So I want to, I hope, plant some seeds again tonight. And then you can let them germinate in your sitting for the week, for the five days. And as I mentioned last week, when we sit, we're hopefully sitting with the right view, with right view in our heart. And of course, we keep working on right view always throughout the years of our life and practice. But now I'm trying to offer this class on Madhyamaka to help clarify our understanding of the central teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha of dependent co-origination.

[01:20]

Madhyamaka is the nullification. of the standpoint of self. In that sense, it is rather like a standpoint which is not really a standpoint. By making us constantly look into the abyss of nothingness and confront the death of the self, Emptiness has become an object of human dread. Emptiness has become the salient feature of Mahayana Buddhism. And the main difference between Mahayana and Hinayana is not a matter of size or quantity, but is a matter of that Mahayana has made a radical shift to the point of view of non-being, from the point of view of the so-called Hinayana, which has the point of view of being.

[02:53]

Again, some people say you shouldn't use the word hinayana because that's insulting to Theravada Buddhists. But we don't mean by hinayana Theravada Buddhists. Theravada means path of the old ones. We don't mean Theravada Buddhists when we say hinayanas. We mean by hinayanas as those Buddhists who approach Buddhist practice from the point of view of being. Mahayana makes the shift and approaches Buddhist practice from the point of view of non-being. Mahayana is insight into emptiness of all being. Mahayana's understanding of the emptiness of all being represents penetration into the illusory descriptions of all beings.

[03:58]

Mahayana is a profound awareness that thoroughly discerns the true patterns of all being. Mahayana is the emptiness of a broad, great vehicle which carries nothing at all. This is a different point of view from the early from the Hinayana, not maybe a different point of view from the original teaching of Shakyamuni, though. Within the Buddhist tradition, those who penetrate to the emptiness with respect to this great vehicle regard the Madhyamaka philosophy of Nagarjuna and his followers as pioneers. Emptiness, however, is not simply nothingness.

[05:01]

It is also immediately and necessarily the being of dependent co-arising. Emptiness is not simply nothingness. It is also and necessarily the being of dependent co-arising. The statement that things are empty and non-existent is intended to clarify the reality of things, the true characteristic of our self-existence. Zazen is to sit upright and contemplate these two characteristics, these true characteristics. Emptiness is intended as an expression of true being, and our zazen practice, our zen practice, is to realize this within our whole body and mind. Our practice is the realization of the emptiness of this dependently co-arisen being.

[06:17]

or realizing that this dependently co-arisen being is empty of inherent existence. Now, there are two dimensions to this dependent co-arising. And the Madhyamaka has reclaimed the central notion of dependent core arising from what happened to it in the khinayana phase of Buddhist history. As I told you last week, dependent core arising is central to primitive Buddhism, and it is primitive Buddhism's fundamental standpoint. Accordingly, in Madhyamaka philosophy, dependent co-arising also fills a basic role, because Madhyamaka philosophy consistently intended to return to the original teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, just like Dogen Zenji continually and consistently intended to return to the original teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.

[07:36]

And since Shakyamuni Buddha's focal teaching was dependent co-arising, so dependent co-arising is a focal teaching of Madhyamaka and of Zen. As I mentioned before, Madhyamaka retained, or more accurately, resurrected the primitive notion of dependent co-arising as the dependent co-arising of reality. Whereas in the Abhidharma phase of Buddhist history and Buddhist teaching, Buddhist doctrine, the dependent co-arising was the dependent co-arising of reality factors. So in Madhyamaka, it is dependent co-arising of reality, dharmata. In Abhidharma, dependent co-arising is the dependent co-arising of individual reality factors. dharmas. In contrast to this kinayana-abhidharma concept of dependent co-arising, as factors at work in reality, like causes, conditions, results, and so on, Nagarjuna reclaimed the doctrine of dependent co-arising as a doctrine of emptiness.

[09:04]

Dependent co-arising is a doctrine of emptiness rather than a doctrine which shows how these dharmas work within reality to produce things. In the Abhidharma theories, the dharmas or these reality factors were not empty. Nagarjuna claimed that dependent co-arising entails emptiness. requires the emptiness of being and their absence of essence. And dependent co-arising cannot be explained from an essentialist point of perspective. In order to explain how dependent co-arising works, it has to be that it is these things which are empty, which are interacting, that produce a result.

[10:08]

If these things are essential, inherently existent things, dependent co-arising could not work. I'll just mention this now and later I'll go into more detail. Fuyo Dōkai says, Green mountains are forever walking. A stone woman gives birth to a child at night. This is the Majjhāmaka point of view. Green mountains, forever walking, means because of emptiness, anything can happen. A stone woman is a barren woman. She's barren because she has no inherent existence herself. But she bears a child anyway at night or by night.

[11:11]

I think by night's good because her husband is night. Her husband is emptiness. But I'll go into this more later. In Madhyamaka philosophy, dependent co-arising itself is referred to as dependent on this, idam pratyayata. Dependent co-arising is referred to, in Madhyamaka philosophy, dependent co-arising is referred to as, quote, dependent on this, unquote. That's how we refer to DCA. And that which is dependently co-arisen is referred to as, quotes, a designation having recourse, unquote.

[12:16]

a designation having recourse on court. Upadhyaya Prajnapati. That's next. this and dependent or conditioned by, dependent on this. That's what DCA is referred to as dependent on this. That which is produced by dependent co-arising is referred to as DCA.

[13:21]

Kajñapti. Kajñapti means the designation, or like, it's also sometimes been called a fruitful fiction. And upadaya means kind of like kicked up, or having a recourse. You know what recourse means? I had to look it up myself because it's heavy research. A designation having recourse. What does that mean? What is a designation having recourse? It means it has some place to turn to for help. Some place to turn to for help, right. A recourse is someplace to turn to for help or aid. It also means an alternative. But actually, the first meaning of it is a place to turn for help or aid. A designation to turn to for help or aid. Those are the things that are produced by dependent co-origination.

[14:28]

In Madhyamaka, that's what they're referred to as. And the process itself, the entire process of dependent co-arising is called dependent on this, which in some sense makes sense. This thing that arises from dependent co-arising depends on this, right? Okay? And the things that are produced that depend on dependent co-arising to be produced are called designations, which we can turn to for help. Pardon? Whatever kind of being you're dealing with. Like, for example, your body and mind is a designation having recourse. Your body and mind, which you'll be dealing with for five days, is produced by dependent co-origination, right? According to Buddha. All right? Depending on dependent co-arising, you get some experience.

[15:34]

You get some kind of being. Basically, you get a kind of being, OK? That being in Madhyamaka is referred to as a designation. Any kind of being you're dealing with is a designation, having recourse. Now, we're also going to be chanting the 30 verses on vijñapti-mātra-siddhi, on mastery of mirror consciousness, of just a mirror concept, prajñapti, vijñapti, vijñapti, vijñapti, prajñapti, vijñapti, prajñapti, see the nyapti there? There's a nyapti in both of them, okay? The pradnyakti means is related to nya, the wonderful Indo-Iranian, Indo-Sanskritian root, which is the basis of gnosis, knowledge, knowing, cognition, samnya, jnana, vijnana.

[16:55]

OK? Recognize those old favorites? Prajna. So prajnapti looks like prajna. But in this case, it doesn't mean wisdom. It means that the jna with the p on the end means something to do with knowledge. In other words, something that's known. Something that's known. A designation. a setup, having upadaya, having recourse. Vidnyapti means just concept, not just concept. Vidnyapti means concept. Vidnyapti-mātra means just concept. So in the Vidnyapti-mātra, first you have this Vidnyapti-mātra coming out of the Madhyamaka teaching. First you have Madhyamaka, and then you have this development called Vidnyapti-mātra-vāra, Vidnyapti-mātra school. In the Vijnapti mantra, the way DCA has a designation or a concept without real existence, a designation or a concept without real existence in the 30 verses is related to the notion that the entire world exists only by virtue of being an expression of constructs of consciousness.

[18:20]

Right? . Sorry. Whatever the variety of ideas of self and other, they all are due to the transformations of consciousness. Recognize that? That's what I just said in a different way. The 30 verses is related to the notion that the entire world exists only by virtue of being an expression and construct of consciousness. Thus both in the Madhyamaka and in this Vidyapti mantra school, which developed from the Madhyamaka, DCA is the central position. Because these Vidyaptis, these concepts, are things which are produced by dependent co-arising. They are also designations or concepts having recourse, things that appear for which we can go to for aid.

[19:24]

What's the business about going to for aid? Big help there, right? What do you go to these concepts for aid for? So you can sit in chairs. So you can sit in chairs, right. They're all you've got to live with. They're all you can go to for aid, which shows that he is dependently co-arisen phenomena, these designations. It doesn't say realities that you can go to for aid. It says designations that have recourse. What do you have available to you to practice with? All you have available to you to practice with is things produced dependent on this. Dependent on this. Dependent on dependent co-arising. That's all you have to do, you work with initially. It sounds like the designation, it sounds like designations, it sounds almost like they're saying that names, that names you go for help to names.

[20:37]

It's very much like names, it's very much like saying you go to names, but it's more than just names, because it's also just saying words. You go from hell to words. What is produced by dependent co-origination? Words, concepts, designations. Not just names. Names are a subset of words. It's saying that's what you've got to work with in this life. Names, words, designations. Not reality. Designation, concepts, concepts which are produced by dependent co-arising and which themselves are empty. What you've got to work with is empty being. So these people are not recommending that you work with reality. Why? It's not available to you to work with. What is available to you to work with? Things, being that is dependently co-arisen. That's what's available to you to work with.

[21:40]

these things which you can know, nyās, prajñāptis, upadhyaya prajñāptis and jñāptis. Okay? So, even though while Madhyamaka attempts to propose or use this DCA, dependent core rising, as its theme song, as its slogan, just like Buddha did, It remains primarily a philosophy of emptiness and non-being. The theme of Madhyamaka is dependent co-arising, but it's mostly using emptiness. Its activity is the use and function of emptiness, even though its theme is dependent co-arising. So here, dependent co-arising produces these upadaya prajnapis and vijnaptis.

[22:51]

The whole world is just this stuff, as far as we know, by dependent co-arising. That's what Madhyamaka central teaching is. That's what Buddhist central teaching is. But its actual function is to go around and zap everything. But it's got to have something to zap. What is it zapped? It zaps dependent co-arising and dependent co-arising things. So most of what zap means, to realize emptiness on every opportunity. Always keep realizing emptiness on every opportunity. Realize emptiness on every opportunity. Everything, realize emptiness. What is the object that you realize emptiness about? Things that are dependently co-produced, so you can understand what being really is. So Madhyamaka, again, is to realize emptiness so that you will understand what dependent co-arising really is, what being really is. Yes?

[23:53]

What's the difference, then, between prajnati and vijnati? I mean, you said one are the designation having reports, the other is concept, but those are essentially the same thing. Designation and concept are similar. They're similar, but they're different, too. I mean, I think designation is... a little different from the concept, but they're very close. Maybe we can work with that for a while. Anyway, this is the word that the Mahajanamaka used. The Mahajanamaka say that what is the result of dependent core arising, they call designation. In the Yogacara school, 30 verses, they use the word vijnapti, different word, very similar. I guess the difference would be, here would be the difference, is that in one case you're emphasizing... concept as a kind of factor of consciousness. And the other one you're saying, designation, which is a little bit more language-oriented.

[24:57]

Can you see that? Well, you may not be able to see it, but I think that that's the difference, is that the yogacara, the vijnapti mantra, is taking this majjamaka teaching and sort of translating it into consciousness. In the realm of consciousness, the word vijnapti tends to be used more and here and more in the language of truth talk. You're talking about this as a designation. Designation, I think, carries more of the impact of that it's not a real thing. Okay? It also seems more... Concept seems to carry more... You might or might not say that... It doesn't tell you right away that you don't believe this concept exists. But designation right away tells you they probably don't believe this is a reality, right? And when you're talking about consciousness, that you're telling the story of consciousness, instead of right away using a word which alludes to the fact that you're probably going to say that it doesn't exist, you just deal in ordinary words of consciousness, right?

[26:04]

Then later, in the 30 verses, it tells you that actually these concepts, because they're due to dependent core arising, are empty, remember? So the word fear or the word anger, these words do not carry with them in ordinary parlance their own destruction. But designation already is kind of like suspicious, right? Maybe that's the difference in the feeling. Okay. So, although Madhyamaka is attempting to put out this theme of dependent core arising, when you look at Madhyamaka as an event, the way it functions, you'll see that it's primarily a philosophy of emptiness and non-being. That's what will strike you. You won't say, oh, Madhyamaka, now that's about dependent co-arising. I'm telling you that it is. At the same time, I'm also telling you that when you meet it, it won't look like that. It'll look like emptiness coming on at you, mostly, reputation, negation.

[27:10]

So, as a philosophy of emptiness, its salient feature is negation and refutation. The reasoning of Nagarjuna, the great teacher, in his Mulamadhyamaka-karakas, his verses on the Middle Way, the verses, his work, his writing is consistently aimed at refutation. And that which is refuted, that which is negated, that which is declared to be empty, is selfhood, or svabhava. So again, this is the theme of Madhyamaka philosophy. This is the theme of all Buddhism. OK? But when you look at Madhyamaka, what you'll see is when you look at Nagarjuna, you see mostly reputation and negation aimed at this, which is produced by this.

[28:21]

So you may not feel like, oh, I'm reading Nagarjuna. He seems to be talking about this all the time. This is what he's concerned with teaching and helping us understand. But mostly you'll see attacks on this, attacks on selfhood, attacks on own being. That's why when people first looked at Nagarjuna, when Westerners first looked at him, and also Easterners maybe, they thought, oh, this guy's just into destroying and refuting everything. He's not into refuting and destroying everything. He's into refuting and destroying selfhood. as a way to help us understand what this is. OK, ready, get set. But refutation in and of itself is not regarded as a direct manifestation of truth. For in Madhyamaka, manifestation of truth needs to embody a positive trust also.

[29:30]

Majamaka is not just nihilism or negation. It is clarification of what this dependent co-arising is. Okay, I'm going to present a little bit more. You can stand it. While majamaka insight into emptiness penetrates to the non-being of all being, It also leads one into the being of dependent co-arising, in that dependent co-arising is an ordered sequence of things that somehow do indeed exist. Madhyamaka leads you into an insight of emptiness that penetrates to the non-being of all beings. Okay? But it also, the same insight leads into the being which is dependently co-arisen, and that being is an ordered sequence of things which somehow exist.

[30:47]

So it leads you into penetration into non-being. At the same time, it leads you into dependent co-arising, which And dependent co-arising has an ordered sequential side, which leads you to being. Not own being, but being. Okay? So Mahayana insight into emptiness leads you into the, penetrate into the non-being of all being, and also leads you into, because at the same time, into non-being. dependent co-arising, which has an ordered sequence, which produces being. Okay? That's why this vision of this mind, this majjamaka mind, penetrates both through emptiness and through conditioned origination. When it penetrates through emptiness, it penetrates into non-being. When it penetrates through conditioned co-production, it penetrates into being.

[31:49]

Reality is not very manageable. OK. Now, so this also shows that Madhyamaka did not simply take over the primitive notion of dependent co-arising. The primitive notion of dependent co-arising is, anybody guess what it is? I said it just a second ago. It's a dependent co-arising, is an ordered sequence which produces something, which produces being. It doesn't produce whatever you said. It produces being. The primitive Buddhist understanding, the primitive Buddhist presentation of this teaching was that by an ordered sequence it produces being. How's that primitive?

[32:58]

Nothing negative about this primitive. Primitive in the sense of early Buddhism, before it became scholastic, before it became Hinayana. Primitive Buddha, no problem. It's a good primitive. Good primitive, like around the time Shakyamuni Buddha. Before they jazzed it up and systematized it, before it got rigidified, Okay? When it was still the land of weird miracles and mysteries and wonder, totally, you know, enlightening kind of situation. Okay? When philosophy was, you know, the best movie in the universe. Okay? That's primitive Buddhism. But Madhyamaka didn't just take over primitive Buddhism, which said, this is an ordered sequence of events which produces reality. but also produces . It didn't do that. It didn't just take that over. Okay?

[33:59]

That perspective is a one-dimensional, horizontal perspective through ordered sequence of cause and effect. Such perspective does not allow us to see the significance of the Mahayana reversal of thinking through emptiness. This sequence does not allow you to see a reversal of seeing this process through emptiness. Again, it is certainly true that dependent co-arising refers in some sense to an ordered, sequential understanding of being, like primitive Buddhism. When we speak of conditioned or conditioning of things, we are designating them as having being.

[35:03]

When we speak of conditioned or conditioning things, we are speaking of them as having being, but not necessarily speaking of them as having own being. When you talk about dependent co-arising, as an ordered sequence of events of conditioned and conditioning, you are speaking of them as having been, not necessarily own being. Okay? And accordingly, listen, this is important, accordingly, when you speak of them as having been, then DCA is the being of transmigration. So I'm there. Now I can stop. I can stop for a second. That's what makes this class worth it.

[36:09]

I'll go over this again. I'm happy to go over it because I don't quite get it myself. Dependent co-arising is, in some sense, a sequential ordering of events. And it is an ordered sequence of events of conditioned and conditioning things. When you speak of an ordered sequence of conditioned and conditioning things, then you are talking about these things having been. And you are understanding this ordered sequence of beings. In some sense, you're talking about this ordered sequential understanding of being. Okay? And then, accordingly, the pendant co-arising of being is transmigration.

[37:30]

Transmigration means the big B and the big D. Birth and death. Misery. Lamentation. Suffering. That's transmigration. Wandering in confusion, cyclic existence. This is a one-dimensional, horizontal perspective on DCA. The horizontal, one-dimensional perspective is sequential, ordered, events conditioned and conditioning in the realm of being. This is the early Buddhist presentation. This gives the presentation which explains the origination of the life of transmigration, which explains birth and death.

[38:34]

Okay? That's one DCA. It's a DCA of birth and death, a DCA of transmigration. Okay? Madhyamaka did not just pick up this understanding. However, it also did not reject this understanding, and this understanding also does not say that the being that's produced is Svabhava. It just says it's bhava. However, just being bhava means that it's DCA of being, DCA of transmigration, DCA of birth and death. That's what this story tells. And Shakyamuni Buddha's story, early story of DCA that he tells is the DCA of transmigration, right? The 12 links of causation is the DCA of the birth and death, ignorance, karmic conformations, consciousness, sense organs, so on and so forth, feeling, thirst, becoming, feeling, thirst, clinging, becoming, birth, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, ignorance.

[39:53]

That's the cycle he talked about. That's the birth and death of an ordered sequence of conditioned and conditioning elements, and those are an understanding from the point of view of being. That is the DCA of birth and death. Madhyamaka did not just adopt that only, because that's just the story of transmigration and birth and death. Madhyamaka also adopted another DCA, a DCA which transcends transmigration, which transcends birth and death. which is the DCA of suchness, which is the DCA of the dependent co-arising of awakening, which is the dependent co-arising of Buddha. And that DCA is not the horizontal, one-dimensional DCA of being.

[41:03]

not two-dimensional, it's another dimension coming from another angle. And it's from the point of view of non-being. It's from the point of view of emptiness. And that DCA is the DCA of awakening, the DCA of suchness. That's what Madhyamaka did to reclaim, to revitalize his teachings. which was, you know, actually Buddha was there. He was the example of DCA of awakening. And then he told, the awakened DCA told the story of the DCA of transmigration. Madhyamaka reclaimed the actual life and awe of an awakened DCA telling you about the DCA of birth and death. There was a DCA producing this being of suchness who was walking around doing these enlightened deeds which are dependently co-produced and one of the main enlightened deeds he does is tell about the DCA of birth and death and how you better watch out and do the practice which he does.

[42:18]

Well, you get it? I mean, that's it. I have more, but I'll stop now. I mean, I have a lot more there. Except go to page 14 next. But I'll stop right now. And you can ask questions, or I can go on. Questions? Yes? What do you call it in Mexico? What? What you talked about last? Well, it's not exactly vertical, but it's like there's a horizontal plane, you know, of cause and effect, of sequential ordered things, where there's condition and conditioning, okay? If you have that kind of a story, that's from the point of view of being, okay? Mahayana Buddhism is coming at it sort of, you could say vertically if you want to, but at a totally different angle anyway. So now, the Madhyamaka is one-dimensional, DCA and another dimensional DCA. It's not really from vertical. It's from non-being. I don't know what angle to put non-being at to being.

[43:24]

It's a radical reversal of how do you reverse when you see a horizontal plane? How do you reverse the way you think about it? That's what Madhyamaka is. That's what Mahayana is doing. But there still is this horizontal field where things are interacting by cause and effect, by being. There still is that. We don't deny that birth and death does, in a sense, exist. Mahayana does not say birth and death does not exist. In another dimension, there's another DCA going on. There's another dependent co-arising going on at the same time as the first DCA. And that DCA is what's producing suchness. And the point of view, the basic point of view on that one is, emptiness is heavily working on that one. OK? Does that make sense? Being. Yeah, maybe. Yes?

[44:28]

. On being? Yes. On being means inherent existence. What? You're saying that sometimes this thing is using it reversed, right? Reversed? What do you mean? Reversed to inherit. No, own being means the thing has its own being. Something or something has its own being is to say that it has inherent being, inherent existence. Well, maybe you know something I don't. What do you want? The clear knowledge of the own being of all things is that they're empty. That's what Prajna knows. Yeah, but that seems like a different way of using the being than me. It's exactly the same. Well, yes, in the long run. No, in the short run it is. I hear exactly the same thing.

[45:36]

I don't know what you're hearing. What do you hear? You think it's saying that own being has inherent existence? No, but I thought that's the thing you're saying, that it would lead to death right now. Own being means inherent existence. Translate own being, inherent existence. That's what own being means. I mean, translate own being, translate svabhava. How do you translate that? Own being or inherent being. Okay? It's just very simple. That's fine, except that's another way of talking about it. The way I was thinking of being before was actually becoming more specific rather than . What? We have been hearing only before. Only, as I said this morning, it seems to be more a reference to DCA rather than the periodic system. But given the article, I can quote.

[46:38]

I think I'll tell you, because I remember one time that struck me, and I thought, shouldn't that read that it was seen that there is no one who saw the own being. That's what confused me. It would have made sense if it said that the lack of well-being was recognized. That would be more literal, yeah. So what does she do? Tell me what she does. Remember, this is a woman. Uh-oh. Huh? Where'd she stay? What's the line that... What was it? You said what you'd like to hear. What is it that you've got a problem with? How it actually reads. What does it say? Just say something. Just say something. Does she see the own being? Is that what it says? I'm sure. Problem is, does she say she's the Aum Beings? Right. She has a stray away from it.

[47:40]

That doesn't say, that's fine. So that's why you have trouble with it. Anyway, prajna paramita is the realization that all things are empty of Aum Being. That's what prajna is. But she's not going to do it the way you think she's going to do it. She's not stuck in something. She's not going to do it the way you want her to. She's going to do it the way she feels like it. That's what prajnaparamita is. It is the realization that all dharmas lack sva-bhava. All bhavas lack sva. That's what prajnaparamita is. Okay? All right? Yeah, let me just... She had a clear knowledge of the Aum Bhījika. So, it was just a clear knowledge. She has a clear knowledge.

[48:41]

She knows what Aum Bhījika is. She knows what that is. What's that? Huh? It's an illusion. It's what people do. People go around projecting Aum Bhījika all over the place. That's why she knows they do that. Prajna Paramita knows that. It's like Prajna just sees that Aum Bhījika is empty. Prajna also sees everybody believes in Aum Bhījika. She knows that. And very understanding about the whole thing. She knows that people can't avoid it. That's part of the deal. That's what makes birth and death work. That's the way I got the birth and death thing going. Because people believe and own beef. She does not stay away from it. That's good. That's good. She's right there with it. She's right there with the inherent existence of things. Right? She's right there. It's not denying. Not denying, because in fact, isn't that true? Don't people go around and do that all the time? It's part of me to say, I'm not going to have anything to do with these creeps.

[49:44]

No, part of me is right in there, in the muck, with the attribution of own being to things. Good. But what she really is, in her function is, is that realization that own being is empty. That's the light. That's why she is the light. And where does the light work? It goes right into inherent existence. It goes right into the misconception of inherent existence. If it wasn't for the misconception of inherent existence, there would be no Pradhanaparamita. She's operating in conjunction with the realm of being where people project inherent existence onto the being which is dependent and co-produced. And if it weren't for that projection of inherent existence, there would be no prajñāt-prajñīta.

[50:52]

There would be another kind of prajñāt, lower level, not prajñāt-prajñīta. I'm a little bit confused about your description of this early Buddhist DCA. Is that the same as the Hinayana perspective? No. The primitive Buddhist perspective on DCA is not Hinayana. primitive Buddhist perspective is, like I told you, you know, look at the Theravada Sutras when it explains what Buddha, what he taught going through his mind, okay? This is really good. He said, when he explained what happened to his, what he was working on when he was enlightened, is he went through this twelvefold link, twelve links of causation, right? He went through this way, he went that way, he did all these neat things with it. What he was doing there was working with this horizontal, one-dimensional DCA All right?

[51:54]

And explaining that, he taught that to people. And he taught from the point of view of being when he taught that. And they understood it from the point of view of being. But he did not say that the elements in those links, that the conditioning phenomena, he never said or implied in any way that any of those things had any inherent existence. That's Hinayana. is to say that these conditioning elements, that these dharmas which are working together, that these links and causation links, that they have some essence. That's Hinayana. Okay? Going back to primitive Buddhism, going before that, before they're saying... As a matter of fact, primitive Buddhism is saying very clearly these... Because of the fact that the Buddha said It's interesting. The Madhyamaka refer to DCA as idam pratyayata, depending on this.

[52:56]

When Buddhists said this link arises depending on that one, he said idam pratyayata. If they didn't if they had inherent existence, then you wouldn't say, because if you have inherent existence, you don't , you just . It's this. The very fact that Buddha said about each link in that thing shows that they're empty. But he didn't say so. He just said, idam pratyayatah, and it was very clear to him what he was talking about. Namely, these things don't have inherent existence. These are stone women giving birth to children in the dark. He didn't say that either. But that's in fact what's implied by the fact that he said that. And if you don't have this one, which depends on the one before... I mean, if you don't have the one before this one depends on, then you don't have this one.

[53:59]

Because this one isn't inherently existent. It doesn't live independently. It depends on that one. Therefore, it's empty. And also is that one. Okay? However, the story happens in the realm of being. But the language and the causation implies emptiness. Majama comes back and looks at the story, primarily looking from the point of view of idam pradhyayata. In other words, looking from the point of view of emptiness, comes back and looks at the story again to make sure that Buddhism will not slip into saying that the individual elements are self-existent, which it did get into. So you said that it made this sort of radical shift. It was a shift not from Buddha's original teaching, but I thought it was in response to that slip. It was a shift because... It still was a shift because in order to correct what happened later, it had to develop a way of thinking which Buddha did not develop.

[55:00]

Buddha did not teach DCA, first of all, from the point of view of non-being. It wasn't necessary at the time. People understood him. Later, because of what happened, you had to come along and really approach it in a radically different... You had to think about the whole thing from a really different point of view in order to overcome misunderstandings which developed. So it really was different and new. However, the strange thing is you have to do something really different sometimes to go really to get back to where we were before to overcome what's developed. It's kind of like a medicine, which is not the same as the original state, even though you're trying to get back to the original state of health. Something like that. But our new equate is misunderstanding with Vijnanapuji also in Abhidharma. Abhidharma, yeah. Abhidharma got... This is Abhidharma. The Prajnaparamita literature is in Abhidharma language.

[56:07]

It arose as an antidote to Abhidharma. That's why they speak Abhidharma languages, because the Abhidharmas are the ones they're trying to save. Abhidharmas are... And the Abhidharmas are the elite of Buddhism. So Prajnaparamita arose to save the leaders of Buddhism. Didn't save them, though. It saved some whole bunch of different people. The Muslims killed them. Yes? I'm trying to understand this think-town, what you said this morning, not ignoring that talk you said in the poem you read. Yes. Do you need brains of reality? I remember something I did saying that this kid, 10 years old, at that point, got his true kit, something like this, the word convention, or reading.

[57:09]

His confidence was scarred. I remember you used the word truth, but it's not really important, maybe confidence. we kill something. That's one point. And the other point is that you were saying in your talk that when we are building up our self-assertion, in this process of constructing ourselves by self-assertion, if we don't have this recognition, then we have all this conflict. Yes. Either submission or rebellion or things like that. And finally, death. In these two cases, what are we killing? Or what are we constructing? Using all these elements, you are killing us.

[58:11]

when we are in this process of self-absorption, or when we are killing our truth, or others' truth, as you said in your conference, you can kill my truth, and then I will throw, I go, and I say, good party, I want to know about you. What is this? Using this These elements, yes, for instance, in this context, what does it mean emptiness? What does it mean this DCA going into transmigration and producing beings and things like that? It seems to me rather abstract and understandable, not understandable. I would like to use this example that taught me a lot in your comments, previous comments, and it seems to me completely different, because I found your previous comments rooted in reality about this key and about our relationship.

[59:29]

I can understand much better that language and not this one. What I would like to do is to match. Yes, I would too. The reason why that touched you was because that was an explanation of DCA in the sense of ordered sequence of cause and condition in the realm of being. That's why you could follow it. It was a story of DCA from the point of view of transmigration, which you could follow, which is very touching and less abstract. Which is, which, and we should have, we have that DCA. Would you mind using those examples to explain this priority? I am using, I can be using those examples and I will continue to use those examples. And what I'm, when I use those examples, what I'm explaining is dependent co-arising in the horizontal one-dimensional aspect.

[60:31]

That's what I'm explaining at that time. When you understand it that way. When it gets you. Okay? Okay. That is the story of the origination of misery, which is an important story to tell. Okay? Why is it important to recognize somebody? And part of the reason why it's important to recognize someone is so that they will be able to assert themselves strongly enough so that they will be able to also understand that this process of dependent co-arising in the realm of being, so they will be able to see that . So in the realm of dependent co-arising in the realm of being, we should act in such a way of asserting ourselves and recognizing others

[61:35]

and having others recognize us so we can assert ourselves in this kind of relationship we should do that so we have the competence self-confidence and also ability to recognize others and we can live in that dimension so that we'll be able to understand the teaching that this whole process is empty which is an additional teaching over and above the story of birth and death are we in the transmigration path when we are in this process of recognizing or not recognizing, which is the same, finally. Recognize or do not recognize is exactly the same. The final effect is different, but the process is the same. But are we in the path of transmigration in both cases? Yes. So is it necessary among human beings to pay attention to these processes of recognizing or these processes of relationship?

[62:46]

Is it necessary? Is it necessary and why? Because what it finally leads to, the ideal is it leads to a situation where this magical situation of having two people who are both sovereign beings who meet. And in that situation, you can understand another realm, which is the realm of transcending the realm of recognition and assertion. It turns to me that liberation... These two realms are identical. The realm of being and the realm of non-being. The realm of relative truth and conventional truth and the realm of ultimate truth, these are identical. But if in the realm of relative truth you don't recognize other people,

[63:49]

If you don't recognize other people, nobody will recognize you. And if nobody recognizes you, you won't be able to assert yourself. And if you don't assert yourself, you won't know where you are and what's going on. And you'll be miserable and confused and isolated and depressed and dead. But if in the realm of assertion and recognition you do assert yourself and you do recognize... And because you do recognize, you can be recognized. And because you recognize, you can assert. And because you assert, you can recognize. And you keep going back and forth, and you live in that situation until you understand it. Then you realize that that realm of birth and death naturally implies and reaches out for a realm which is totally free for them. That's why we must assert ourselves and also recognize somebody's over there.

[64:55]

And recognize that he needs also to be recognized and also we need him to recognize us. And also we need him to assert himself in order to recognize us. We have to face that kind of life. That kind of life makes us so we have enough spirit to practice zazen. We have to have positive energy in order to study Buddhism. And positive energy comes from asserting yourself and recognizing others and having others recognize you and therefore asserting yourself. This kind of energy, that's what those vows are about, okay? Those vows are about asserting yourself and also respecting others, respecting Buddhas and rejoicing in the merits of others, okay? So one is in the realm of compassion, the realm of birth and death, the realm of compassion. The other is transcendental prajnaparamita.

[65:57]

Those two realms work together. There are still kind of two wheels separated. There is no... I can't find now... Well, that's what we're here for. That's what this abstract stuff is about. I find that this... That's good to admit that. It's understandable. This one is understandable, the other one. But I can't match them, you know. Well, please match them so that I can. I need you to match them so that I can recognize that you match them. When I recognize that you match them, you can recognize me recognizing you. And then I can be a good teacher because you understand me. Getting close to that point. Any questions from back in the hinterland there?

[66:59]

You guys aren't talking as much as... Huh? How's it doing? Okay. Can you hear okay? I hear a white sucker. I had a question, but it's stale. Okay, from the front row. I'm just wondering, later in the Tibetan teaching, Samantababha. Samantababha. Yeah. Padmasambhava. Padmasambhava. Wasn't it Nagarjuna's teachings that he formulated pretty much in the book with naked self-awareness? It sounds very much the same. Yeah, this is Tibetan Buddhism. I mean, Tibetan Buddhists are Nagarjunites. So then it's actually moving through from toward, I guess you could say, the path of... Yes. This is the basis of tantra.

[68:05]

This is the basis of sutra and tantra. The only difference is tantra and sutra use different types of consciousness to realize emptiness. You think of Shantideva? Oh, Shantideva, yeah. Padmasambhava, Shantideva, Sankapa, Milarepa, Bodhidharma, Dogi, Shakyamuni, Suzuki. You name it. Yes, Charlie? Didn't you say that Madhyamaka was partly developed on a counteract, like the Abhidhamma school, like Yogicara? No. Yogicara is a development from Madhyamaka. You were saying this uses the Abhidharma terminology and... You know, Madhyamaka uses Abhidharma terms. But see, Madhyamaka comes from the Prajnaparamita. See, Nagarjuna studied the Prajnaparamita, you know, the Heart Sutra and all those Prajnaparamita sutras. He studied them, and then he, from that teaching, he explained that teaching for people.

[69:09]

That's his teaching. It's basically a teaching about the Prajnaparamitas. And the prajnaparamita is all in the language of abhidharma. Well, not all, but primarily in the language of abhidharma. Beginning on abhidharma? Well, didn't the rest come out? Didn't Vasubandhu come later? Well, Vasubandhu, it looks like, Vasubandhu was first of all an Abhidharmist and later he sort of converted to Mahayana. But first he was an Abhidharmist. But anyway, it's the Abhidharmist and the Abhidharma thinking that the Prajnaparamita is trying to say. And so he uses their language and refutes it. It goes through all this Abhidharma stuff. That's what Mulamadhyamaka Karakas advise. Go into cause and effect and go into these dharmas. Each area of Abhidharma goes into and then refutes it and negates it.

[70:12]

Shows that it doesn't really work. If you... But what it refutes and negates, it refutes and negates that there's any inherent existence to the whole project. That's all that needs to be done. Then you're refreshed and you're back to basically zero again and everything's fine. I was just thinking about the... Yoga-chara is in Abhidharma school. No. Yoga-chara is a development from Madhyamaka. First you have Madhyamaka, which is antidote to the rigidified Abhidharma. Then you have yoga-chara coming after Madhyamaka. And that's Vatsi Bandhu, right? That's Vatsi Bandhu and it's Sangha, that's the main one, yeah. Or he just deals with some Abhidharma, but not... He deals with Abhidharma too, just like Nagarjuna did. They both deal with Abhidharma. It's just that Vasubandha deals with Abhidharma more from the point of view of consciousness and how consciousness transforms in order to produce the world.

[71:17]

Could you spend 45 seconds distinguishing Madhyamaka from nihilism? Or the karakas, the negation that he goes through? Would I point out why Madhyamaka is not nihilism? Because it says that emptiness is dependent co-origination. That's how it avoids being nihilism. Because dependent co-origination results in being It definitely has as its main thrust, anyway, how being exists. The status of dependently co-produced being is that it's empty. But we don't deny that it's being. Nihilists would at least say that its status as being is zilch. Madhyamaka says its status is empty.

[72:27]

That's the difference. And also, nihilists have no ethical base. Madhyamaka is primarily ethical teaching. I think it's important because a lot of Westerners take Nagarjuna as a nihilist doctor. Right, that's the first way. Because, like I said, when you first look at Nagarjuna, what you see is negation and refutation. So that's why people first thought he was a nihilist. But then later, as they've known recently, people are realizing, hey, the main thing he's doing is teaching dependent co-origination. So he actually isn't a nihilist because he's concerned with explaining the true nature of being. And in order to... Mahayana, in order to help people understand the true nature of existence, the true nature of being, their approach is... through insight of emptiness, namely the approach to understanding being is from the point of view of non-being.

[73:34]

And again, this is abstract philosophy to some extent, but the way to keep it from being abstract philosophy is simply to notice that you unconsciously are always attributing svabhava to everything. If you just sit on your cushion, it will be revealed to you that you are unconsciously attributing this above everything. Like, for example, pain. You're attributing inherent existence to it. Please notice that. That's your opportunity to uncover this powerful, unconscious thing. Gradually, when it gets uncovered, it's not unconscious anymore, and you'll start to be conscious of the fact that you are a svabhava impure. Svabhava impure. Svabhava impure. And Prajnaparamita is right there. She's staying right there.

[74:37]

While you're attributing own being, Prajnaparamita is right there with you, saying, Oh, yeah? What's that? What is that? What is that? Hey, man, what's that? Was that dependently co-produced by any chance? If you notice that you're imputing this bhavava, this won't be just abstract philosophy anymore. It'll start to cook. It'll be the right view inside of your meditation. And it'll start to reverse your life. And the fact that you won't, pain won't bother you anymore is a minor benefit. So next time we'll go more into these two kinds of dependent co-origination, and we'll go more into what is the dependent co-origination of suchness. What's that one like?

[75:37]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_87.02