I try to restrain myself from reviewing last week so that I just don't say basically the same class over again, even though I'd like you to remember what happened last week, whether you were here or not. But I'd like to just start, in a sense, to kind of dive right into this scripture and So this is a scripture about wisdom, about what's all translated here as perfect wisdom, prajna paramita. Prajna is translated often as wisdom or insight, and paramita means to go beyond or to go to the other shore, to transcend. So it's a wisdom. which goes beyond, in the sense that it goes beyond certain kinds of wisdom.

[01:05]

It goes beyond all kinds of wisdom. And this perfection of wisdom is a wisdom which understands what we call emptiness. The word emptiness is used in this translation. The bodhisattva-valokiteshvara... Of course, all bodhisattvas are into compassion, but this bodhisattva is sort of the emblem-bearer of compassion.

[02:16]

Some other bodhisattvas who are also, of course, compassionate beings sort of are emblematic of other aspects of the Buddha mind, like Manjushri is compassionate too, but represents wisdom, and Samantabhadra is compassionate too, but emphasizes the actual practice, and so on. Many bodhisattvas who are all compassionate beings, all working for the enlightenment of all beings, sometimes are used to remind us of a particular dimension of the practice. So, Abhigatetra is usually not used to represent wisdom, but here he is in the Wisdom Sutra. And he's meditating on, he's doing this Prajnaparamita meditation, he's practicing the Prajnaparamita, and he sees that all the different

[03:17]

kinds of phenomena are empty. And when he sees, by seeing that they're empty, thus relieved all suffering. By seeing that phenomena are empty, suffering is relieved. In an earlier translation, it said that Avalokiteshvara perceived that all five aggregates or skandhas are empty and was saved. So it emphasized, it almost sounds like Avalokiteshvara was saved by seeing the emptiness, which is true, that the person person who sees how things are empty.

[04:21]

Yes? What are skandhas? Skandhas? I'll just mention a minute, okay? By seeing things are empty, one is relieved of suffering. But actually, by seeing they're empty, suffering is relieved. Not so much just oneself, but suffering is released, relieved, not just for oneself. The skandhas are saskanda is translated as heap or aggregate and there's five and any kind of experience that you can talk about we would then be able we would put into one of these five aggregates one of these five categories so for example colors go in the first aggregate which is called actually form aggregate or the color aggregate, but also we put into that first aggregate sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles.

[05:27]

Can I get them all? And smells? With those five objects of sense consciousness, they go in the first category. And thank you. And then also in the first category go the material phenomena of having a sense capacities, like having the capacity to see. This is the capacity to see, or rather the capacity to be sensitive to and be an organ which is sensitive to light. which we call the eye, the sensitivity to ear, which we call... sensitivity to sound, which we call the ear and so on. So those five sensitivities or those five receptive material capacities also go in the first category.

[06:30]

So there's basically ten or eleven. There's another one, which I won't mention right now, which goes in the first category. So, for example, all those things are said to be empty in this particular translation. In the original Sanskrit, it actually says empty of own being, which is right, that they're empty of own being. That's what's meant by empty, is empty of own being. But for some reason or other, the Chinese, when they translate it, they just put empty. So you can either say empty of own being or you can say empty because empty means empty of own being. So that's part of what we get into right away here is discussing the word empty or emptiness. Pardon?

[07:35]

What does it mean to be empty of own being? I'll talk about that now, about what is meant by being empty or what is meant by emptiness. In a way, understanding emptiness, especially understanding the full significance of emptiness, is rather difficult.

[08:44]

But I think some things you might be able to understand tonight about the meaning of emptiness. The Sanskrit word For emptiness is shunyata. And the Sanskrit word for empty is shunya. So when you say, see that all five skandhas are empty, you would be seeing that all five skandhas are shunya. So shunya is, I guess it's like an adjective.

[09:46]

And shunyata is an abstract noun. Like empty is an adjective, and emptiness is an abstract noun, isn't it? No? Who said? Anybody know anything about English? It's an abstract noun, I think. Like knowledge, knowing, or known, a known thing, and then known is an adjective, right? A known entity. Is that an adjective? But knowledge is an abstract noun.

[10:51]

Yes? Well, I didn't think it was an adjective. I thought it was an adverb. Like an empty tank of gas. Isn't that an adjective? An empty sky. And now we're talking about empty everything. But empty of what? Empty of... I'll give you a bunch of words that are synonyms, okay? Empty of own being. Empty of independent existence. Empty of inherent existence. You could even say empty of substantial existence.

[12:04]

Empty of being self-produced. Empty of existing on their own side. This is a way of talking about it. You can also say if you want to, although the We usually say empty. You could also say lack or absence. So when we say empty, we mean lacking own being, lacking independent existence, lacking inherent existence, or everything has an inherent existence. In everything there is an absence of own being. There's an absence of inherent existence. There's an absence of independent existence. Seeing this

[13:24]

Seeing this in things relieves suffering, liberates us from suffering. And there's many ways to get at how that works, but basically one might come at it this way, in that all things have this character of lacking suffering. independent existence or all things lack existing independently, all things are lacking existing independently. For example, I am lacking existing independently by myself, but I don't lack What?

[14:31]

What don't I lack? Emptiness. Right, I don't lack emptiness. What else don't I lack? Independent existence. Pardon? Dependent existence. Yeah, I don't lack dependent existence. I got plenty of dependent existence. So when they say I got plenty of nothing, they mean I got plenty of no independent existence. which means I have plenty of dependent existence. I'm chock-full of dependency. Matter of fact, I'm nothing but dependency. And the same would be said of you, that you are full of dependency and you don't have any independency. Whereas, you know, this country was... We've recently celebrated the Fourth of July, which was the day of the Declaration of Independence. So this country is founded on... What song has been inspired?

[15:43]

I've got plenty of nothing and nothing's funny for me. Didn't you hear me just say that song? Did you miss it? Other than this song? I know, but didn't you hear me say it a few seconds ago? Weren't you listening? You were? Oh, good. We can sing that song later. Do you know the words? All of them? Okay, so... We do have dependencies, so all things are... So dependent co-arising is a way to understand emptiness and emptiness is a way to understand dependent co-arising. So we exist, we come to exist, we arise into existence depending on things other than ourselves. We're full of that. As we exist, we exist depending on things other than ourselves and that's a way to understand how we lack independent existence.

[16:55]

But also, The lack of independent existence is a way to understand how we exist, how we really exist dependently. I just thought I might mention also that although this sutra is focusing on emptiness in a way. And although understanding emptiness is really what the universal vehicle of the bodhisattva is actually about, still, in a sense, some people would say that really emptiness is not something that we consider to be precious or holy. Some people want to make that point, that we don't actually worship our lack of inherent existence.

[18:07]

We don't consider our holiness, our precious true nature, to be emptiness. It's more, actually, what we value more highly, actually, is understanding emptiness. So prajnaparamita, perfection of wisdom, which understands emptiness, some people would like to emphasize, that's what's holy. That's what's precious. That's what we worship. That's what we're devoted to. But in another sense, we're kind of devoted to emptiness because we're talking about it all the time. We're studying it all the time. But some people would like us to be careful not to think that emptiness is holy and sacred and precious. It's more like a kind of medicine for a delusion. And the taking of the medicine is really the point.

[19:10]

Another thing about emptiness, which it'll come up again and again, I think, is that emptiness is not something by itself either. Emptiness is a character of phenomena. So all phenomena are dependent, exist dependently, which is part of the way we understand that they're empty. But the emptiness of these things that exist dependently, the emptiness of them existing independently, that doesn't exist independent of the things. It also is dependent in various ways. So when things arise, emptiness, their emptiness comes with them. When they cease, their emptiness isn't lingering in the air someplace. And this is another tricky point which I'll mention and you think about.

[20:18]

Although emptiness arises with impermanent phenomena and all impermanent phenomena are empty, and actually permanent phenomena are empty too. All things that arise are empty. All things that cease are empty. And the emptiness arises with these things. And when these things go away, there's no emptiness left over. The emptiness itself is not impermanent. So that's something just to sort of plant that seed, and you can think about that for a while. or not think about it, but anyway, I said it. There it is. Maybe we'll talk more about that. So, things like us exist depending on things other than ourselves, depend on various conditions that are not us.

[21:20]

And we depend on our parts There are parts, but our parts are not us either. Does that make sense to most people? Does it to you? We do, but also everything we perceive is like that too. Is that part easy? Any questions about that kind of dependency? This is one of the ways to think about how we're how we lack independent existence. Is that okay for now? Should I go on? Another kind of dependency is that we and everything exists depending on mental imputation. And this is more subtle, a more subtle kind of dependency.

[22:33]

And mental imputation, the mind can impute phenomena, and impute can also basically mean to apprehend them. So all phenomena that exist exist in dependence on the mind apprehending them. The mind can also, by the way, apprehend non-existent things. They don't exist, but the mind can apprehend them, the mind can impute them. But regular existent things They also exist in dependency on the mind imputing them. Nothing exists without mental imputation.

[23:40]

So we have that thing about, you know, if the tree falls in the forest and nobody's around, does it actually fall? Or if the tree falls in the forest and nobody's around, does it make a sound? So we're saying here that in this teaching that one of the ways that all phenomena are dependent and one of the ways we understand that they're empty is first of all that they exist in dependence, anything that exists, exists in dependence on mental grasping or mental apprehension or mental imputation or by mind imputing. the thing, mind grasping the thing. Okay? Nothing exists where that doesn't happen. Yes? So you were just saying that sometimes a mind might impute existence on something non-existent?

[24:47]

Yeah, or just think of something as non-existent. Yeah, right. So projecting the concept of existence on something that doesn't have inherent existence. Don't you know? Did you say... she said projecting the existence on something that doesn't have inherent existence? Projecting the idea that it exists. Projecting... this is... Listen carefully, though. She said projecting existence onto something that doesn't inherently exist. Okay? That would be projecting existence on everything that exists. Okay? So you... That's not exactly what you meant. That is what I meant, yes. But you know exactly that you project existence. It's just that its existence depends on your projecting it as something you can apprehend. But you could also project an existence on it.

[25:49]

That would be okay. But in that case, you would be, I think, grasping the existence of the thing. But the thing comes to exist. Things do exist dependently. Buddhism doesn't say that nothing exists. It says nothing exists independently. Things do exist dependently. Things do exist contingently. And one of the contingencies is that they are contingent upon mental imputation or mental apprehension. And you could... look at something and then apprehend the idea that it exists. But also, if you didn't apprehend the idea exists, still, if you apprehended the thing, it would exist for you. But its existence isn't there if you don't apprehend it mentally. And everything that you actually do apprehend that doesn't inherently exist which is everything could potentially exist unless you apprehended something that inherently existed now that wouldn't exist and you can do that so you can apprehend things that don't inherently exist

[27:15]

which means you're apprehending something that's non-existent, which means you're making a mistake. But you can apprehend things that don't inherently exist because things that don't inherently exist do exist. There's plenty of stuff that doesn't inherently exist in your face all day long. The problem is that we think these things that don't inherently exist, we think they do inherently exist. That's our problem. We innately, instinctively apprehend them as inherently existing. We apprehend things that don't inherently exist as though they do because they look like that to us. They appear that way to us. And they appear that way because the mind apprehends them that way. apprehends them in a way that they don't really exist. I talked last week about...I think I talked about how...I don't exactly know how I brought it up, but I think I said wisdom is developed primarily through gaining insight into ultimate truth.

[29:06]

or anyway, the perfection of wisdom is developed primarily through gaining wisdom into ultimate truth or emptiness. Whereas method or skill and means are developed in the context of conventional truths or conventional, conventional mode of existence. So the conventional mode of existence conventional mode of existence, the conventional mode of the way things exist is that they exist as mental imputations. And the ultimate way they exist is that they lack any existence apart from mental imputation. And if I put it that way so you can see that the conventional way that they exist and the ultimate way that they, not the ultimate way they exist, but the conventional mode of existence and the ultimate mode of existence are very closely related

[30:31]

So what's the conventional mode of existence again? I won't be surprised if you won't be able to say it because I just said it once. So probably nobody can say it. What? What? Skill and means? Skill and means is practiced in the realm of conventional mode. The conventional mode of existence. That's right. But what... How do you describe the conventional... How did I just describe the conventional mode of existence? What? She said that the conventional mode of existence is imputing... It's imputing inherent existence. Not quite. Conventional mode of existence is the way things exist in dependence upon, or just merely in dependence on, mental imputation.

[31:34]

That's conventional mode of existence. Didn't I say that? It's kind of the same thing, except you added in the imputation, grasping them as, what do you call it, inherently existing. you add that part in. You don't have to add that in. But you can if you want to, but I said it the other way. And we can go back over the way you said it and you might see what problem there might be in that. So that's what I said was the conventional mode, the conventional way things exist is that they exist in dependence on mental apprehension. In other words, without mental apprehension, They don't conventionally exist. Does anybody have a problem with that? Yes? Roy? This is easier to understand in terms of thoughts and ideas.

[32:46]

What about what? Our meeting place. Our meeting place? Our meeting place? Can I use the bell? How about the bell? Or do you want to use the meeting place? You want to use the meeting place instead of the bell? Pardon? No, I just said, do you want to use meeting place, the yoga room? Or is the bell okay? To use the bell as an example. This bell exists dependent upon it being imputed by mind. Any problems with that? Just because someone put it in that form... That's another way it exists.

[33:53]

I said it exists in dependence on things other than itself. It depends on various conditions other than itself. Yeah, right. And what else? The metal, its shape, the diagrams on it, and so on. Lots of things other than the bell it depends on. Lots of conditions other than itself it depends on. Okay? You agree, right? But I'm also mentioning in particular its dependency on mental imputation. Buck stops here. And I do that to say something kind of pivotal, in that I said this exists conventionally as being merely a mental imputation. But its ultimate mode of existence is that it does not exist independent of mental imputation.

[35:04]

Do you see that? This thing exists independent of mental imputation. That's how it exists conventionally. See how it exists there conventionally? See it? That way that it appears there depends on mental imputation. Then that's how it conventionally exists. The way it conventionally exists to all of us, you need mental imputation for this kind of existence. And you've got it, so there it is. And part of conventional existence is that it appears to exist on its own. Okay? But It can't appear to exist on its own without mental imputation. In other words, only by dependency can it appear to be independent. Right? That's its conventional nature or its conventional aspect or conventional mode of existence is that it depends on mental imputation.

[36:12]

So conventionally, it exists in dependence. it does not in any way exist independently. It has no independent existence, but it does have a dependent existence, and the dependent existence is its conventional existence, which we have. What is its ultimate mode of existence? Or its ultimate mode of being? Its ultimate mode of being is that it does not exist in independence of mental imputation. They're kind of the same thing. This does exist in dependence on mental imputation. That's how it exists conventionally. That's how you got it, this way. On other things too, but...

[37:15]

focusing on this this aspect of dependency the other aspect is less subtle and you can you don't need my help on that one out so much right Roger I mean Roy you kind of you kind of already understand how this depends on various conditions other than itself yeah you understand that side that's not so difficult at least the initial approach is not so difficult to understand. This part's a little harder, that's why I'm working on this one. Okay, so I'm just going to say it again. This depends, this existence of this thing, the way this exists in dependence on mental imputation is this conventional mode of existence. The way it really exists, however, the way it really exists is that it doesn't exist, it does not exist in the absence of mental imputation.

[38:20]

And not existing in the absence of mental imputation is the same as existing in the absence of inherent existence. Put it behind your back. There we go. But it's still there. It's still an object. I'm a little puzzled. It's still there? Yeah, I mean, I know you've talked about this concept before, and I thought I understood. Well, the way it's there for you now is that you're not actually... You're imagining the bell. You don't see the bell. It's not my perception of the bell. The bell was created and then it's buried for two centuries. And no one is looking at this bell or thinking about this bell or even knows the bell is there. But it's still there. Well, how would you know it's there? Who knows it's there if no one knows it's there? I'm talking about phenomena, right?

[39:22]

We're talking about phenomena. Phenomena are things that you're actually... Phenomena are things you're actually experiencing. Phenomena are things that are known by, objects known by subjects. They're actually things you know. Okay? So the bell you know now is not a bell you can see or touch. It's a bell you can think of, though. But what you're dealing with is a mental phenomena called your image of a bell, which you think is behind my back. And I agree it is. But for me, the bell is something that's poking into my back, but it's not poking into your back, right? So, what's the bell? It's something that exists for each person and dependent on different things and different mental imputations. But mental imputations are the way that we need... The fact that it... depends on mental imputation and how it actually exists merely as a mental imputation and without the mental imputation it doesn't have a conventional existence.

[40:27]

We're just saying the conventional existence depends on mental imputation. Now, there's another mode that it exists in and the other mode it exists in, which is basically the same thing, But it's a different way of saying it, and it actually is the way it actually is, whereas the conventional way isn't the way it actually is. So you have these two things which are identical. One isn't the way it actually is, and the other one is the way it actually is. So the way it isn't actually, but is conventionally, is that it conventionally exists in dependence on mental imputation. That's the way it conventionally exists. Can I pull out in front now, Jen? It's hurting my back. It conventionally exists in dependence on mental imputation. It doesn't ultimately exist.

[41:32]

It only conventionally exists, but its ultimate mode of existence, the way it really exists, is that it exists as an absence of inherent existence, which is the same as to say it exists in the absence of independence from mental imputation. So dependent on mental imputation is the way it conventionally exists, and absent of independence is the way it ultimately exists. And they're the same thing. And yet, seeing one can, if you believe it in certain ways, Because when it appears that way, it looks like the inherent exists. Seeing and believing that way refutes the teaching which you just heard, that it exists dependently.

[42:40]

And seeing it the other way not only doesn't go against dependent co-arising, but it actually cures you of believing the appearance of it being independent. And yet they're the same thing. And this is the emptiness of the bell. Okay? So now, let's see what happens. Let's see, so Olivia and Ivan and Gwen and Elena. Was there some other hands? And Fran and Vera and Sonia. Okay? The men all understand. Yes? Yes. I was just going to ask you to talk about the relationship between kind of the co-arising and the co-arisen and mental imputation, and you started that thought process.

[43:42]

Now I've got to hear more. So things exist, things arise and exist for a while in dependence on things other than themselves. So they depend on conditions other than themselves, and in particular, very importantly, they exist in dependence on being grasped by the mind. So we use... That's... ...to... You can do that. You can do that too. You can use... Things are co-arising all the time, okay? But without mental imputation, they don't exist for us. There is dependent co-arising already.

[44:42]

And also, by the way, there is already... an absence in this dependent co-arising of inherent existence. That's already going on too. So all the time there's dependent co-arising throughout the universe, which you've heard about and have some sense of. And all these dependent co-arisings are things which have... Everything that's dependently co-arising means that it doesn't make itself, it depends on things other than itself. And so everything like this that arises, arises with a lack of its own making, a lack of its own being. So dependent core arising and emptiness are always there. However, for a conventional existence, we need mental imputation. Otherwise, nothing really exists. So even emptiness, in a sense, doesn't exist because emptiness really just applies... Emptiness is about existent things.

[45:48]

But things could be dependently co-arising, but wouldn't really exist conventionally unless there's mental imputation. But once there's mental imputation, then they exist conventionally, but also as soon as they exist conventionally, Their ultimate mode is right there too because their ultimate mode is the lack of any independent existence, which appears when there's imputation. Then the appearance of independent existence occurs and emptiness then arises right at that moment and is actually the absence of that appearance in what's happening. But there is this appearance. There's an appearance of something, there's the appearance of something which doesn't exist, which comes along with everything that does. But at the same time, that the appearance of things, the false appearance of things coming with them, the way they truly are comes right there too, because there's actually an absence of this false appearance in what's happening.

[47:03]

See, Yvonne? That's exactly where I'm stuck, is on that ultimate mode. And I started to write this, and then you changed what you were saying, and I wanted to clear it. And you said, okay, so the ultimate mode does not depend on the absence of the mental amputation. It does not depend on the absence, like a double bang, right? She said the ultimate mode does not depend on the absence. Okay? She said, is that correct? Is that correct, folks? Huh? Yeah? The ultimate mode does depend on the absence. It is the absence. It is the absence. So the ultimate mode depends on the absence of what? Mental impotence. Did you say the ultimate doesn't depend on the absence of mental invitation? Is that what you said? Actually, I think, I don't know if I said it, but now that I hear it, it sounds pretty good.

[48:13]

The ultimate does not, the ultimate mode of things does not depend on the absence of imputation. It does not depend on the absence of imputation. Okay? The ultimate doesn't depend on the absence of imputation. However, the ultimate is the absence of the imputation actually being in the thing, plus also the ultimate way things are. is that things do not independently exist from the imputations of mind upon them. So the ultimate really is not the absence of imputation, period. It's actually the ultimate is that the conventional phenomena are not independent of the imputation.

[49:22]

Or you could say the ultimate is the absence of the independence from imputation of conventional things. But that does not mean that the imputation is actually in the way things are, because the way things are is actually the absence of independence from the imputation. It's not the absence of the imputation. It's not the absence of the imputation, it's the absence of things being independent of the imputation. It's hard, huh? It's hard to understand this. Okay, what's your name again? Mark. Mark. After Gwen. And Vera. And Fran. I think I've forgotten the question. You forgot it? All right, but?

[50:24]

So, but if we just focus then on the conventional world and the conventional mode of thinking, then the ultimate will be right there. Yep, ultimate's right there. So then if I don't fully understand the ultimate, it's okay, because if I just focus on the conventional, then it'll be there anyway. It's not really okay not to understand the ultimate. Even though it's right there, even though it's right there, it's not okay not to understand it. Because until you understand it, you won't be liberated. Sorry. You won't be liberated. So, here's a bell. Here's a conventionally existing bell. The ultimate's right there. The ultimate, this bell's lack of inherent existence is right there. This bell doesn't have any inherent existence.

[51:26]

There it is. You got it. It's right there. But it's not okay not to understand it. I mean, it's not okay to... You need to understand it. Otherwise, you can't become a Buddha and save the world. Or yourself. Yeah, well, right. So you do need to understand the ultimate. But you don't have to go someplace else to find it. It's right here. It's right here. Emptiness is always close at hand. Unless there's nothing happening. then you don't have emptiness. Emptiness is the ultimate nature of everything that exists. Emptiness is not the nature of things that don't exist. Things that don't exist just don't exist.

[52:30]

But emptiness is the absence of things that don't exist in things that do exist but we go around thinking that things that don't exist are present in things that do exist we think that funny creatures and therefore we have problems so we look at phenomena which exist dependently and we imagine or we apprehend them and in that apprehending we think and we apprehend them and think that they actually are existing in a way that they don't. Can you give an example? That you think you're independent, that you think this bell's independent, existing on its own. Everything you see, that's why this sutra says, no eyes, no ears, because it means that the way you see things, the way you think, everything you see,

[53:39]

Instinctively, in the context of emptiness, things won't be like that. You won't see any of these things. You won't see this stuff anymore. Even though it's still there, it's not there in the mode that you usually apprehend them. In emptiness it's not. Even though emptiness is the same, as this way that they aren't. Because it says, you know, there, it says these things which aren't there are the same as emptiness. That's why this is such a wonderful, this is the heart of perfect wisdom, because it's so, you know, well integrated in just one page. It catches itself from slipping away from the essence very quickly. Fran?

[54:45]

I think you answered my question, but I can repeat it, just if I'm understanding correctly. Yes. When you were describing the ultimate motive, at least since you were describing it as an absence of mental computation at one point, Absence of mental imputation? No. If I said that, I was wrong. The ultimate is not the absence of mental imputation. It's the absence of taking dependent core, right? It's the absence of independence of things from mental imputation. Okay. Well, it still made me think, but it was a little bit depressing because it's a negative statement about the nature of reality.

[55:48]

This is what I was thinking about it. And then I was wondering, was there some positive statement about the nature of reality? And then you started speaking about dependent colon rising, and that seemed to answer my question. That's underneath the conventional and the ultimate as the two sides... Right, right, right. Dependent core rising seems more positive. And also that's a way to understand what emptiness is. And also emptiness helps you understand dependent core rising. What does emptiness tell you about dependent core arising? That's not clear yet?

[56:59]

Dependent core arising doesn't exist independently. Even dependent core arising doesn't exist independently. Right. Even dependent core arising doesn't have inherent existence. In other words, even dependent core arising, if it existed, would exist on mental imputation. And if it took away the mental imputation, it wouldn't exist. So any kind of mental imputation on dependent core arising, although that would bring it into conventional existence, and it doesn't, and its existence would be dependent on mental imputation, before it exists, before it's brought into existence, it doesn't have mental imputation.

[58:01]

So before something independently co-arising comes into conventional existence, then it lacks mental imputation. So before it conventionally exists, how does it exist? It exists dependently, purely, without an imputation yet, and therefore it doesn't conventionally exist yet. And in that case, its emptiness is the lack of imputation in it, but it doesn't yet exist conventionally. It exists dependently. How can we know that? I mean, how can you... Isn't that, you know, a self-mental amputation?

[59:06]

Aren't you employing that to... Probably. I didn't quite hear what you said, but probably. If it doesn't exist conventionally, aren't you using mental amputation to suppose that it exists? Yes. Yeah. Mm-hmm. So things can exist in a way that's not infused with conventionality. And they do exist that way, and that's the basic way they exist. But when they come to exist conventionally, they must depend on mental imputation. When we understand that the mental imputation is absent in the way they exist prior to their conventionality, then we understand the way dependent core arising exists prior to conventionally existing without any conventionality.

[60:28]

Vera? This is back to the bell. I don't know how many people are in here, but let's go score your, something like that. The bell has conventional existence because we imputed with that. And what if one person left? I was thinking about that. Would the bell have any less conventional existence, but it's on a wisdom level. If a person left the room? Or wasn't here anymore, left the room, would the bell exist less, that much? Would it exist less for us in the room? Well, because one person left the room and didn't impute it with its existence. Oh, would it be less? Well, I guess it would depend on whether that person sort of, as they left, said, you know, I don't agree with you guys anymore.

[61:41]

But then I was thinking, you know, ultimate wisdom of the bell really is nonexistence. It matters. Again, I don't mean to say ultimate existence because nothing exists ultimately. Okay? it more like the ultimate mode of existence is not ultimate existence. There's only conventional existence. There's not ultimate existence. The way things really are is that they lack independence. That's the way they really are. But that's not the ultimate mode of existence. That's the way they ultimately exist. It's not ultimate existence, it's the way they ultimately exist.

[62:46]

The way they exist is conventionally. Ultimate existence, there's no such thing, but there is the ultimate way that conventional things exist. And the way conventional things exist is they exist in dependence. which is also that they exist in the absence of independence. So, Mark, I think you're next. To the ultimate point that you said, you said that it's not, it's just independent of mental education. Again, once again, the conventional mode of existence is that things exist in dependence, that things exist by depending on mental imputation.

[63:47]

The ultimate is that they don't exist independent of that. Okay? One's positive in a way, and the other is negative. One's saying this depends on this. The other one says it is not free of dependence. It doesn't exist independent. Okay? So part of the reason why the ultimate is ultimate is that it's negative, but it seems to be negative, seems to need to be negative to overthrow our positive. And our positive is not the actual positive. Our positive is an erroneous positive. We're positing inherent existence. So the thing which is ultimate, which is going to finally wash us clean of our delusion is this negative version of the negative compliment or addressing of us positively asserting that things inherently exist upon things that don't inherently exist.

[65:11]

So why is it... This is emptiness. I understand that ultimately it has dependence on something, but why does it have to be dependent on mental imputation? So, like, for example, you know, I believe North America existed before there was anyone to have mental imputation on the existence of North America. Well, you believe North America existed before what? Before there were people. Do you think North America... How could North America exist before there were people? The land mass. Huh? The land mass that were owned. I believe it existed before there were people that imputed the existence of the land that were owned. You think that, right? Yeah. And you think that that has some existence aside from what you're thinking? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. You're right, but things do have some existence besides what you're thinking.

[66:17]

Okay? But that existence they have is not conventional existence. And what you're talking about is conventional existence. I hear you decide from saying, when you say landmass in North America, this is conventional existence. To me. We're using conventional designations. We're speaking English. You can say North America, landmass, blah, blah, continents, whatever. This is only conventional existence to me. And if you say before, that sounds kind of conventional existence. Before and after is also conventional existence. But I'm not saying that there's not something besides conventional existence. There is. But you're not talking about it. You're just talking about conventionalities right now. And everything you're doing, you're using mental imputations to talk about these things. Now, if you imagine something prior to mental imputation, that's something you can't see.

[67:27]

But when you see a landmass in your mind, You've just done an imputation. Your mind has just reached out there in your mind and you're now imagining land masses, you know, long before there were English-speaking people here or before there were even Native Americans. You're imagining land masses right now. You say, but science is blah, blah, blah, you know, but right now you're in conventional existence right now. This is a… this is a sutra. It's not exactly… I wouldn't say it's necessarily unscientific, but the point of this sutra is to set you free from suffering. And we're trying to help us understand how our mind works such that we… we believe things to be existing in a way that they don't. And we're trying to learn about a teaching which tells us that they actually exist in another way. And if we could understand that other way, that would refute this misconception we have about how they do.

[68:34]

So I'm not, to me, that there were the land mass before people were saying North America. This still is, to me, a conventional existence. But even right now, today, while we're saying North America, there is something that this discussion of North America is based on, which is not touched by the word North America. The word North America refers to something which we generally share, and everybody that's talking about North America is using mental imputation to do so, and the North America that exists for us conventionally depends on mental imputation and conventional designations. But that's not actually North America. The actual basis of all this imagining that we're doing, the basis of this conventional existence of North America that we share and we can talk about, there's actually something there which is a dependently co-arising continent.

[69:42]

Okay? But it's not actually touched by our mental imputations. However, our mental imputations is what brings it into what we call the conventionally existing North America, in which Native Americans don't call it that, maybe. But they have their own conventions. They have their own imagination. We're all talking about the same reality, this dependently co-arisen thing. But this dependently co-arisen thing without conventional designation doesn't exist. conventionally. And that's the only way things exist. But the ultimate mode of the way things that conventionally exist are is that they exist dependently and they exist having an absence of any kind of inherent existence projected on them. That's the way North America right now is. When I say North America, I mean what the word North America is referring to is not

[70:46]

We know it's not the word North America, right? Nobody thinks that North America is the word North America, right? Or that North America is the word North... We don't think the word North America is North America, or that North America is the word North America, right? Nobody thinks that. But what we do think is that not only does North America refer to the landmass, but there's something about North America that this word's referring to. That's the projection of inherent existence on North America. And when you think that, then you think that the same thing was there before we said North America. That's what we think. This is not true. I mean, this is conventionally not even true. But things appear that way. Okay? Yes? I forgot your name. Barry.

[71:49]

Barry, I think, was first. Who was first, Barry or Michael? I thought Barry was first. Yes, right. All of us see it as a bell rather than an avocado or a shuttle. In other words, it's eventual existence. It depends on our legal mutation. How come no one in this room has said, I don't see a bell, I see a shovel? Because this bell depends on certain conditions which an avocado does not satisfy. But that sounds like a statement of inherent existence to me. No. I just said it depends on things. Okay? It depends on things. That means it doesn't have inherent existence. No, we don't all have the same mental imputation.

[72:55]

That's not true. We each have our own separate mental imputations. That's a big bell. Huh? That's a big bell. Yeah. We don't have the same mental imputation, but we all have mental imputation. The fact that we all have mental imputation is exactly the same for bells and avocados. That part's exactly the same. Both avocados and bells depend on mental imputation, so they're identical that way. The difference is that other aspects of the dependency of the bell and avocado differ. And those differences also we can mentally apprehend, and they exist too. But they don't have the same conditions. Bells and avocados don't have the same conditions. Okay? But if you think... Oh, I see. So you're not thinking that this necessarily has inherent existence.

[73:55]

You're just having trouble telling... You're having trouble understanding how, if things don't have inherent existence, we would be able to tell the difference between them and agree on the difference. Right? Is that what you're saying? Something like that? You just seem to have that... that's you understood what yeah does anybody don't share that yeah so that's there it is right there that's what we're trying to overthrow is a feeling that there is something about this and there's something about this there's something in these things okay that actually is the reason why we can tell the difference between them That's the belief in inherent existence, and that's the way they look to us. So I think it's really great that you would try repeatedly for the next few weeks to try to express how you really don't believe that these things don't have inherent existence, because if they did, why would you agree this is a bell and this is a cup if they don't have inherent existence?

[75:04]

So we do agree this is a cup, a bell, you know, a bell, a cup, a bell, a cup. We do agree on that. So doesn't it seem like they have inherent existence then? Yeah. And that's what emptiness is addressing. That's what emptiness is being, how would you call it, stoked up. to refute. It's because we do think like that and it's showing, see, it's coming out of the closet. We'll be happy to entertain, you know, the thought that things lack inherent existence, but then when it comes down to looking at things, we think, well, how could I tell the difference and how could we agree if they didn't? People have been asking that question since the beginning of the Buddhist tradition. And people have been discussing this point. Okay?

[76:06]

So, I see, let's see, how many people? Michael? Did you have your hand raised? And Diego? And Michael? There's two Michaels. And Jeff? And Sonia? Yeah, so it's 9.15 now. Can you guys write down your questions? Maybe the place to start next week would be with this point. How, if we agree that this is a bell and this is a cup and there's no avocado in sight, how can we do that if things don't have inherent existence? How does that happen? If they didn't, then wouldn't we say everything was the same? Right? And in fact, I'll just part by saying everything is the same in the sense that everything is the same in terms of everything being empty. But what are the things empty? What is the bell empty of? Inherent existence. Huh? Inherent existence.

[77:09]

What is the cup empty of? What's the difference between the two? The lack is the same. They both lack inherent existence. How do you tell the difference then between the cup and the bell? What? They're dependent on different things and also their emptinesses are different. They both are empty, but their emptinesses are different. So we say if they both lack inherent existence, how can you tell the difference between the bell and the cup. It's because their emptinesses are different. They're both empty, but they have different emptinesses. Okay? They both lack inherent existence. Okay? They and everything lacks inherent existence, but the way you can tell the difference between the two is because they have different emptinesses. What's the emptiness here? It's a lack of inherent existence of what? of bell-ness. And this is not the lack of inherent existence of bell-ness, this cup.

[78:12]

The cup is not the lack of inherent existence of bell-ness, is it? It's not. We don't have a lack of inherent existence of bell-ness here. But here we do. Here we have a lack of inherent existence of cup-ness. Cup-ness and bell-ness appear. Cup-ness appears here. Bell-ness appears here. This is where the lack of cupness is. This is where the lack of bellness is. That gives you a start. So meditate on that, if you can. And we can start at that point. And then if Michael and Michael and Jeff and Sonia and Diego can remember your questions, write them down. And these scriptures, you can either leave them here for recitation or you can take them. And if you bring them back, you can recite it. And if you forget them, you're not going to have a copy. So you can take it and keep it and bring it back.

[79:17]

But I'm not going to keep passing out more copies every week for the people who forgot to bring their copies. So if you'd like to have one to recite in class, one way to make sure is to hand them in. Another way to make sure is to bring him to class. But that's hard.

[79:35]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_88.01