The points that was made in the scripture about how the conventionalities and ultimate truths are not completely the same or completely different. No, I don't want to do that. I'll do that this afternoon. What I wanted to say again was that even if you can see the ultimate truth, even if you've actually had some, you know, the non-dual awareness has arisen and there's been an actual appreciation or understanding of ultimate truth,

[01:02]

still one needs to continue to cultivate virtue in the world of conventionality. And in doing those practices, then, one does not examine the virtuous activity to such an extent that you can't even find it anymore and therefore I have no way to practice it. I don't know if I can repeat it, but I'll just talk about it again. In other words, even for a bodhisattva who not only is committed to

[02:05]

develop virtue and engage in virtuous practices, and who has also had a clear understanding of, had a clear vision of ultimate truth, that's not the end of the line, because one needs also continue to meditate on the well, one needs to continue to develop virtue, but also one needs to keep testing one's understanding not just of ultimate truth, but of the two truths. So it isn't that a bodhisattva practices virtues and finally is able to leap into the realm of non-dual thought and realize ultimate truth and be liberated, although that's part of the story. And it Those are our stories like that. It's also that the bodhisattva needs to understand the relationship between this ultimate truth which has been realized and the conventional truth.

[03:13]

And so one needs to not only understand that relationship, but one needs to continue to be involved and engaged in virtuous practices. But in order to be involved in virtuous practices, one needs to deal with conventionalities. And that also continues to develop your understanding of the relationship between ultimate truth and conventionalities, namely, that they're very close. And that they're really, although they're different to some extent, They're not completely different, but they are different to some extent because they're not completely the same, but they're really one thing. And you can't just be concerned with ultimate truth. You also have to understand the relationship and intimacy with relative truth.

[04:23]

And so to continue to be involved in the virtuous practices of the conventional world is part of the way you keep balanced in your understanding of that relationship. And so you don't get stuck in holding to ultimate truth. So actually when you, so you go back and you practice conventional virtue or virtue in the conventional, within the conventional truth. But as you do that, as you're doing those practices, you don't analyze them or look so deeply into them that you can't even practice them anymore. But there is a realm of yogic engagement where you can't even see or understand yourself as a giver or a receiver.

[05:30]

And therefore, you can't generate any virtuous practices. But, you know, that happens sometimes. Don't worry. It's okay. You're completely free of suffering in that case. So it's not that bad. But that's not the whole story. This bodhisattva then joyfully jumps back into the world of duality to play. And how does a bodhisattva play? A bodhisattva plays giving and has a good time giving, giving, giving. It's a ball. But if you're looking at emptiness, you can't find anything to give. So, in a sense, you look to the other truth in order to be able to practice virtues. Also, you can't generate any merit when you're meditating on emptiness, when you actually see the ultimate truth, because there isn't any merit in ultimate truth.

[06:36]

But in conventional truth, there's plenty of merit and, of course, demerit. So the bodhisattva jumps into the world where there's merit and demerit and pretty much, you know, generates the merit. And that activity of going back and forth between the two manifests the Buddha in this world. And the world they're manifested in is the world which has two aspects, a deep aspect and a superficial aspect. So by going back and forth between meditating on ultimate truth and conventional truth, practicing virtues in the conventional world, realizing the totally truth in the ultimate, with the ultimate object, one does the work of making Buddha appear in the world.

[07:42]

Those who are doing this are called bodhisattvas. But again, the bodhisattva is, you know, the healthy bodhisattva is not afraid to jump back into the conventional world. They're happy to do so. It's like they can't see any conventional world. They can't see any beings to save. And then they jump into the world where they can see beings to save and where there are things to do. And they're happy to do that. And... Of course, there's a danger there because demerit possibilities are all over the place, but they try to do their best and generate positive energy in that field. So, in order to realize the conventional world, just keep practicing attachment and seeking and it'll keep happening for you.

[08:50]

So that world seems to be safe. In order to realize ultimate truth we need to practice non-attachment and non-seeking. We need to give up everything. Including we have to give up our views of truth. So that's how we realize the ultimate truth is by giving up all of our views However, if you then hold to ultimate truth, you're really in trouble. Holding to conventional truth, you're in trouble, but you know it because you're suffering. And if you don't notice it, if you're suffering so much that you're kind of like in denial about it, then other people will pick you up off the street and put you into a hospital and say, you know, Hi.

[09:58]

Then you say, where am I? You say, you're in a hospital. How come I'm here? Well, because you were lying with your face in the street. I was? So anyway, in the conventional world, you can get the idea that something's off. If you're clinging to the conventional world, one can become aware of one's suffering, but if you're clinging to emptiness, you're pretty much in trouble because... There's no suffering in emptiness. So, you know, you're in trouble. Even a Buddha can hardly help you because there's no Buddhas in emptiness either. Like a Buddha comes and says, come on, let go of emptiness. Don't hold on to the ultimate truth. You don't see any Buddha talking to you. So you're you are what we call incorrigible or incurable.

[11:03]

I don't know, two different translations. So that's why the Bodhisattva... You do not adhere... The ultimate truth is not better than the conventional truth. The ultimate truth is just the ultimate truth. And it's really a good truth. And it's truly true. But you still shouldn't grab it. Okay? Okay. Do you promise not to? Roger? Wouldn't clean obscure it? Let's see. Just a second. I'll check. No, I want to obscure it.

[12:06]

What you cling to, you can't cling to emptiness exactly, but you cling to the conventional existence of emptiness. Emptiness can exist, just like forms can exist. But the way forms exist is that they exist just conventionally by consensus, by mental imputation. You can also, by mental imputation, attribute existence, a conventional existence, to emptiness and grab it. But you don't necessarily attribute ultimate existence to anything. including conventionalities. You don't have to do that. Matter of fact, that is not valid. It's not valid to be attributing ultimate existence to conventionalities, even though conventionalities appear to be ultimately existing. That's the way they appear. They look like they're really there.

[13:08]

But if you say, yes, they are really there, then that's not valid. But you can say they look like they're really there, but I think that's misleading. But they do look, they do appear like they're really there. Conventionalities do. Ultimates don't look like they're really there, and that's right. Yes? Perfect. Are there virtues that promote bonus points for others? What are the virtues? Yeah, that's true. There are kind of like more virtuous virtues than other virtues. For example, in giving, you want to hear about this? This is pretty bad news. It's not bad news, it's just scary. Turns out, depending on who you give, you get more or less virtue. You get more virtue for giving to people who don't need your gift than to give it to people who need it.

[14:18]

It doesn't mean you don't get a lot of virtue for giving things to people who need it, but you get more to giving it to people who don't need it. You get most virtue for giving to Buddhas, and they don't need anything, but you get most virtue for that. And also you get more virtue for giving certain things rather than giving other things. Giving material things is somewhat virtue. Giving truth is more virtue. Buddhas don't just give, but however, you shouldn't just give to those you get the most virtue from. So don't just give to Buddhas even though you get more virtue for that, more merit. So the rule is you should know what you get the most virtue from. Not you should know, but it might be helpful to know. Because you might say, hey, why should I give to Buddha?

[15:18]

I mean, you know, doesn't need anything. But you can say, yeah, but you're going to get a lot of merit if you do that. So, you know, don't skip over Buddha. But you shouldn't skip over people who need it a lot. So basically, you just give to whatever's in front of you. Don't pick. Just give whenever there's an opportunity to give. Practice it. Why not? But in fact, there is, and you asked, is there a difference? Yes. Yes. And if you're picking and choosing, that is not... That's kind of like not understanding conventional world because picking and choosing means that you think that these things are like they appear. But they're not. The way they actually exist is not the way they appear to exist. So you shouldn't let the way they appear to exist be the determining factor in your giving. Therefore, you should give by relinquishing your view of what you see. In other words, you.

[16:22]

So, this seems to be my friend, this seems to be my enemy. Yeah, that's the way they appear, but that's not the way they actually exist. The way they actually exist is that they're the same. They're the same, so they're equally appropriate recipients of your generosity and so if you don't pick and choose you're acting in freedom from the way things appear and acting in accord with the way they really do exist namely that everything has this deep nature that's the same the superficial nature is not the basis upon which to practice Well, I shouldn't say it's not the basis, because it is somewhat the basis, because the superficial nature is the address that you send the present to. So you do need an address to give the gift, otherwise you wouldn't know where to put it.

[17:28]

So the superficial nature shows you where to deposit the gift. But the superficial nature is not the thing that determines whether you give the gift or not. The thing that determines whether you give the gift or not is whether you want to practice giving. And if you don't, you won't. And if you do, you're practicing virtue. Yeah? How would a bodhisattva risk? How would a bodhisattva risk? Yeah. My idea of having UIZL50, if we would have a complete understanding of merit and demerit, or we'd have some kind of reference point for knowing what is meritorious and what is not. Okay, so the act of which do is something that would be, knowing which is something that might result in,

[18:38]

What's the moral situation of a bodhisattva? The moral situation of a bodhisattva is that when they're looking at conventionalities, like forms and feelings and so on, and people and so on, the moral situation of a bodhisattva is a bodhisattva can practice morality. They can actually practice it. They can actually practice telling the truth. They can actually practice... giving rather than stealing. They can play the game just like everybody else. They're capable of it. Because they don't see ultimate truth anymore when they're in the conventional world. They're on a sort of similar basis to people who have not yet, first of all, who aren't bodhisattvas. Bodhisattvas, I think the word term bodhisattva can be used in many different ways, but sometimes people use the word bodhisattva just for people who think it's a good idea to be a bodhisattva, which is okay.

[19:55]

But some other people use the word bodhisattva for those who have great compassion. which cuts out a few of the people who think being a bodhisattva is a good idea. And some other people use the word bodhisattva only for those who not only have great compassion, but who also aspire to perfect enlightenment for the welfare of others. They say that's when bodhisattva practice starts, right there. But someone might even raise the standards higher. But I think usually that's a pretty good starting place for what a bodhisattva is. In other words, you wouldn't have to raise it up to have a clear realization of ultimate truth. You wouldn't have to do it that way. But in your example, you can use your example, what about for those fairly developed bodhisattvas who actually haven't had understanding of emptiness? Yes. Yeah, they could, but they might forget to check.

[21:03]

The Bodhisattva still might have some habit energy from ancient times, So they might act in an unbalanced way. They might not understand the complete relationship between ultimate truth and this conventionality that they're dealing with, and there might be a little clinging to come back into. When they realized emptiness, They let go of their views. But when they came back in the world of views again, maybe they started hearing to them a little bit. So they can make a mistake. It's possible.

[22:04]

I think it's possible that they make a mistake. Now, at a certain point, even though they make mistakes, they don't slip backwards when they make mistakes. But that's a pretty advanced bodhisattva that can't slip backward at all by making mistakes. So anyway, the bodhisattvas can still make mistakes, just like non-bodhisattvas can make mistakes in the world of conventions. In emptiness, there aren't any mistakes. So that's why somebody might want to attach to emptiness if they could, because no more mistakes. However, a basic principle that the Buddha Shakyamuni gave is that when you make a mistake and you recognize a mistake as a mistake, the dharma moves forward. Truth takes a step forward when we recognize a mistake as a mistake. That's sometimes called making the best of a bad situation.

[23:05]

So if there's a mistake, recognizing a mistake is a good thing to do. It's called recognizing spilt milk as spilt milk. That's good. Crying over it is not necessary. But if you spill milk without recognizing it, you're missing an opportunity to do something good in relationship to the spilled milk. And bodhisattvas and everybody else can spill milk in the world of milk. Not to mention the world of milk. So the great poet Shanti Davis summed up what I just said as even the views of contemplatives, the yogis, are invalidated by those of successively higher levels of contemplation due to the difference in their insight.

[24:28]

And then... whatever their views, no matter how developed they are, these bodhisattvas, these contemplatives, they still strive in virtuous acts for the sake of spiritual growth, leaving conventional reality immune to their analysis. So by analysis and by contemplating deeply what's happening, they can develop higher and higher contemplative insight into the nature of reality. But no matter how high they get, they continue to strive for virtuous acts for the sake of spiritual growth, for a more and more thorough understanding of the relationship between contemplative conventional reality and ultimate truth, ultimate meaning. Okay? And Shantideva also says, events are seen and also thought of as real by people.

[25:46]

And what that means is non-contemplative people. Okay? That make sense? No? Did that make sense to everybody? No, it didn't, did it? Yeah, I know. Just a sentence went up in the air. It didn't necessarily penetrate into everybody's body and mind. But if you can say it back to me, it will. But you can't, can you? So, events are seen and also thought of to be real by non-contemplative people. Can you say that, Fred? Say it again? Events are seen and also thought to be real by non-contemplative people.

[26:50]

Can you say it, Liz? No, our scene. Non-contemplative decision. Consuelo, can you say it? Consuelo. Events are seen and thought to be real. Anyone try it? Okay. Does that make more sense to you now that you're saying it? Okay. Are you still back on that? Well, we can go back to that later, but could we do a look on this for a little while?

[27:59]

And you can ask questions about that later. Anybody else would like to say this? Go ahead. Right. One of the great virtues of this workshop is I found a substitute for common or ordinary which I think is nice, non-contemplative. Actually, it is true that non-contemplatives are very common. You can find them easily. But I prefer emphasizing what they don't do rather than emphasizing how common they are. Dime a dozen non-contemplatives. Anyway, that helps me now to find this new way of talking about Non-yogis, right? Okay, so non-contemplative people, they see things.

[29:00]

Did you want to say it too? What I want to say is that, I mean, I also want to talk about ordinary. The connotation of ordinary was quite ordinary. But when I started at the word extraordinary and broke it down to extraordinary, Then I realized, I mean, to me now, when I see ordinary, that something is extraordinary, to me it means really being a human. When you're extraordinary, you're real ordinary. You're really human. And yet, do you have to practice contemplation to be human? Because that's part of human capacity. In the last chapter of your book, you say, somewhat, it's written there, that... So you have read? That enlightenment was to realize that you're an ordinary person. Yeah.

[30:05]

Yes. I know it's my own language problem. Could you help explain to me what it is? Well, contemplate in this case means that you look at something and you consider, well, for example, you consider if perhaps the way it actually exists is the same as the way it appears. Well, you could say, do you say brain stuff? Yeah. Well, no. I mean, it's not no and it's not yes. When you look at something, your brain is operating. Right? Non-contemplative is to not notice that what you're seeing is a brain function. That's, for example, a non-contemplative way of seeing things. You walk around, your brain produces this world, and you think, oh, there's the world, rather than being aware of the fact that your brain makes this.

[31:16]

You know, this didn't happen without your brain. Take your brain away and this is not happening anymore. This is what your brain does. And it's amazing how it does it. I mean, it's just amazing. Try to make a brain. A contemplative is somebody who kind of like remembers that this is brain functioning that you're working with here. Non-contemplative think that this is happening out there without taking into account the brain. So your brain, you are thinking, but contemplation means you are aware that you're thinking. And then you're aware that your thinking has something to do with what you think. In other words, what you think is happening has to do with not that it's really happening, but that you think it's happening. Okay? So it means that you're, well, as Becky just said, that you're more human. You're not just like, you're not overlooking the fact of using your humanness to be aware that you're human.

[32:23]

So again, as I was saying a moment ago, a contemplative is somebody who sees things and then wonders if the way the thing is is like the way it seems. and considers it possible that the way things are aren't the way they appear. So you may appear to me to be whatever, you know, a woman or something like that. You appear to be, but are you, I mean, the way you fundamentally finally are existing is as a woman? perhaps you know something more profound about you than that you're a woman or that you're you know from thailand or that you're you know being nice or you appear to be nice or that you appear to be mean or that you appear to be generous or that you appear to be stingy either the way maybe you appear like that so non-contemplatives see things appearing a certain way and then they think that's real they think that's actually the way

[33:32]

you actually are, rather than that I'm dealing with my brain, my brain's version of the world in which whatever you are is happening. And maybe the way you actually are is that you're not happening. Maybe that's the ultimate way you are, is that you are, but you're a non-happening way of being what you are. You are something, but you're not a happening thing. Maybe you have to even be open to that. That's a contemplative. And non-contemplatives are like, you know, I've got enough problems with the way people seem to be. I'm not going to, like, wonder if that's really the way they are. That's a non-contemplative attitude, which is, you know, quite common. Contemplatives are, you know, taking on a little bit more. They can't necessarily see deeper right away, but they are looking deeper. by just simply opening to the possibility that what they see is just what they see.

[34:36]

And there could be more to the story than that. So a contemplative, when they see somebody who looks like they're angry, they might say to them, as part of their contemplation practice, they might say, could I ask you a question? And the person might say, no. And they might say, I just heard you say no. Did you mean no? The person might say, yes. And you say, well, what should I do now? The person might say, ask me again. May I ask you a question? The person might say, yes. Are you angry at me? And the person might say, no. And you might say, well, how do you feel about me? The person might say, I love you very much. And the contemplative would realize that although the way that the person loving them may not really be the ultimate mode of that person existing, it's also probably not the ultimate mode of the person existing that they are angry because they just said that they loved you and it looked like they meant it.

[35:44]

So it doesn't mean that they, the way that, because that's still how they appear. They appear to be telling you that they love you. But now you think, they look like they hate me, now they're telling me they love me, and now they look like they do love me. Now I might say, now you look and sound like you love me. Is that really how you are? And they might say... And then you might say, well, how are you actually? And they might say, you know, you thought I hated you, but you asked me if I did, I said no. And then you asked me how I was feeling and I said I loved you very much. Which is true, I do. But the way I actually am, nobody knows. Not even me. Not even Buddha. That's the way I am. Such a person might be a bodhisattva right in your face. Who actually knows. They don't know anything about who they are. And nobody does either. And you have a conversation with that person. But that whole conversation is motivated by contemplation.

[36:46]

you're actually inquiring into what's going on here in this relationship. And one could do the same with oneself. One could feel angry at someone and say, I seem to be angry. And you could ask yourself, are you really angry? And you might say, well, first of all, you might ask yourself if it's OK to ask yourself how you're feeling. And you might say, I don't want to talk about this now. OK. Well, when would you be up for it? I just keep checking. And finally, can I talk to you about this? All right. Are you really angry? No. Well, how are you feeling? I'm feeling hurt. Now, is that how you really are? No, but it's how I seem to be. Not to say, no, that's how I really am. I really am hurt. Say, okay, that's a case of a non-contemplative answer. Okay? I feel hurt, and that's the way I really am. rather than I seem to be hurt, and it seems like that's real.

[37:51]

But I've been studying the two truths and I know that if I seem to be hurt, it seems to be that way, and if I take it as real, I know I'm not being contemplative and I want to be contemplative, so I'm going to change my answer from I seem to be hurt to, I'm wondering how I really am. I wonder what's true. And now actually I see that I seem to be hurt, but actually I'm being offered Dharma. And it's not hurting me. It just seems to be hurting me. This is a contemplative process with myself, between myself and myself, and I can do a contemplative process between myself and others. But the contemplative sees things, hears things, sees how they appear, just like everybody else, but then considers that there could be a deeper truth.

[38:55]

There's another truth, too, that's right there. Right with that apparent truth, There's a deep truth that's not apparent. That's contemplation. This is a contemplation. And the contemplative arts are extensive. They're equally extensive to the whole universe because everything is equally extensive to the phenomenal universe of where there's things. Because everything has with it, you know, contemplative possibilities for the yogi. So we go on and on forever about what is contemplation. Okay? Okay, now back to... back to... Pardon?

[39:56]

Okay. Okay. Grandma was a contemplative. Okay. Let's hear it for Grandma. So Grandma was practicing, huh? She wasn't just, you know, sitting there being Grandma. She was also, like, meditating on what was going on. Right. Yeah. So good. We got Grandma signed up. Yeah, I'm Yeah. I remembered another line. In the still of the night As I sit beside my window Contemplating appearances all night But Paul has a tape of it, so, you know, he's going to... You did?

[41:04]

Well, tell us. Tell us more. No. Maybe later. Zazen is good for something. Events are seen and also thought to be real by non-contemplative people. Events are seen and not grasped as real by non-contemplative people. Events are seen and wondered about by contemplative people. Is this making sense? Where'd Fred go? He seems to have left, but has he really left? I wonder. Where is Fred? Okay, so after that he says, Events are seen and also thought to be real by non-contemplative people and are not regarded as illusion-like.

[42:12]

So non-contemplatives do not regard appearances, which are events, all events are appearances. We don't count non-appearances as events, unless the event is a non-appearance, like the event of Fred not being here. But he appears to not be here, you see. But that's illusion-like, because we all know that Fred is really here still. Basically, Fred's here. And fundamentally, Fred's not here, but we won't get into that. Behind his back. So contemplatives regard things as illusion-like. In other words, they know things appear to be real. They appear to be real, but that's an illusion. They remember that. Which doesn't mean they negate phenomena, because they do appear to be real.

[43:18]

This is the truth. And this is where their playground, where they come to play, the yogis, in the illusion world. It's not exactly that they are illusions, but they're illusion-like. And then here is the disagreement between contemplatives and non-contemplatives, in that non-contemplatives take appearances, they see appearances, they take them as real. And they don't regard them as illusion-like. And here, that's where they disagree with the yogis. The yogis do not, at least they practice, they train themselves to not grasp appearances as real. And to remember that they are illusion-like. And here they disagree. However, they do agree with non-contemplatives in that they see appearances. Unless...

[44:18]

They do, unless they're yogis who are stuck in attachment to emptiness and then they don't see any appearances. But then they don't disagree either, because there's nothing to disagree about. So what you do, the place you work with, the place the bodhisattva yogis work with people is they work on some common ground of disputation. which is an appearance. So like a yogi and a non-yogi are contemplative and a non-contemplative are hearing a teaching and one hears the teaching and takes it to be as it appears to be. The other one hears the teaching and wonders what it is. So they disagree in that one takes the teaching and takes it as really being the way they think it is, and the other one hears the teaching but doesn't take it that way, and the second one can refute the first one.

[45:22]

They disagree and they can refute by reasoning with the person who takes it as real. Because whatever way they're taking it is real, it's actually incoherent. But they have a common place to discuss and they can work with that by analogies and metaphors so that the person can see that they just haven't looked deeply enough. So here's where the contemplative, if it's a contemplative of bodhisattva, works with people to... to help them become contemplatives, because bodhisattvas want everybody to start looking more comprehensively at our life. Does that make sense so far? Is that okay? And so there's a little bit more, but Maybe if you want to go back now and talk about any questions about the virtues and merit and all that stuff.

[46:27]

Did you want to bring something else up here? Yes? your question got a little sudden you make it in two parts first part is how are the pinnacle arising and ultimate truth what's their relationship can we deal with that before you bring in this other thing It is said that ultimate truth, emptiness, is identical to dependent core arising, which of course would make you think that you would say dependent core arising then must be identical to emptiness, right?

[47:38]

I mean, how can we have a one-way equality here, right? So it must be, if we're going to say that emptiness, ultimate truth, is identical to dependent core arising... The dependent core arising must be identical to emptiness, right? Well, maybe that's, maybe, maybe, yeah, they feel different, don't they? And they're equal, but you can discriminate between them. Okay? But they don't use, I haven't heard anybody say that dependent core arising is ultimate truth. In other words, A can be equal to B and yet there's a difference between A and B, even though they're identical. And they call B, emptiness, ultimate truth, but they don't usually call A, dependent core arising, ultimate truth. What term?

[48:41]

Dependent core arising means that... Well, dependent core arising means that it's described in the process by which appearances... arise. All appearances arise by dependence on other things. All appearances, all phenomena are other dependent. They have other dependent quality. In other words, everything depends on other in order to appear. And dependent co-arising is the process and the teaching and the reality of how appearances appear. And everything, all phenomena are dependent co-arisings. So you could say, all of a sudden we say dependent co-arising is interdependent, interdependence, but it's interdependence, interdependent arisings. It's emphasizing how something happens. But because everything depends on other, everything lacks inherent existence. Nothing exists by itself, therefore everything lacks an inherent nature.

[49:45]

All phenomena have an other dependent nature. but they all lack an inherent nature. And their lack of inherent nature is their fundamental mode of being, that their emptiness. That's ultimate truth. But the ultimate truth and the way to realize ultimate truth, one of the main ways to realize ultimate truth is to meditate on how things are other dependent. If you can see the other dependence of something, you can't find the thing. When you see how somebody is dependent on the other, you can't find the thing. All you find is its dependence. If you then look at the things it depends on, try to find them, you'll find that they're other dependent too. But when you're first looking at the thing and you see the things it depends on, you're not subjecting them to the contemplation. You're just seeing how they contribute to it. So they seem to hold up for a little while. Pardon, an example? Like a cup?

[50:52]

This is a glass, I guess, right? A glass, this is an appearance, right? But this glass has an other dependent aspect. In other words, for this appearance of glass to happen there, it depends on various things. For example, in your case, it depends on you. Without you, you wouldn't have a glass. Without your eyes, you wouldn't have a glass. At least a glass which is appearing to you as a visual thing. Without you being alive, there wouldn't be a glass. You're part of the co. Also, there has to be, in this case, there has to be some silicone that this depends on. And there has to be a shape and so on. Want to go on?

[51:58]

What else does it have to be? Light. Light. You can say touching in this case. What else? Atmospheric pressure. Space. Space. Air. Air. 32 other people who say it's glass. 32 other people who say it's glass. Yeah. Huh? Brain, eye? So, so far, none of the things you said are the glass, right? And everything you say that this depends on, you know, unless there's some disagreement, will be admitted to the other that this depends on for its appearance. But none of those things will be the glass. There is no glassness. All the things you use to establish the glass, none of them are glassness. They're all things the glass depends on.

[52:59]

The one thing you can't find is the glass. That's the other dependent quality of this appearance. And there's two other qualities which I've been talking about. which are also taught in the Samadhi Nirmacana Sutra. And I hesitate to bring them up because it's a big intellectual leap. But you're going to want me to bring it up now, aren't you? Some of you are. The other thing that this glass depends on to be an appearance or an event is it depends on mental imputation. Mental imputation, which is closely related to the observer, the eyes and the brain. But eyes and brain, although they're necessary, you need something else, which is not eyes and brain, but the conceptual imputation of a cup.

[54:05]

And now I take the cup and put it someplace. I take the glass and put it someplace, and now here I am sitting in my chair looking at you, but I don't have a glass anymore, do I? But do I still have the concept of a glass? That's not right. According to the sutra, that's not right. And that's one of the ways you can verify that the cup, the appearance of a cup or the event of a cup has a conceptual aspect but an other dependent aspect. And if it only has one of them, you don't have the event. So right now I have the conceptual imputation but I don't have the other dependent part of the cup. Therefore, no cup. If mental imputation or conceptualization was sufficient, you could just dream up a world.

[55:11]

But it takes more than that to make a world than just thinking of it and having a concept for it. However, so I'll show you. Here's what it takes to have the event of a cup. Now something besides the concept of cup is now happening, and that was supplied, and now you have the event of the cup. But you had the concept before the other dependent side was satisfied. Now your concept comes together with the satisfaction of the other dependencies necessary for the event of a cup. Now you have a cup. But without the other dependent things happening, you don't have a cup. On the other hand, the other dependent side isn't sufficient. Because now we're looking at this cup, but if you take all of us conceivers away, you don't have a cup anymore. If you bring us out of the room and bring a fly in here, there's not a cup.

[56:14]

There's not a glass. Because they don't do mental imputation the way we do. They might do something with this, but I don't know what this is for a fly. I could guess what it is. For example, It might be a super luxurious hotel. It might be a swimming pool. It might be lunch. It depends on what the fly does with whatever's offered here. Now. The fact that this thing, that this event, has this other dependent quality, by which you can understand that this event lacks inherent existence, and it is the ultimate truth of this, this event also requires, as part of its origination, mental imputation, and everything that happens has these two qualities, and therefore it has a third quality, that it has these two qualities.

[57:31]

And the third quality also includes that it has these two qualities, and these two qualities are not the same. But you can have one without the other. Just like you know you can have the concept without the other dependent side, and you don't have the event. And you can have the other dependent without the mental mutation, and you don't have the event. When you do have the event, those two are not actually confused, and that is the thorough quality of every event, this non-confusion of these two elements. And that is the way the event really, you know, that's the way the event really is. And if you see that, you see the suchness of the event, and if you see the suchness of the event, you realize the emptiness of the event. Okay. And this is what contemplatives can see. Was that an example, right?

[58:38]

You're welcome. The third thing, the third quality is called, sometimes it's called the perfected quality. Sometimes it's called the thoroughly established quality. Sometimes it's called the accomplished aspect of any event. But that accomplished aspect is what we call suchness, the reality of the event, which isolates the emptiness because it lets the other dependent qualities stand free of conceptualization. And every event... has this perfect quality, that events are not confused, actually, and they're all not confused. But the non-contemplative or the contemplative in training confuse the conceptualization with the other dependents.

[59:42]

They stick them together, and then they think the concept of the event is the event. which is not correct, but it's not totally incorrect either, because your concept is a necessary part of the event. Your concept is the concept of the event, and events need concepts to happen. So always these are separate, really, and sometimes among the non-contemplatives, and we know there's a lot of them, the non-contemplatives confuse these two. And they just let that confusion go and take the concept as real, as the real mode that this is in, and overlook this mysterious and wonderful interdependent quality of the thing, which also includes this lack of inherent existence. The interdependence is the... And that's the... This comes back to Acacia's question.

[60:43]

the interdependent quality is somewhat different, the other dependent quality is somewhat different from emptiness, even though they're identical. In some sense, the emptiness is the ungraspable lack of inherent existence, and that emptiness liberates you from attachment because you can't get anything. But the other dependent quality is, if you'll excuse me for saying so, beauty. utter selfless beauty. It's a beauty that's beyond any idea of beauty. It's the beauty that everything that happens is interdependent and is everything, but it portals self. So in some sense the difference between other dependent core arising and emptiness is dependent core arising is beauty, but beauty You know, you're tempted, even bodhisattvas are tempted to try to get a hold of it.

[61:53]

But nobody, you know, but it's less, you know, but emptiness you can't get a hold of. You can get a hold of its existence. So that's why the ultimate, from the point of view of Buddhism, is not the beauty, and it is beautiful, but the emptiness, because that's what's liberating. And we're mostly concerned with liberation. And then after liberation, you can come back and enjoy the beauty. And also by appreciating beauty, you come to meet emptiness. They're the same, but as Keshe said, they feel different. And that's right, it's a difference between facing the ungraspable, liberating mode that things are, or facing the other dependent aspect of things, unconfused by mental imputation. So as you let go of your views and start to see other dependents, as you let the other dependent quality of phenomena be unconfused by mental imputation, which is there, but it's separate.

[63:02]

It's not the same thing. They don't actually overlap if you look carefully for a long time. Seeing that, understanding that other dependence, you see emptiness. So first of all, you realize the suchness of it. The suchness says that the conceptual invitation and other dependence, conceptual invitation and the mysterious beauty of all phenomena are not confused. You see the suchness, and then you see that in the other dependence there's no inherent core, of course, and you realize emptiness. Okay? This is the contemplation, right? I think Rene was next. So in empty world, what's being denied is the dualistic nature, right?

[64:07]

It fails to be non-realistic because the world isn't being denied. Only the grasp of the dualistic world seems not real. Let's break your question up in parts two, and we still have part two of your question. Okay. Keep track of all these floating questions. If you grasp emptiness and hold emptiness, then emptiness turns into nihilism. Into nihilism. You reject the world. if you grasp emptiness, you see? Because if you grasp the ultimate truth, then you forget about the conventional truth where stuff's appearing. So grasping the ultimate truth turns into nihilism, you know, or what somebody would call nihilism. You hold the philosophical position, you make emptiness into a philosophical position, then it turns into nihilism. But emptiness isn't supposed to be grasped, it's supposed to just be a medicine that you take, and you're free, and that's it, and it's done its job, then you shouldn't hold it anymore.

[65:14]

Once emptiness has done its job on you, leave it alone, and go back and enjoy the world, and bring other people to the realization of emptiness. But if you hold to emptiness, then it seems to turn into nihilism, and you've gone too far. So what's the next part of your question? The next part? Or did I answer both parts? The next part of the question was that if you don't hold Yes. Yes. Oh, you started talking about non-duality. So your dualistic consciousness can still realize a world of subject-object duality and things out there. So the mind can still do that. You don't lose your... The brain doesn't lose its ability to think dualistically just because you have developed this wonderful non-dual awareness.

[66:19]

But what you do give up on is believing that that application that you have has an inherent reality. That that subject-object dualism The subject-object dualism has an inherent reality, which is to say the same thing, which is to say that if the subject-object dualism has inherent reality, then the subject has inherent reality, then the objects have inherent reality, so then they're really out there, and they appear to be really out there, and you can see that they appear that way, but you don't assert that they're real. You just say, they seem to be real, and I know that's how things are, superficially is they not only seem to be out there they not only seem to be arising they not only seem to be ceasing but they seem to be real but i know from previous meditation experiences that doesn't hold up but still i that's what it looks like yep that certainly looks like her I just thought of something funny that happened.

[67:29]

But that'll help Sharon stay awake, right? If I tell this funny thing? Yeah. Well, first of all, I'm going to tell you about it, and that'll wake you up just in anticipation. I don't tell jokes just to make you stay awake, but sometimes they do occur, and I think maybe Buddha's channeling the joke to me so that you don't go to sleep. Buddha's saying, they're getting sleepy. You've been talking about this heavy philosophy too long. It's time for a joke. Okay, and here's a joke, which is somewhat related. They're often somewhat related, and sometimes they're completely, I can find no connection. But this one is related, I think. See if you can see, after all this, how it's related. I was in a workshop at Green Gulch, and I went around introducing myself to the people beforehand. So I said, like I said, how do you do? My name's Reb. And you say, Diana. And I say, how do you do? And this person says, I say, my name's Reb Anderson.

[68:33]

He said, my name's Robin Williams. I said, how do you do? Then at dinner, but I didn't know who Robin Williams was. So at dinner... We're waiting in line for dinner and somebody says to me, is that Robin Williams? And I said, yes. And here's how it relates is that to me it appeared to be Robin Williams because he said his name was Robin Williams and it seemed to be him, right? So to me, it seemed like Robin Williams. But then I couldn't understand why the person was asking me. I said, well, why are you asking me if it's Robin Williams? See, now she thinks she sees something.

[69:33]

I mean, she does see something. She smells something. But I've noticed that, you know, although she does see things that she often takes them as real. She's a wonderful, this shows, this is very important, you know, she's like a common person. She's not contemplative, but we love her anyway, don't we? You see, it's not that non-contemplative people aren't like totally adorable, but she is like totally adorable, but she's not that much into contemplation. I mean, that's the way she appears to me. I see her often like seeing things, you know, she thinks things are there, but they're not. She makes all kinds of, you know, she misinterprets and misapprehends things quite quickly. And I don't even try to get her to contemplate. She's so happy, you know, she's so beautiful the way she misinterprets. Now, sometimes, however, she is right on the mark.

[70:37]

When... When she thinks it's a wild animal, and it is, well, then she's right. And sometimes there is a correspondence. But oftentimes she thinks that the broom is a wild animal or something. Anyway, so I said to this person, this person said, is that Robin Williams? And I said, yeah. And then I said, why did you ask me if it was Robin Williams? In other words, if they knew it was Robin Williams, why did they ask me if it's Robin Williams? So they said, is that Robin Williams? I said, yeah. And I said, well, why did you ask me if it was Robin Williams? Do you understand? That doesn't very often happen. Now, if somebody's far away, you know, coming up from the horizon and say, is that Paul? Yeah, it's Paul. But like right up close, somebody said, you know, like if somebody, if you say to me, is that Diana? And I say, yes. I kind of say, what's happening, Edith? What do you mean, Edith? You know what I mean? So I said, well, why do you ask me if it's Robin Williams?

[71:40]

And they said, well, because it looked like him. Then I said, well, if it looked like him, why did you ask me if it was him? Yeah. And so I went back a few times like this, like, what? And they, I don't know what they were thinking of me. What's he talking about? But finally I said, kind of said, let's see. Is he famous or something? I finally came to the conclusion that they're talking about something that they knew really well, but they weren't sure if it's the person they know. So I said, is he famous or something? And they said, yeah, he's a movie star. And I said, oh, okay. Well, what movies has he made? Then they started clocking off these movies, you know. And when they got to Popeye, I said, oh.

[72:43]

I remember him and Popeye now. I'd seen Popeye. And I just want to parenthetically mention that in that movie, Popeye, I just thought olive oil was terrific. I finally understood olive oil in that movie. Anyway, so I said, oh, and then they said, welcome to 1985, Reb. This is 1985. That was 1985. Welcome to 1985. You know, except for Popeye, I was sort of back in the 60s, right? I had missed about 15 years of American culture by being stuck in the monastery. So you see, it appears to be. But what is it really?

[73:43]

I'm going to wake up in a new asylum, and there's not going to be any doctors or nurses there. But there might be a bodhisattva who'll ask you, what do you think you see, Susan? Are you apprehending this hospital as real? Is this a hospital or is it 1985? Okay, what's the next part of your question, Acacia? I believe you may have already answered it, but why does ultimate truth mean... I don't answer why questions. Sorry. It's a philosophical dead end. So ask it a different way. Is there a necessary relationship between dependent co-arising and emptiness? Do they depend on each other? But how?

[74:55]

Not why. Don't ask why. It's not going to work. Anyway, you can ask somebody else why. But ask me how. Okay. Emptiness. The emptiness of something is not that it's not there. It's is that the thing depends on other things. That's what, that's, that's... Why is it needed? Why... Oh, sorry. How, how, how is it so, how is it that, you know, finish the sentence? How is it so that ultimate truth can't exist by itself, can it?

[75:57]

Good question. And why would not have worked? You look, think about that. Why would have been not good? See, you put it in a much better way than your why thing. How is it that ultimate truth can't be out there by itself? Because this is not ultimate truth abstractly. This is the ultimate truth of phenomena. That's what emptiness is. Emptiness is not an abstract, absolute. Emptiness is not like God, an absolute, complete thing. Emptiness also is empty, because emptiness depends on phenomena. It's the emptiness of phenomena. It's not the emptiness itself. Da-da-da-da, emptiness. It's emptiness of phenomena. It's kind of da-da-da-da, but it's da-da-da-da of phenomena. So this da-da-da-da, by the way, da-da-da-da is the Pali way to say suchness.

[77:03]

Isn't that wonderful? Da-da-da-da is Pali for the way things are. And in Sanskrit it's ta-ta-ta. Yeah? Yeah. No, I said it isn't God. It's not God. But your question is more like, why does God need anything? Why does ultimate truth depend on anything? But anyway, emptiness is not ultimate truth like an absolute. Emptiness is not an absolute. Absolute means perfect and complete. Emptiness is not complete. It is the final truth. It's the last truth you need to be a happy camper. It's ultimate and supreme, but it's not absolute.

[78:07]

It doesn't exist all by itself, all shining there, like a big fat by itself truth. Emptiness is emptiness of your ordinary life. Emptiness is emptiness of those things which we often construe as conventionalities. Emptiness is the true nature of conventionalities. It's not a truth and absolute. And a lot of people call emptiness the absolute, but the ultimate is not the same as absolute. Buddhism really doesn't... Take it back. Anyway, emptiness isn't an absolute. It does depend on dependent core arising, because dependent core arising is that all phenomena are other-dependent. So it's emptiness of a phenomena and phenomena are dependent co-arisings.

[79:08]

So emptiness is the same as that. But phenomena have this other dimension besides just being other dependent. They also, for us to have an experience, they have this conceptual element too. But emptiness, first of all, the yogi has to get this wonderful vision of how the conceptualization is separate from the other dependence. And then The other dependence shows you the emptiness. But there's still a difference in a feeling between other dependence and emptiness. Emptiness is ungraspable nature of things, which means we can't grasp anything anymore when you see it. And you can't seek anything anymore. So you're Buddha. Buddha is the one who can't grasp or seek. They don't know how because They can't, they don't see, that's the way they see things, is ungraspable and unseekable. But there's this other aspect, which is that everything is supporting us and everything is supporting everything.

[80:09]

And actually nothing is anything more than the total inventory of its supports. And ignorance is to ignore how things are supported. to look at the thing and ignore the support. It's like looking at yourself and forgetting your mother. Ignoring your mother and thinking that you're something independent of your mother and your father. And Father's Day is coming up, so don't forget to call your father and tell your father that you love him. And if he's dead, as you can read in my book, you can still call him. Say, Dad, I don't know where you are, but thanks. Because it's because of you and Mom that I get to study Buddhism. And if your dad's not a Buddhist, he might not mention that last part.

[81:16]

OK, Acacia? Good question. Very important point. Emptiness is not an absolute. Emptiness is emptiness of form, of feelings, of colors, of ideas. Emptiness of... Emptiness... And that's another reason why emptiness is identical to the pinnacle horizon. Because emptiness is also a pinnacle horizon. The principle of emptiness... It's just a principle. But the principle is also a dependent co-arising. But the emptiness of something is a dependent co-arising. Or the appearance, the realization of the emptiness is a dependent co-arising. So enlightenment is a dependent co-arising. Okay, everybody sit over in that part of the room. Okay, now we have Esme and Pim. How are they different?

[82:30]

Suchness is, the suchness of a phenomena is that the mental imputation is separate from the other dependent. That's the suchness. What did you say? There's different ways to put this, but one way is the suchness of a phenomena is that the conceptual imputation that's involved in any phenomena is separate from the other dependent quality of the phenomena. That separation is the suchness. That's like the perfected quality of all phenomena. And if phenomena don't have both of those, as I showed with the example of the cup, if you only have one, you don't have a phenomena. If you just have conception, you don't have a phenomena.

[83:33]

And if you just have other dependence, you don't have a phenomena. Because what it takes to make cups is there, you know, available in the universe all the time, right? As far as we know, the potential for a cup is... It's always there. Always has been. But cups didn't start happening until people had the idea of cups. And when people... ... [...] There's emptiness everywhere. Emptiness doesn't arise. The existence of emptiness arises, but emptiness doesn't arise.

[84:50]

Emptiness, it doesn't arise. But all things that arise are empty. Pardon? Well, it's kind of like it, but not. Again, it's like this. The suchness is that mental imputation is separate from other dependents of any phenomena. You see, what usually is the case is people confuse the two, and then we suffer. You know, greed, hate, and delusion arises when you confuse the two. Because then you think what things seem to be is beauty. Right? So then, of course, you grasp them. And also what seems to be is beautiful, like it seems to be that you're separate, so that seems beautiful, so you grasp it, and so on.

[85:58]

So that's trouble. When you can see, when you have this, like, miracle, and you can see that they're separate, you see the way things actually are in their suchness. All right? And that's reality. Actually, that's almost ultimate reality. But not quite. Even more ultimate than that is to look at the other dependents and see that it is empty by its definition. It's showing you that this thing depends on other things. And if you look at the list of things, there's the mental imputation, there's the other dependents, and there's the fact that they're separate. But there's nothing more about the thing there. None of the things on the list are the thing. Pardon? Well, anyway, I hesitated to bring this up because it's a big chunk of stuff.

[87:04]

But there it is. Yes? Yes. The process itself? No. It's that the process doesn't have itself, is the ultimate truth. Hmm? The ultimate truth is the process and the chemical reactions as well. dependent co-arising describe the process? Well, you can describe dependent co-arising, but dependent co-arising is not just a description. Okay, so you can describe dependent co-arising, that's a description of the process, but dependent co-arising is not a description.

[88:06]

It is a process, minus the mental imputation. And emptiness is that the process doesn't have an itself. There's no core to such a process. It's just all kind of like everything's peripheral. Everything's just supportive. Did you have your hand tentatively raised, Lisa? Yes. So your question is, is suchness what I was calling compounded reality? No. Suchness is the way compounded things actually are. It's what... When you contemplate compounded things, there's a possibility that someday you would see how they're compounded.

[89:16]

And how are they compounded? They're compounded independently. and also of mental imputation and also they're compounded in this very lovely perfect way in that the mental imputation doesn't touch the way they're dependent. That's the way things are thoroughly established is that they aren't confused and Mental imputation is necessary for events to occur for us, but it's not the same as what the event depends on. When you contemplate events in the liberating way, the appropriate way, you can see you can have a vision of how they're compounded. And the way they're compounded is such that you see that they're compounded rather than self-existent. And then you see that the way they appear is not the way they are.

[90:19]

And you see that the way they are is totally free of grasping, clinging, greed, hate, and delusion. But someone said, I think in one of the classes, is it like grace when you see that or something like that? It's like grace. You can't make yourself see this, but you can be there looking at things in a mode that you're open to grace, which is called being open to what's happening. You're open to what's happening, and if you're open to what's happening, you're also open to grace. If you're closed to what's happening, you're closed to grace. Grace is knocking on the door all the time, but you say, I've got other things to do, excuse me. And then finally someday we say, okay, I have nothing else to do. But it isn't that I have nothing else to do and I'm going to be open to grace if I have nothing else to do but be open. So you enter into a mode of contemplation where you open, which is the same as the example I gave before, is you look at someone and you think, oh, that's Lisa.

[91:24]

Well, that's okay. I'm open to that. But I'm also open to maybe you're not Lisa. And maybe you're actually, like, really not Lisa. Maybe like your... Anything. Huh? Yeah. You see it with your wisdom eye. You don't see it with your eyeball. Your eyeball is set by your brain. And your brain is set by your eye. The brain, you know, actually is an extension of the eye. The brain grew up out of the eye for humans. For dogs, I think the nose, the brain grew out of the nose. It's got a nose and it just went... But the dog brain didn't get as big as a human brain. But our brain got really big and it's really eye-connected, anatomically and so on.

[92:33]

But it's not with the brain and the eye that you see What do we see with? We see with non-attachment and non-seeking. We understand. How you doing? It's time to stop? Okay. And then we have... So don't forget your poem. And just 17 syllables. In total, yeah, 17 syllables. Like, then the bodhisattva, purified intelligence, woke up.

[93:39]

That's a haiku. Now, one thing I'd like to discuss with you is the rest of this day and to tell you about tomorrow, too. Well, I'll work back from tomorrow. Usually on the last day we have a little closing ceremony besides breakfast. The breakfast, of course, is the main ceremony.

[94:04]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_88.34