have much to apply gaining idea to. So I won't think, oops, we didn't learn too much. But whether I think about how much we could learn, how many Dharma gates there are, and how many we studied, and how thoroughly we mastered them, If I think of that, then I think we got quite a few more to work on. We can go quite a bit more, we can be more thorough in our study. We have lots of opportunities. If I get into gaining ideas, I feel like, oh God, the road to Shu is hard.

[23:26]

I feel bad if I apply a gaining idea. Now, if nobody brought up all the Dharma gates that are available for us to study, And we thought, boy, we've basically done it all here this practice period. Then you could apply gaining idea to that and you'd feel pretty good. But in fact, there is a lot more Dharma gaze to study. They're all empty, but that's the point. They're sitting there waiting for us to go through. And Without applying gaining idea, this is a wonderful prospect. Applying gaining idea, it's a humiliating prospect. It's devastating, practically, to do it. So forget the gaining idea about practice. Remember that. And the other thing which is closely related is beginner's mind. And don't forget that.

[24:28]

And that's... That's... What is that beginner's mind? It's like that... Actually, forget it. I take it back. Forget beginner's mind, too. Yes, Barrett? Let go of beginner's mind. What I want to ask has been that, and that is that quite often, I ask myself, if the middle way is practicing... I, I, um, I don't think that, to me, it doesn't make any sense that relinquishing views would happen outside of rhetoric, because you need rhetoric to make views in relinquishing.

[25:39]

So there isn't really views or relinquishment of them or holding on to them someplace. It's just that there's the appearance of the views and the attachment to them or the relinquishing of them. There's a dependently co-arisen story of view number X, view number six, and student number B who's attached to that or relinquishing that. There's those stories. But there's no stories without rhetoric or conceptual imputation to create those stories. So, I'm not saying that there really is, you know, beyond this conceptual, conventional designation, there really is relinquishing of views or that there really are views. But in the world where views are appearing, if you see how they're appearing, that is the relinquishment of the views.

[26:41]

As soon as you see how views happen, they're relinquished. But even that relinquishing depends on conventional designation. You just did specify a question. That was a question you specified. I heard a question. Didn't you hear a question? That was a question. You want to ask another question. Is that what you mean? You wouldn't say so, but I heard a first question, I heard a second question, and now I hear you politely asking if you can ask a third question, which you define as, which you designate as a refinement or a specification of the previous ones. That's what I hear. What do you hear, Barrett? Well, what do you do? You're going to put something different? No, you already asked a second one. The second one was, may I do this other thing?

[27:44]

Did you hear that one? Was that a question? This is conventional reality, Barrett. Come on now. Did you ask a second question already or not? What do you folks think? Did he ask a second question? Oh, you don't think, may I do something as a question, just being polite? It depends on which convention. It depends on which convention. What? What? He waited for the answer. I mean, he actually wanted to know what your answer was. Yeah. So anyway, this is what you call, this is conventional designation. We're having a little convention here to decide, you know, whether that was a question or not. And it sounds to me, according to conventional designation, like he wants to ask another one, which he says is not really another one, but a specification of the previous one.

[28:46]

Is that what you're saying? Pardon? Pardon? Pardon? This is conventional. This is like a Berndt convention. Poor babies. Yes. That's what Nargajuna said, right?

[29:47]

That's what Buddha said too. Buddha said in more than one place, but in the Kacchyanagota Sutra he says that this is not other-dependent. That means you don't need a teacher to tell you this, this will appear to you, this teaching. And Nagarjuna says, too, in those fundamental verses, the one with Vrachana, he says, if there were no enlightened ones and the Sangha disappeared, this would be rediscovered, this teaching. It's not dependent on this. And then there would be a new Sangha. There would be a new Buddha, and then a new Sangha would start. But if that situation waned, which it will, this teaching will reappear. That's what we're saying. So they would discover this. They just wouldn't maybe say Nagarjuna or fundamental verses or whatever. That's what Nagarjuna and Buddha are saying. And I think that's a characteristic of Buddhism is to say, you know, we're teaching you this and please listen to it and consider whether it's true, but also know that it doesn't depend on us.

[30:54]

You can find this yourself. That's why we want you to verify this for yourself. But still, it's nice to have what we have, but we should let go of it anyway. So letting go of it is very similar to realizing that we can find it. You can let go of it and you can find it again. You don't have to hold on to it. In the early days of Zen Center, we used to sometimes tell people to have little notepads next to their seats, because people used to have more insights during meditation than they do these days. Oh, you think people still have insights? Oh. Well, maybe so. But in those days, people were really trying to have insights, and they drank more coffee or whatever, and they used to have lots of insights. So the idea was better to write them down than spend the whole period trying to remember the insight. Oh, God, that was a good one. Oh, don't forget this one.

[31:55]

Spend the whole period missing the whole period because of the insight you had in the early part of the period. Or even maybe during the whole Sesshin, try to remember the Sesshin, the insight in the first day. Better to write it down so you can let go of it. So that's all these teachings. Let them go and see how they pop back for you. No. If you can let them go, then it's only writing them down if you can't let them go. But if writing them down helps you let them go, write them down. I have this, I just looked this morning in this cardboard box next to my seat, you know, my desk in the cabin there. There's this cardboard box that's full of my notes. And that's, you know, I've written quite a bit of notes. I've written down quite a few things so I can let them go. Are they notes from your sitting?

[32:58]

Are they notes from my sitting? Yeah. Yeah. But I didn't write him in the Zendo. I wrote him in that seat there by the desk. It's incredible how many little notes I wrote so I could forget him and just be, you know, here. Do you ever go back and read them? Oh, yes, I do. And sometimes I even spend quite a bit of time trying to find one. Because I thought it would be nice to, you know, show it to somebody. Are you pointing me in any particular direction, may I? This person here? Okay. Yes? I have two questions.

[34:00]

Two? Yeah. You can have two because Bernd didn't. Bernd only had one. That's one. That's a statement. Is the true beginner's mind in a state close to shamatha mind or state of mind? No, I think the true beginner's mind is a greedy mind. They want to practice Zen. Beginner's mind is, you know, pretty deluded. Because, you know, you think you're one thing and Zen is another. When you first go to a Zen dojo, you know, the beginner's mind, I understand, is not judging. You go there and you just learn. You're ready to learn. Yeah. You're ready to accept anything. Right. Well, no, no, no, no, no. You're not willing to accept anything. You're willing to accept anything in Zen. But if they say, okay, today we're not going to have a Zen class, we're going to have a class on income tax.

[35:01]

Then the beginner's mind says, hey, I didn't come here to study income tax, I want to hear about Zen. That's the beginner's mind. Beginner's mind, they're greedy and attached to learning about Buddhism. It's diluted. They haven't even thought, they don't have compassion yet, they're just there for themselves, they want to be a cool Zen student, you know. This isn't... Yes? Well, it is judging. It is judging. It's judging. I want Zen. Give me Zen. And if it's not Zen, forget it. Pardon? No, no, no. I disagree with you. If he wants you to cultivate it, I think he wants you to cultivate it because you got it, man. He wants you to cultivate it because you are that way. And don't forget that. And don't forget that. Don't think, okay, I'm not trying to get anything anymore.

[36:04]

I mean, like, I am cool. I've been practicing 40 years, and I'm beyond all gaining idea. I mean, I have achieved a lot. Not even I. A lofty state has been achieved in this area. I mean, like, you know, this is like... I don't like that one. See, you got the right time on that one. Oh, he did? It's the mind of compassion, but it is a deluded mind. Maybe it's a mind without any views. Pardon? That's not a beginner's mind.

[37:06]

A beginner's mind isn't without views. That is a mind... That's not a beginner's mind. That is the mind of Buddha. Don't give up on this, kids. A beginner's mind is not a developed mind. That's the point. And it's holding on to views. But it's like real compassion because beginner's mind is you're like an ordinary person. You're not like, okay, I got compassion here. Anybody need it, you poor things? It's not like that. It's like, you know, I'm going to be a Zen student. I'm going to be compassionate. I'm going to be this. I'm going to be that, you know. Why sometimes it's so beautiful to see something It's coming with a big suffering and they are ready to sit, really. Right. Very surprised to see them. Yes. Faith and kind of example they are.

[38:09]

Right. And this is compassion, isn't it? If you see something that would help somebody, like help yourself, isn't that compassionate for you to bring yourself to the Zen center and be open to the practice? It's beautiful. You see these, they come so open, right? They're so open. What are they open to? Huh? Huh? What? What did somebody say? They're open to Zen? What did you say? Yeah, they're open to Zen or they're open to gaining Zen. That's what they're open to. They're not open to not getting anything. You tell them at the beginning, oh, there's nothing to get here. Then they walk out the door. They're beautiful. They're lovely. You know, they are beautiful. It's like a baby, you know. It's like a little baby going, mama, give me the milk. This is beautiful. Don't you think babies are beautiful? Aren't they lovely the way they'd want to drink that milk? Don't you think that the mommies think that that's cute? Everybody loves this.

[39:11]

This is gorgeous. This is the way the beginners are. And the teachers see these little babies come and they go, take it, [...] take it. But this is a greedy baby. You don't give them that. And what do they do? They scream or, you know, if they could walk, they walk out and go to some other place where they'll give them what they're coming for. Is this compassion, Peter? Is this compassion to drink milk when you want milk? Is that compassion? It is compassion. Is it greed? Yes. But it is compassion to give babies milk. And it is compassion that they want milk. This is good. This is beginner's mind. But beginner's mind includes that they don't say, no milk, fine. They do not have that. Their eyes are open, their ears are open to hear about Zen if they come to a Zen center.

[40:14]

But they do not want to hear about vipassana. I can't. This is Zen Center. That's Vipassana. No, no. I already went to the Vipassana Center last week. And, you know, I appreciated the Vipassana teaching, but I came here for Zen. If I want Vipassana, I'll go back there. No, thank you. This is beginner's mind. An advanced student goes to the Zen center. They've already been to the Vipassana center. They've been to the Vajrayana center. They've been all over. They go to these centers. They teach them Zen and then they switch. They're starting to give a lecture on tantric Buddhism and they just sit there and they listen. They listen for a long time. Why do they listen? Because they don't have a beginner's mind anymore. They let go of it. They aren't trying to get anything anymore. They listen. This takes a while. But it's still beautiful that they are open. It's still beautiful that they want it. Because then you can give it to them and say, here, follow the schedule.

[41:18]

Sit up straight. Take care of your posture. Wash the dishes. Be mindful. And they go, OK, OK, OK, OK. It's beautiful. It's beautiful. And then they do it, and they're so happy. It's lovely. It is beginner's mind. And it's good to be that way when you're that way. And it's good to be that way when you're that way. That's compassion. And there's one other thing that's really important to say, and that is you should forget it. And you do forget it after whatever amount of time. And then you no longer are drinking the milk. You're done. You wean yourself. And then you don't have that thing of, oh, give me the schedule. The more you say, well, I don't know if the schedule actually sort of fits with me anymore. I mean, you know, it did for a while there, and that was groovy at that point in my practice. But I, you know, I've developed and understand a little bit better that this practice isn't actually the schedule. And just sitting upright and being awake, too, is no longer that much fun.

[42:19]

And following my breathing, for a while there, following my breathing, like, oh, my breath, wow, geez, you know, this is like, wow, this is like, oh, breath, you know. But then after a while, it's like, well, I have, you know, I can think of other things besides my breath. This is not so cute, you know. It's like, I don't want the milk, you know, I would like Coke instead, please. I would like a latte. I would like a latte. And, you know, this is not so cute. This is not beginner's mind. This is like a different kind of greedy mind. It's the greedy mind of a person who's been around for a while. It's not so cute. Suzuki Roshi thought this beginner's mind was really cute. He loved it. Why did he love it? He said, these Americans, their heads are empty. You know? They're empty. This is like... empty about Buddhism, right?

[43:21]

If he tried to teach them baseball or something, they might say, oh, no, that's wrong, because, you know, you're a Russian, and you don't know anything about baseball. But when it came to Zen, they had empty heads. He said, I just pour it in. Japanese, you can't get anything in. You know, like that famous Zen story, the guy fills the cup all the way to the top and says, this is like you. I can't teach you anything. You're full already. Japanese people, Tsukurushi said, they know all about Buddhism. You can't tell them anything. They don't have beginner's mind. They're also deluded, of course, because they're holding on to the full thing. But the beginner is holding on to an empty thing. Please fill it. And as it starts to fill, then only certain things get to get in there. What's your second question? First one was very good, thank you. The question, what about combining Zazen with Shingon or Shikan?

[44:32]

So Shingon is the esoteric, and Shikan said in the footnotes, And the answer is, no ancestor ever combined Zazen with practices like that. Truly, if you do not engage in one thing, you will never reach one wisdom. So, can you make some comments on that kind of answer? Well, this is part of why I brought up Samatha Vipassana, because of statements like that. People think, see, Dogen Zenji said, in Zen we do not study Samatha Vipassana, right? That's what he says right there, you know? So, how could we not study Samatha Vipassana if there are basic principles of the meditative mind, and if the sutras say, you know, the Mahayana sutras say, and teach Samatha-vipassana. How can we say we don't do that? What's the point here? What are the Zen people trying to get at?

[45:34]

And then if you look at early Zen people, they did teach Samatha-vipassana. So, here's Dogen saying, our Buddha ancestors, which he venerated, practiced one practice. Buddhas don't have two practices. They have myriad practices, but all the practices of Buddha are Buddha practices. So I think a big point is, in Mahayana Buddhism, particularly Lotus Sutra, which Zen of Dogen is closely related to, is there's one practice. And the fourth ancestor, Daoshin, taught the one practice samadhi, the samadhi of oneness. What is the one practice samadhi? It is meditation on emptiness. In other words, no matter what you're looking at, you're always studying emptiness. No matter what you're looking at, you're always studying dependent core arising. That's zazen. Now, if you think there's zazen, which is the Buddha's practice and some other practice, then you're dispersing your energy and confusing yourself.

[46:39]

But ashamatavipashyana is just another set of verbal designations that you use, that come to you, and as soon as you see shamatha, or as soon as you see vipassana, you're doing the same samadhi, which is zazen, of watching. Here comes shamatha. The shamatha dharma is coming. It comes forward and realizes you. You dependently co-arise. There's no shamatha out there separate from you. There's no you separate from the shamatha. Here comes vipassana. There's no vipassana separate from you and you separate from the vipassana. You dependently co-arise with these things. All dharmas come forward, all shamatha, vipassana dharmas coming forward and realizing themselves that's you, that's zazen. But if you're practicing zazen or trying to understand zazen and you hear shabbat, shamatha, vipassana and you get distracted from zazen, well, that's a distraction from zazen. But that would be the same with any dharma. And these are beginners asking these questions, sort of, you know, and he's just trying to keep them on track to practice this, you know, one practice Samadhi, to practice the Buddha's meditation, which is, Buddha's meditation is Samatha Vipassana, but it just means that Buddha's meditation has the quality of concentration and insight.

[48:00]

And there's a whole bunch of teachings about how to develop these aspects, but they're all bearing down on realization of emptiness and the middle way and dependent core rising. Which Dogen's also, which Dogen calls the Jiju Yuzamai, the samadhi of how the self happens. It's the samadhi of the dependent core rising of the self. In other words, it's a samadhi of the emptiness of the self. So part of the reason why I brought this language is so that Zen students don't get distracted from the one practice, that you can understand that no matter what Buddhist teaching is coming, it's just more appearances in your life. It's conventional designations manifesting phenomena coming at you. It's the same old stuff. It's like pain. It's like pleasure. It's like the sunrise.

[49:03]

Just because it's Buddhism, don't let it distract you from your meditation on Buddhist teaching. But in fact, some students either put their head in the ground when they hear teachings that sound different from what they're used to, or they get excited and distracted when they hear about teachings. But we need to be able to cope with with the world of appearances. And for Zen students, especially like really dedicated Zen students, the things that they get most excited about sometimes is Buddhist teachings. The things they get most distracted about and most greedy about is Buddhist teachings. Except sometimes they even get more greedy about other things. But among the things they get greedy and distracted about are the teachings. So Dogen's trying to get these people to not get distracted to stay on the beam. I think that's what this thing about, that's why they don't say Samatha Vipassana. And he grew up in the Samatha Vipassana tradition, at Mount Tendai, and he didn't want those teachings to distract these people.

[50:09]

Didn't distract him, and he didn't want to distract them. So you shouldn't do more than one practice, basically. You should study. The one practice is meditate on Buddha's teaching, which means not Buddha's teaching like Shakyamuni Buddha or something like that, but meditate on the teaching of reality. Because if there's no Buddhas, the Buddha's teaching keeps coming even if there's no Buddhas. Everything that comes... is Buddha's teaching. But sometimes, while Buddha's teaching is coming, there's also like, you know, a designated Buddha on the planet at the same time. So then that Buddha says, that's mine, my teaching, that's mine. And everybody says, yeah, it must belong to that person. They seem to really understand reality. So I guess reality is that person's teaching. But when they disappear, the reality is still there, which includes the reality that Buddha went away. That's the reality we have to deal with now. But Buddha just appears to go away, just like Buddha appeared to come.

[51:17]

That's just an appearance. There's a pinnacle arising of Buddha. There's not really something there called Buddha. And then there's a pinnacle arising of the disappearance of Buddha. There's not really inherently something called a disappearing Buddha. Which you already know, right? Any other questions? Yes? So you thought that a Buddha... Yeah. Can I relate it to relinquishing views? The Buddha relinquishes those views. Is there anything more about that? Continuity? Continuity? a continuously aware and continuously relinquishing yes exactly this is what is Dogen called Buddhas are constantly going beyond being Buddhas so they like well you know excuse me but you know like Buddha and then like forget it and then

[52:45]

Buddha and then like forget it and like again yeah Wow forget it like that like top-notch total perfect enlightenment and then forget it and that would be and that's that's the way Buddha practices and the way that that manifests is You know, they're responding to us all the time because they're totally in the world with us. They're completely aware of the world responding to us. At the same time, they understand simultaneously, not switching back and forth, but at the same moment, they understand the lack of inherent existence of the world, which they're totally... knowledgeable about and totally involved with and every time that the world arises they arise with it and respond appropriately and then the world changes and they disappear with the world and the world reappears and they reappear with it and also they are permanent and they're permanent but they don't last

[54:11]

They're permanent, but not eternal. When they relinquish these views, there's no possibility that another view could arise and replace? No. In the next moment, other views arise. I mean, the Buddha arises again. If the Buddha appears in the world again, then the Buddha's there with these two perfect, you know, visions. And if it doesn't arise in the second, it doesn't arise in the third? Hmm? Then that's that. But it isn't, yeah, but it isn't that the Buddha changes, this kind of Buddha doesn't change into ascension being in the next moment. But anyway, Buddhas sometimes do, although they're permanent, they do sometimes appear in the world or not. That's also part of, you know, what we observe is this seems to be a Buddha and then the Buddha goes away. Pardon? Pardon? Right.

[55:16]

Right. Yes? Would you agree with the statement that the reason that Buddhists can see the ultimate reality is because they let go of conventional reality, and the reason that they can see conventional reality is because they let go of ultimate reality? Yeah. Mm-hmm. And the reason they can let go of conventional reality is they understand the dependent core arising of conventional reality. Once you see it, you naturally let go of it. Letting go of conventional reality is possible because you also let go of the belief of the inherent existence of conventional reality. So they see the dependent co-arising of conventional reality, therefore they let go of the belief in the inherent existence of conventional reality. We would not attach to conventional reality if we didn't think it was inherently existent.

[56:20]

But our view of inherent existence is interwoven with conventional reality, so then we grasp conventional reality. If we would see that conventional reality dependently co-arises, and even the view that it inherently exists dependently co-arises, When we see that, then by letting go of that view of inherent existence, we can let go of conventional reality. Letting go of the view of inherent existence, we open to the view of the lack of inherent existence. Or seeing the dependent co-arising of the view of inherent existence, we see that there's a lack of that inherent existence, and we let go of that view. That view is dropped. And then we let go of conventional reality. But then, realizing ultimate truth and release from that, we let go of being released. And then we can see conventional reality now completely free of this interjection of inherent existence. So we see conventional reality as it really is, which is still not true, but we see exactly how it's not true, rather than have it mixed in with inherent existence too.

[57:30]

Say it again. Could you start that part over again? If there was a being? Yes. Yes. Yes. Well, yes, but they're actually in a more dangerously stuck situation than you. So Nagarjuna says that emptiness is the relinquishment of all views. Actually, he says, I think, just views, but I think he means all views. And those who then possess a view of emptiness are, there's two translations I've seen, one is incorrigible, in other words they can't be taught, or they're incurable. But people who attach to inherent existence are curable. Because attaching to inherent existence you suffer. sometimes really, you know, in such a way that you're very open to receiving teachings about dependent core rising and emptiness.

[59:00]

Then you can practice, realize emptiness and get released. But then if you grasp emptiness and think emptiness is better than form, which you couldn't be into while you're doing your meditation, otherwise your meditation would be blocked. But then when you have realization, if you attach to the realization, then you're more difficult to receive teachings about how to let go of that because you're not suffering the same way as most people anymore. You have a spiritual disease rather than a worldly disease. And Nagarjuna says incorrigible, maybe like even Nagarjuna wouldn't be able to help you. So it's a similar attachment, but it's worse. Okay? Any other questions today? Yes? Yes? It would be like it, but it would be worse. I think you have to have... Giving up your peaceful state of mind is the perfection of concentration.

[60:11]

If you have some peace or some concentration, whatever level of concentration you have, giving it up perfects it. And the perfection of wisdom is giving up whatever wisdom you have. It's giving up your false views if you've got false views, but then if you have right views, it's giving those up. So, in fact, perfection of wisdom is that actually it's not just the attainment of wisdom, it's not just the attainment of giving up false views, it's giving up wisdom. So the one way to understand the perfection of wisdom teachings is that the early Buddhism had wisdom teachings. They had wisdom. Those arhats understood no self. Okay? The arhats and the pratyekabuddhas, they understood no self in some ways, just like Buddha did. But the Prajnaparamita says you have to go beyond that.

[61:16]

You have to go beyond that wisdom. You have to give that wisdom up. And that was part of the problem is that they, it looked like they actually thought wisdom was better than delusion. So, and they had wisdom. So there they were, you know, separating themselves from the world of delusion. To some extent, apparently that happens. So this teaching came to say, you know, give up your wisdom, go beyond your wisdom. yes Noah should he mean very mundane what he says tell me how this is wrong view he's going to tell me what he thinks is going to be a wrong view and then he said super mundane but I think he meant rather than above mundane he meant really mundane right got it now Jane

[62:22]

Okay, Jane's on board here. The view of an inherently existing dependent self. Inherently... Inherently existing dependent self. Yeah, that would be... I guess that would be, again, thinking that there really was something at dependent core arising. Oh, you want me to say, is that a mundane view? Yes, it is. It's a mundane view to think that dependent co-arising is something inherently existing. And that's the way people usually start when they start studying dependent co-arising, is they think that these links in dependent co-arising, that those actually exist, and that the different parts cause the other parts. So they project inherent existence onto the teaching of dependent core arising. So when you first start studying dependent core arising, you substantiate and reify, put a self into the dependent core arising thing.

[63:31]

So these people come to ask the Buddha, you know, about the way the self's involved in all this stuff, and he says, misput, misput, and then he says, well, how do you do it? And he gives them dependent core arising. But when they first hear that, they probably put the self into the dependent core arising then. Even though it doesn't say so anywhere, they get it in there anyway. So when you first hear about dependent core arising, you probably, it would be a mundane view. When you understand that there isn't really an inherently existing dependent core arising, then you really understand dependent core rising. Yes? My question is connected to yesterday and what you were just saying. I think I don't really understand why, when the Nekanathara came to the Buddha and asked those questions, why wouldn't the Buddha answer the questions at first? Like, what was wrong with this approach? Or why would he say, question this part? Well, he says question misput because the guy is saying that, first of all, that the self, the self, he says, does the self... Well, actually, maybe I shouldn't have said question misput.

[64:45]

What he said was, don't say that. So, the guy says, does self cause the suffering? Or does self make the suffering? And the Buddha said... Don't say that or misput. So you don't know the reason why. Is it because of a wrong view? Yes. It's not exactly a wrong view. It's an extreme view. It's a special kind of a wrong view called an extreme view. Okay? There's all kinds of wrong views, but this is an extreme view. This is a view which is, maybe all wrong views are extreme views, I don't know, but anyway, this is an extreme view, a very unambiguous situation of the self, the self causes suffering. What you do, your karma causes suffering, that's an extreme view. It's very, very simple, unambiguous situation.

[65:47]

Anything that happens in your life, you made it happen. So I don't know, he could have said that's an extreme view instead of saying misput. But somehow, if you look at what happened by saying misput, the guy tried again. So he's seeing the Buddha and he's trying to get this very clear situation. He's trying to clarify, make the self very extremely unambiguous. The self isn't unambiguous. Our self is a very ambiguous thing. It's very relational. So he's trying to make the self very clear. So he says, well, does the self make this happen? So he wants the guy to keep questioning, I think, by saying, misput, try again. So you could say, try again. Ask again. You're off track. You're getting cold. You know? That's cold. Okay, well, how about somebody else caused the suffering?

[66:49]

About the same coldness. Or maybe even colder. Well, how about both? No. How about neither? No. Well, maybe then there's no suffering at all. No. Or maybe you don't know about it. No. No. But by asking his questions over and over, he's getting, I would say, he's getting more intimate with the Buddha. And then suddenly, he changes his form of address. He starts to see this interaction between him and the Buddha, of him questioning, and the Buddha like, just telling him to try again and again, in that interaction, The guy finally says, well, please teach me. He didn't come and say, please teach me about suffering. He came and said, well, is suffering like this? He came to the Buddha who was supposed to know about suffering, or maybe he heard and knew about suffering, and he wants to lay his trip down there, and he wants to put it in these very graspable, unambiguous ways, these extreme views. The Buddha encourages him to keep asking questions, and through the interaction he finally says, okay, would you teach me about this?

[67:53]

So then the Buddha teaches him what he could have said earlier, but didn't. So there's something about that. There's a teaching in how the Buddha did that, that the guy got more and more open. Now, some people would have asked the question, the teachers said, you know, misput or ask again, and they would have walked out because, you know, they wanted to get a yes answer to that. Or a no answer to it. They didn't want to like, this is off the track. But the guy hung in there again and again and again. Six questions or whatever. And then because he hung in there and because he also, the Buddha was hanging in with him, they developed this relationship where he finally opened up and said, hey, wait a minute. Forget about this like me getting a hold of the truth. You know? How about like, would you teach me So then the Buddha tells him, well, those views that you had would be the same as internalism. Those views that you had would be the same as annihilationism. I teach something different. And then he gives it.

[68:55]

But now the guy's open. So then he says, blah, dependent on ignorance. But if the guy walked up and the Buddha said that right away, Yeah, if he said, well, does the self cause suffering? And the Buddha said, no, I teach like this. Dependent on ignorance, dispositions arise. The guy probably says, weird. That's enough. You don't have to finish the whole list. But he kind of broke them down. This is the Buddha. Can you imagine Shakyamuni Buddha sitting there talking to you? saying, try again, [...] try again. This is the Buddha, you know. And the last answer being, no, it's not true that I'm one who doesn't see and know suffering. I do. I am the one who sees and knows suffering. And probably there was some real genuine, just something genuine about that, I guess, that this is the Buddha actually telling the truth to the guy.

[70:01]

And then the guy opens up, so now he can hear this teaching. So then the Buddha gives him the teaching, dependent on ignorance, and he listens to it, and then he goes, oh my, he gets it. So that's a good question you asked, because it shows how the interaction before was made possible, the guy to be in a place where he changes from saying Master Gautama to Blessed One. please teach me. And in that openness, then the Buddha gives his teachings. So, again, this is a lesson to us. If we read these scriptures and we get to the place where it says dependent on ignorance, karmic dispositions arise, if we're in that state of blessed one, blessed one, please teach me, then this stuff comes in in a different way. Then if you just sort of like, okay, well, let's see, there's suffering, self-cursed suffering, or what does Buddha say? Oh, yeah, okay. No, it's more like I have a relationship with this wonderfully kind and wise person and I want them to teach me and I'm asking them to teach me and here comes the teaching.

[71:07]

Ready? Get set. Dependent on ignorance, dispositions arise. Dependent on ignorance, prejudicial orientations arise. And then this stuff really goes in. So it went into the guy and he was, first of all, converted by the first part of the interaction, then enlightened by the teaching. And he said, you know, full of joy, and may I join the order? So again, I appreciate your question because it shows how the Buddha worked with his students, what he taught them when they were ready, what he didn't teach them when they weren't ready, how he got them to be ready, if they were willing. In some cases, they weren't. Like in that story of, what is it, how Fa Yan broke down Superintendent Si, when Fa Yan tried to basically say, misput, the superintendent walked out. But then he snapped out of it and came back.

[72:09]

And then he said, please teach me. Probably when he got the same teaching before from the other Zen master, he was closed. He's like, he got it, right? This is the self getting it. But after Fa Yan broke him down, he opened up to the same teaching and it went in all the way to his heart and transformed him. But the openness is a key factor. That's why I say, walk around these teachings until finally you feel yourself asking the Blessed One to teach you. You really feel that openness. Then when the teaching comes, Well, like I also say over and over, you know, at the beginning of Sesshin, you know, if it's a seven-day Sesshin, when I first start talking to people, I feel like it's pouring water on dry ground. It just runs off. But by the end of Sesshin, it just goes right, the earth is wet, and it just goes right in. No matter what you say, it doesn't, you know, you can go poof, and it just goes whoosh. Because they're open.

[73:12]

Their body and mind want to learn now. They're not like fussing anymore. Like, well, I don't know. They don't have beginner's mind in terms of like discriminating, but they have this beginner's mind in the sense of being empty and open and they'll take whatever they get. So they've gone beyond... You can teach them, you know, today I'm going to give... It's not going to be on Zen, this last day of session. We're not going to talk about Zen anymore. I'm going to talk about, you know, my trip to Hawaii. You know, and people go... You know, they let it in even though it's not Zen. Luminous owl. You were going to mention that? I just said it. You heard me say it, didn't you? It is?

[74:13]

Yeah. So we're kind of like simpatico, eh? Eh? Eh? No? No? Sonia? No, independent. I don't think I said that, but that's right. I think I said inherent, but independent is the same thing. Yeah, we have it on tape too. You can check if you don't think, have any questions about conventional reality. Independent and inherent are kind of, I mean, the same thing. Is that what it's like saying that? It's very much like saying that, yeah.

[75:15]

Without mental imputation. There isn't, right. That's correct. But that's not all there takes, but that's the most, that's the big one. Well, also for dependent core rising to happen, there has to be causes and conditions satisfied. And also, whatever it is, has to satisfy its own definition. You can't have a Sonia without satisfying the definition of Sonia. Mental imputation isn't sufficient. Like, I can't mentally impute Sonia over here onto Jane. It doesn't work. She doesn't satisfy the definitions of Jane. I mean, Sonia. So there's more than dependent core arising than conceptual invitation. It's just that conceptual invitation is the most subtle dimension of dependent core arising. And therefore, it's the one that we have to be able to get in touch with because that's the one that's associated down there at the basic level of delusion.

[76:19]

If we can't see that, it's hard for us to see our false view clearly. But anyway, what you said, I agree with. Yes, that would be part of that, I think. Because both samsara and nirvana... come from the ground of dependent core arising. If you have false view and so on, if you have ignorance and so on, that's a condition for the dependent core arising of suffering. If you do not, if you have an understanding of the lack of inherent existence, that's a condition for the dependent core arising of nirvana.

[77:22]

Right. Mm-hmm. Is that all for today?

[77:43]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_84.52