that was his name, horse master, path of oneness. I guess maybe you could say that the horse stayed on the one path, always on the one path, the great teacher. So when he was about to die, When he was about to... Oh, the superintendent of the monastery, the chief priest of the monastery, came to visit him and said, maybe you can turn those off, and said, who is your venerable health teacher?

[01:03]

And Matsu said, Sun-faced Buddha, moon-faced Buddha. Louise? No, I really wasn't that time. You weren't that time? Not a worry anymore. Not a worry in your what? In my heart, my mind. No more worries at all. Well, sun-faced Buddha, moon-faced Buddha. Tonight I feel like Master Ma's response to that question about his health is not that Master Ma is saying something about his health.

[02:19]

But my sense is that Master Ma, being gravely ill, is actually... And from that grave illness, or rather, from the meeting of his great illness, the question about his illness, comes these words. But these words don't think are about his illness. I think they're the words that the sick master utters when asked that question. For some reason or other, when he was dying, that question, these words came. And for some reason or other, well, For many reasons, these words are valued by the tradition and considered by some very difficult to see, to see what is the living meaning of sun-faced Buddha, moon-faced Buddha.

[03:53]

In commentaries, they tell you something. But I feel like telling you what they tell you about Sun-Faced Buddha and Moon-Faced Buddha may not be helpful to talk about. Because if I tell you what the commentaries say about Sun-Faced Buddha and Moon-Faced Buddha, then it's as though we're not talking about those words. But I... feel like those words were not talking about anything. Usually when we talk, we think we're talking about something.

[04:58]

And we think that what we're saying about something actually, that what we're saying has, reaches the thing. Like, we feel sick and then we say, I feel sick. And then we think saying, I feel sick, reaches our soul. But it doesn't. That's what I feel. So as I said to someone, I want to say something to you, anything. I want to speak, but not talking about something. I think I was successful right there. But when I said I was successful, I was talking. And then I did it again.

[06:04]

But I don't want to do that. So retract what I said about that, please. I want to talk about anything. If I say Dave, as usual, Dave refers to Dave. But Dave doesn't reach Dave. There's no Dave in Dave. I feel okay about saying Dave as long as I'm not talking about anybody when I say Dave.

[07:07]

In fact, we all can do it now. Dave, [...] Dave. No problem. And you can, if you want to, you can say Dave and think you're talking about him. You can do that if you want to, but I don't want to. I do want to say Dave a few more times, but I don't want it to be talking about anybody. Now, if I say, Hi, Dave. That's not, you know, talking about somebody. That Dave wasn't talking about anybody, was it? Talking to you. But again, I don't want to say you as though that is about you. So that's what I think about sun-faced Buddha, moon-faced Buddha. And it says, Sun-Faith Buddha, Moon-Faith Buddha is extremely difficult to see.

[08:16]

I don't disagree. I do not. I don't disagree. But I'm not talking about me when I say that. Okay? I'm just telling you I don't disagree. I'm not talking about me when I say that. I'm just telling you I don't disagree. It's difficult to see it's difficult to see the river very difficult to see the river we cannot see the river because as soon as you see the river to an object it's not the river anymore it's the road it's hard to see the river but even more than why it's difficult to make it into an object. The reason why you can't make it into an object is the river.

[09:19]

In the river. That's what the river is. Now I'm talking about the river. Sorry. That's not what I want to do. I just had to do it. You made me. for a while anyway. Does that make a difference, do you think? Is it working at all? I heard Louise say... I heard Louise... I heard Louise... Is that working nicely?

[10:23]

No? Is it working? Is it working, Carol? You like it, Carol? It's better? Louise said he's doing a great job. I don't know who she's talking about. Maybe she's not talking about anybody. Maybe she just said he's doing a great job. Actually, Louise maybe walks around and says it all day long. He's doing a great job. People might think she's talking about God, of course. She might be talking about some face Buddha, but she might not be talking about anybody else. And she might not even be copying me. That's true. Thank you. And then, so they say, it's so difficult, even Sui Du, or Sui Do, even Sui Do, who is the great Zen master who writes the commentary, who writes the verses in the Blue Cliff Record, kind of the compiler of the Blue Cliff Record and writes the verses, even the master Sui Do has a hard time putting this case into verse.

[11:50]

So says another Zen master. Anyway, he does put it into verse. And they say that he used his whole life practice to make this verse. So you can listen to it now. Sun-faced Buddha, moon-faced Buddha. The ancient Buddha. sages and the immortal kings. How pale compared to the Sun-faced Buddha, Moon-faced Buddha are the ancient sages and the immortal emperors. Twenty years of bitter struggle. How many times have I gone down into the cave of the green dragon for you, clear-eyed, patch-robed monks?

[12:59]

Do not take this lightly. Sun Face Buddha, Moon Face Buddha of Master Ma. Another translation is, what kind of people were the ancient sages and the immortal emperors? And actually, this whole book was banned temporarily because of that line. The emperor had it banned because it sounded somewhat critical of the emperors. So in China, part of the history, they envisioned that the Chinese culture was initiated by some great sages and then

[14:08]

a group of five very wise emperors. These are like prehistoric founders of the Chinese culture, which Chinese people venerate. Spiritual authority to govern. So the verse is sort of saying, how do these great beings compare to what Matsu said? And the government didn't like that for a while. They got over it. And the book was allowed out again. And then Suedo says that for 20 years he struggled in his training. Some of you have already been practicing 20 years. but you might not have practiced hard suedo. He had 20 years of hard practice, and he says, how many times have I gone down into the cave of the green dragon for you?

[15:12]

And as I mentioned before, that could mean, he's saying that to the reader, to the people reading his poem, he's saying, how many times have I gone down into the difficult practice for you Zen students who are reading this poem. But as I said, two other ways of reading it are, how many times have I gone down into the cave of the green dragon for Matsu? Or in a slightly different reading is, how many times have I gone down into the green dragon cave to realize Matsu, to become the ancestor? Understand. Sun-faced Buddha, moon-faced Buddha. And then he says, clear-eyed pastoral monks, don't take this lightly. What? Master Ma's death?

[16:15]

Master Ma's words? Suedo's practice? all those things. In a way, I think it's kind of easy to take Sun-Faced Buddha and Moon-Faced Buddha lightly. It's so short and simple. It'd be easy to take it lightly, I think. And one of the ways to take it lightly would be to look up Sun-Faced Buddha and Moon-Faced Buddha and find out that there's a sutra called the Names of the Buddha Sutra. And in that sutra, there's two of the Buddhas listed are Sun-faced Buddha. And Sun-faced Buddha is a Buddha that lives for 18,000 years. And a Moon-faced Buddha is a Buddha that lives one night and one day. So I think you could just let it go at that, that Matsu is saying, well, how's my health?

[17:19]

18,000-year Buddha, one-day Buddha. That's pretty good. But I think that's taking a little too lightly. I think... Excuse me for saying so. There's more than meets the ear and more than meets the eye, if you're reading it. and more than meets the image you have of what's going on here. Is there anything you'd like to say about this case? So going down to K, it's practice.

[18:42]

Yeah, it's practice. Saving all beings is the reason you practice. Saving all beings is the reason you practice? Yes. But in a sense, there's another reason to practice, which is related to saving. It's related. But in some sense, it's a little bit It sounds a little different. Do you know what I'm thinking of? Realization. Yeah. Realization. Realization of sun-faced Buddha and moon-faced Buddha, for example. in a sense, in a certain way, Buddha's realization and saving beings are kind of the same thing.

[20:14]

When I think about that, then I think, well, if all beings haven't realized the Buddha way, then Buddha's realization isn't complete. And in a way, that seems fine, too, that Buddha's not fully realized until we're fully realized. That's one way to meditate on this. Or the Buddhas have attained realization, but their teaching has not yet fully sunk into us. So in that sense, our salvation seems a little separate from Buddha's realization, is that they can be realized and work for our welfare, work for our realization.

[21:18]

So I'm, you know, I can go either way with that, that Buddhas are realized and they're working to help us achieve freedom, or that Our lack of realization, our lack of freedom is their lack of realization and their lack of freedom. So in that sense also we practice for the sake of the Buddhas to help them be free. That they need us to become free, they need us to understand. So we're kind of working for Buddha's salvation. Buddha's freedom. Also the Sun-Faced Moon is the immediacy of realization.

[22:25]

Like you practice for a thousand years and then just one second the moon would shine and you could have realization. Yes. Yes. Yeah, we can play with that.

[23:25]

Like, everything's great. Everything's like sun-faced Buddha. And in our fragile, tumble-down way that we are, in our poor, falling-apart way that we are, that greatness, which is illuminating, can shine in. So, part of the practice might be to be, to keep in touch with the, with the fragile, humble down way that we are. Not to be too, not to be too solid and

[24:27]

and strong and healthy and, you know, protected. Otherwise, the moonlight reflecting the brilliance of the Buddha may not be able to get in. We got plenty of fragility, no shortage of that. It's more like a kind of like, can we open to it? can we open to our fragility? We don't have to be more fragile. We don't have to get more sick. I mean, we might have to, but we may not need to get sicker. But just be somehow in touch with really how, just the way we're sick now.

[25:29]

Because the way we're sick now won't be the way we're sick tomorrow. The way we're, our fragility tonight's not our fragility tomorrow. But opening to that and accepting that, we might get some other thing too along with it. And that going down into the Green Dragon's cave is kind of maybe an image of that going down into not our strength and our brilliance, but our dependency, our total dependency on other things for our existence.

[26:33]

Going down in the Green Dragon Cave is like not feeling ten feet tall and bulletproof, not feeling indestructible. Giving that up means something big, something really big. Is there anything you'd like to say?

[27:51]

Yes? I want to ask a question. Okay. You said that everyone and everything creates me. And I want everyone to create other things. Yeah. So my thoughts and feelings and sensations, all that, I create with other people. Mm-hmm. So what is the... What does it mean that everybody else creates, but I don't? What is that? What... If that's... See what I'm asking? Just about. I guess I would say that the basis of the imaginary thing which we designate as Carolyn

[29:19]

the basis of that imaginary thing is the thing that's created by everything other than itself. So the basis of, like for example, I have this image of you, and as you're separate from the people around you, That image is not what you are, but that image is the basis for me to say, Carolyn. And everybody else can make an image, most everybody else in this room, I guess, can make an image of you. Probably not everybody knows, that's Carolyn. So you can look at her, got an image of her, so you can put the word Carolyn on that image. That word Carolyn refers to you. The basis of this image There's something that hits me, you know, and I respond to that, what hits me, by projecting this image on it and calling it Carolyn.

[30:28]

But that thing that happens, that's what you don't make happen at all. And that's what you do. Basically. Not ultimately, but basically. Ultimately what you are, the ultimate way you are, is that all of our images of you, including your images of yourself, don't reach you. That's what you ultimately are. But basically, in the midst of many conditions, that's what you are, moment by moment. And then as conditions change, so you change. They make something else, which we continue to use as the basis for these similar... which all sort of line up with the conventional designation, Carolyn. That's what you are, basically.

[31:29]

And that's a very fragile thing. And it's a very alive thing. Each moment it's alive, it's very alive, it's totally alive. It's so... lasts more than a moment. If it was a little less alive, maybe it could last two moments or three. But it's so vital because it's so newly created, newly delivered by many conditions other than itself. It's not a condition for... It's a product of these other conditions. When you say... Your other dependent character. Yeah, it's a picture. Except it's a, you know, it's a picture.

[32:32]

Of yourself? Sure you do. Yeah, you do. Well, the image is creating you, but you're not the image. So your image of yourself is part of how you're created, yes. But that's not you. Your image of you isn't you. My image of you isn't you. The conditions for you are not you. The conditions for you are other than you. And the images of you are other than you. Well, not quite. It's also the history of all those things, too. It's all the past ones, too.

[33:35]

It's past feelings, too, not just the present ones. But anyway, the five skandhas form... No, you don't create anything about you with other people. You don't make yourself at all. Thoughts that I, quote, have, I don't make at all. Thoughts that you have, each thought, with the thoughts you make, because they depend on you. Okay? So you make the thoughts, but the thoughts aren't you. Things that aren't you, just like you're made by things that aren't you. So you make ideas and you make feelings, but you don't do them all by yourself. But, you know, thoughts arise from your life. Thoughts. So you make the thoughts, but you don't do things besides you make the thoughts.

[34:44]

And then there's another thing that's not thoughts and all those aggregates. The thing that you don't make is you. You don't know what it means? Well, the meaning of it is pretty deep. The meaning of it is that there's no self to you. That's the meaning of it. The meaning is that there's no self to this person. There's no core to this person. We can go on and on, but it's very difficult. That's a big achievement to understand what it means Well, I think, I mean, I understand that more than when you, I think I do, than when you say, there's something that everybody else has created, but not me. It's me. You, the person, is created by things other than yourself. You, you're a person, and you're created by things not. Person doesn't create the person. But there is a person there. Right?

[35:47]

It's a person. I'm talking to a person. So that person is created by, depends on things other than that person. Pardon? Well, didn't you understand what I just said there? I do understand what you said, but if I try to keep thinking about that and I think, okay, but there isn't a person. It's not that there isn't a person. No, no, no. I'm not saying there isn't a person. Not say that. See? It's difficult to understand, but anyway, I'm not saying there's not a person. There is a person over there, and you're it. You're the person I'm talking about in this particular case. There is a person. It's just that there's no self to the person. That's all. I am saying there's no self. I am saying that, but I'm not saying there's no person. there can be an imputation of the person, okay?

[36:52]

So when I see a person like you, or when you see a person like me, your mind imputes itself to me. The thing you impute doesn't exist at all. But you don't impute the person, you impute a self on the person. That's the part that you're imagining that doesn't exist. You're imputing an independent self over on top of dear little me. And you do it to yourself, too. But I don't have a self. I don't have a core, an independent existence. But you can imagine that I do and project it on me. Yeah, that's not the part I'm in trouble with. I don't feel like I'm being very clear. I just don't know what it means. person everybody else creates, and I don't create, and then I, when everybody else creates me. Okay, so there you just stop there. The person you are is created by things other than the person.

[37:57]

Right. The person doesn't create the person. Okay, so that's pretty much it. The person's not made by the person. The feeling's not made by the feeling. The color's not made by the color. The rock's not made by the rock. The house is not made by the house. A person's not made by the house. But persons are made. Persons are created. There are such things, persons. But they don't make themselves. And you're a person. So you as a person don't make yourself. But persons, unlike rock, imagine that rocks and persons make themselves. And you're one of those persons, so you can imagine that. So you project self onto rocks and persons. And you also know that rocks don't imagine selves of others.

[38:59]

But you know from experience that persons imagine self of themselves and other persons. So the self-creation The self-production is an imaginary thing that doesn't exist. But the other production, the fact that you're produced by things other than yourself, that is the way you are. Okay. I understand what you're trying to say, but you don't understand what I'm saying back to you. Everything you're saying is making perfect sense to me, but you just don't seem to understand what I'm saying, because what I'm saying also is perfectly clear. Yes? Does her concept of herself figure in to everybody else's concept of that person?

[40:04]

Do you know what I mean? Does her concept of her self figure in... It doesn't have to be hers, but does one's concept of one's self figure in to the... figure in equally with others in that self? Do you know what I mean? Like, is it... Not quite. Okay. So you look at me, and you imagine that I have a self, or do you want to do you imagining your own self? Either way. You look at me, you imagine a self upon me. Right, it's my imagination. And Mary looks at me and imagines a self on me. Right. And the self that you're both imagining is pretty much the same thing. You're imagining that I'm independent, that I have an essence. So essence is just an essence. And in some sense, every imagination of an essence is pretty much the same. What you're imagining is that I'm independent.

[41:04]

You have that imagination too. Yeah, I do. Which I can put on myself or put on others. So the idea of self is pretty much the same for everybody. Because if you mess with it, it stops being the idea of self. The idea of self is, if it's not that you imagine that things are independent, it's not really a self. But we do. We very nicely imagine that things are independent. I guess my point, though, is just when you say it's created by everyone else but you. No. It is not the self. It is the person. The self isn't created by everybody else. The idea of self, in a sense, is created by everything else. The actual idea. The self is, by definition, not created by anything else. But the idea of self is like the idea ideas are dependent core risings. But what is being imagined in this particular case that we're talking about is the imagination of something that doesn't dependently core arise.

[42:12]

We're imagining we have an image of something that does not dependently core arise and we put that image of something that doesn't dependently core arise on a dependent core arising because that's the only things to put images on. And that image of self is pretty much the same for everybody. It's one of the basic non-existent things that humans have. And we all can do this except humans that have some kind of neurological problem or something or some disease. We can all do this and we have to do this in order to speak language. In order to talk you have to project Otherwise you can't figure out a way to make conventional designations. Because why would you put a conventional designation on an ungraspable mass of conditions? You wouldn't know where to put it.

[43:14]

But anyway, we don't have that problem. We just put a little image of independence on it. Put the word on it. So we share that ability. and human beings work together to create more human beings, so we share our genetic abilities, so we have this genetic ability to imagine this stuff, so we can... Isn't it weird that you can put a handle on the unconditioned? You know, it's funny, but I could say it's weird, but I'll just say it's funny that most of the time when people use the word weird, it is used in accordance with its etymology. Like, people often think that the word weird means strange, and I think now in the dictionary, we'll look up the word weird and

[44:23]

I think one of the definitions will be strange or maybe mysterious. But the etymological meaning of weird is fate. So it's kind of like the human destiny or human fate that human beings think that they can put... What do you think you can put? Put a handle on the unconditioned. You can't actually put a handle on the unconditioned. But you think you can. We have been created in such a way that we imagine that we can do something that doesn't have a handle. We think we can... That's our fate. It's our human fate to do that. And if you don't do that... If you don't do that, you haven't achieved humanhood yet. Maybe, you know, it may be that at some phase in human embryonic development there may be certain phases of the being where they can't do that.

[45:31]

I don't know. But I know little babies can do it. They can project, you know, a sticker onto something that has no structure. A totally dynamic process that doesn't have any centers But just that at certain places it comes together and creates phenomena for a flash. We can imagine a landing pad on that so we can put a word on it. We can do that. We have been created by conditions to be able to do that and therefore we have language and so on. It's convenient for them to get what they want. It's, you know, it's, well, now it's essential, but originally it was probably very, it was probably a very powerful tool. I often say, you know, the first person that had a self was, you know, a very provocative and interesting person. You know, you can imagine you have a bunch of people together that don't have a self and one person does.

[46:31]

You know? These other people would be kind of going like, wow. You know? And if it was... You know, this is like somebody who's made a great breakthrough. This is like a god, practically. Yeah, right. Somebody who can think of, like, this is my stuff. You know? Everybody else going, what a... Did you hear? That's amazing. He thinks this is his house. That's right. Like, you people get out. This is mine. You know? They actually think that. Other animals can act like that. But to, like, think of it and be able to, you know, express it. This is like... Everybody wants... So that guy, or that chick, whatever it was, everybody wanted to, like, mate with them. So those people have taken over. Those are our ancestors. And those selfless ones, those ones who didn't have a self, they, you know, bye-bye.

[47:37]

And then it makes possible language and certain kinds of cultural achievements that you can't have without language. Other animals do have cultural achievements, I think, but they don't have some of the ones we have. So anyway, this is our weirdness, that we're this way. This morning, I think you said you were going to talk about the meditation on thoroughly established characters. Yes. Is that right? Did I hear that? I don't know if I said something like that. What I'm trying to do is work up to, like, think about how... Well, I'm partly showing you, I think, by telling you this story, what I think Matsu was trying to do. I think he was trying to express himself in such a way as to help the superintendent of the monastery not so strongly adhere to the dependently co-arisen health of his teacher as being his idea of the health of his teacher.

[48:53]

And if he could teach him that, that the superintendent would be able to then see and know the thoroughly established So I'm suggesting that we can look at how we might study or look at the teachings of Zen masters as encouraging us to be able to know the thoroughly established. And I already told you what the sutra is about how you know the thoroughly established. The way you know the thoroughly established is by not strongly adhering to what you think is going on as being what's going on. but to see it as a superimposition that falsely represents what's going on. I just realized that I so little understood it that I didn't know if he talked about it or not. I didn't really talk about it too much. I was playing around with it a little bit, but I wasn't so much talking about the thoroughly established.

[49:58]

I was trying to find a way as to open a window onto see that the river doesn't have a road on it. The river does have a road on it, the river does have a superimposed road, but actually the road is absent in the river. Our actual interdependent life doesn't have any self in it. It doesn't have any projection of imaginary independent existence in it. How can we like get a view of that? So I read this story as an example of some words from a teacher given in hopes of helping us not adhere so strongly to our things as being the things, as being their, you know, other-dependent nature.

[51:08]

I think I'm just looking for an image to put on thoroughly established character. Yeah, well, one image of is... the absence, okay, of your images, of essence. You can imagine that. Like if you're listening to the rain, okay, just imagine, you can just imagine what it would be like to listen to the rain without the image of the rain. But it finally always works down to the individual, and that's pretty scary for most people to think that. What I think I am is just not really... Yeah, it kind of... You say it works down... It works down to or it reflects back. If you start looking, listening to the rain and imagine what the rain would be like if you didn't have an image of the rain, well, then that wouldn't be the rain anymore.

[52:14]

And so what Dave's saying is that might be scary because you might think, hey, if I can't have... when it's raining. I don't mind not having an image of the rain if it's not raining. So on a sunny day, you don't feel like you need an image of the rain. But when it's raining, to meet the rain without an image of the rain, then you think, well, that might be okay, but then I might lose the image of me. And that's scary. Because if there's actually no appearance of rain in the rain, then maybe there won't be any appearance of me. And if there's no appearance of me, there might not be any me. That's part of why it's a little bit hard to imagine giving up the image and meet the rain without an image. But that would be one way to imagine what it would be like to meet the rain in the absence of an image of the rain, which is pretty much like no rain. But that would be one way to imagine.

[53:18]

I think in that book, Here's an example of Marlon Brando in an acting class. Is that in there? This is a test on that book. Who read it? Good excuse. So... The teacher in the acting class says, okay, now all you guys imagine that you're chickens sitting in a chicken coop and that a bomb just went off. I think it probably said atomic bomb because back when Marlon Brando was going, you know, we were afraid of atomic bombs. Anyway, and sort of said, what would you do? What would you do as a chicken sitting in a chicken coop when the bomb goes off? So then all the other Aki students started jumping all over the place. But Marlon just sat there.

[54:22]

Because what he imagined is that the chicken couldn't imagine anything to do. So he imagined no imagination and just sat there. So that's a key, you know, that the relationship between just sitting and meditating on the thoroughly established character. Like you're sitting there and you actually sit there with no imagination. You sit and imagine you have no imagination. You have to use your imagination to get to your sitting place. You could like see if you can imagine sitting with no imagination. Just sit there with like not knowing, being able to think of anything about it. Because again, anything you think about your sitting does not reach your sitting. So you might as well just break and not think about your sitting. Not have any image of your sitting.

[55:25]

And just be sitting there with no imagination of your sitting. Because you're not going to lose anything except your imagination. Because your sitting is never touched by your imagination of your sitting. But we think if we stop imagining like disappear or topple over or get a low mark. So that's another way that you can meditate in your sitting is just sit that way as though you had no imagination. See if you can imagine that. Like no imagination that you're sitting properly or improperly or whatever. So that would work for the self as well, right? It would accept that There isn't any self. That's the problem. But there is sitting. But there isn't. There's only a fantasy of the self. There's no self. But there is sitting. But if you gave up the imagination of yourself, of this whatever it is, it would still be there, right?

[56:33]

No, it wouldn't be there. Very nice question. Okay? She said if you gave up Self, it would still be there. Notice what she said? If you gave up the imagination of self, she pointed right over here to Louise. She thinks Louise is a self. But Louise is not a self. I mean, the self is imagined, but the body... But the body never was a self. But the body is a body. But the body is not a self. And sitting is not a self. But there is sitting. There is sitting and there is a body. There's a body there. And it's a body sitting. The sitting body is there. But the self isn't there at all. There's an imagination of the self, but there isn't a self. But there is a body. And there's an imagination of the self of the body, but the self of the body is imaginary. But the body isn't.

[57:34]

So, imaginary, You're calling this person, pardon? Isn't that just that the self is a concept? Self is a concept, right? It's a misconception. I mean, it's imagining something that doesn't exist at all. It's an idea of something that doesn't exist. It's imagining or it's an idea of something existing independent of all conditions. There's no such thing, but we can think of that. That can get projected onto our human body. Okay? But the human body is not a self. The self is just something imputed to it. But you said, if you give up the idea of the self, the self will still be there. But it's not true. Because the self never was there. It's not like the self's there and you have an idea of it.

[58:37]

The self isn't there and the idea is of something. But the idea of your body is about something that there is. The idea of the body is based on the body. But the idea doesn't reach the body. But there is a body that's the basis of the idea of a body. But there's not a self that's the basis of the idea of self. That's the difference. So if you stop thinking of the idea of self, that would be okay, but you can go ahead and think of the idea of self, just see if you can find it anywhere and you won't find it in your body or in anybody else's body. What is behavior? Pardon? Behavior. Behavior, yes, what about it? What is that? What is behavior? Well, if behavior is a phenomenon, it has three characteristics. So, one of the characteristics of behavior is like, has a self.

[59:43]

But that's not true, it doesn't actually have a self. But we project onto behavior a self so that we can say behavior X without projecting this image onto behavior, behaviors play, but there's no way to grasp it. So there's behavior all day long, or in a way conduct is happening through dependent core arising all day long, but in order to designate it, the mind of a human being, and the mind of other beings too, to imagine this thing in such a way that it can be grasped. So behavior has the imaginary quality, has the other dependent quality, and has an ultimate quality, and that is that this image reaches its dependent core arising. It's absent there.

[60:45]

And when you see that thoroughly established character, you stop believing that your imagination of things by which you can talk about them your imagination of essence and substance and things, but that's not true. You stop agreeing with that. That's how you can understand behavior, by meditating in that way. But in the meantime, the habit is to grasp the behavior as your idea of it. And the behaviors are... you know, interdependent events, and we take them as our idea of them. And our idea of them is both their attributes, but also their self. But this idea never reaches it. When you realize the thoroughly established character, you stop agreeing that this false way of seeing them is them, and then you start to be

[61:49]

enlightened. Yes? Is the imagination of an independently existing or self-creating self like the imagination of an independently existing flame? Keep looking at the candle. Yes, it is. It's the same thing. Actually, we're talking about the self of things, but it can be extended to the self of persons. It makes sense to me. Yeah. The flame arises out of conditions other than itself. That's right. I can see the flame, but I can't say what it is. Well, you can say what it is, you just said it. In terms of itself. You project a self on it so that you can see it independent of the candle.

[62:55]

and putting a word on it, flame, rather than calling it a flaming candle, then you'd be talking about the candle and using the flame as an adjective for a candle. Then you'd be isolating the candle from the flame, even though you use the flame to define the candle. but that's what we do. We're talking about the candle, the flaming candle. We're really talking about the candle, but obviously we needed the flame. This particular time we needed the flame to help define the candle. But we're talking about the candle as though it were something separate from the flame, even though we needed the flame to talk about which candle. We had two candles. One's not. We used the flame to define the difference, but we still talked about the candle as though it weren't the flame. As though it had a self. We do that so we can talk. But also, of the image of the candle as being isolated from the flame, independent of the flame, even though they're connected and you really can't have one without the other.

[64:13]

When there's a flame, you don't have a candle without a flame. or a flame without a candle. But anyway, we see them as separate and independent of each other. We can do that even though they're not. And the way they're not independent of each other is the basis of the images of the way we see them as independent. Non-independent is the basis for the independent. But we believe independent version because that's the one you can get a hold of and that's the one you can use to talk with. The other one is wonderful, it's beautiful, it's really what's happening, it's really our life, but you can't get a hold of it and you can't talk about it. You take it for this thing that it's not. This is the, in some sense, the corrupt nature of our psychic process. And then, or the faulty, you know, the built-in conflict in it.

[65:16]

And then the additional thing is we fall for this mistake, and that's our error. So our mind creates the impression that things that we're aware of are out there separate from us, even though they're totally in us. But they appear to be outside of us. that it looks like an object of itself. That's the kind of mind we have. That's just the way it appears. But then in addition to that, we believe that. That's the part that can stop. We can stop believing that. But we have to realize emptiness before we continue believing it. And realizing emptiness is rather difficult. But here you are, in emptiness school, And it's kind of hard, isn't it? It's kind of hard.

[66:16]

In one sense you're meditating on emptiness, but you need to be well grounded in meditating on the other dependent first. Otherwise you're just going to get all spaced out meditating on space. Are there some hands raised? Yes, Carol? Something about Alzheimer's and losing memory. Yeah. If someone had a better grasp of these concepts, it would be less threatening to have that memory loss. Is that not true? That's what I'm thinking. Part of why I'm practicing is so that when I lose my marbles, I'll still be able to, I'll still be cool. I think people that have Alzheimer's are oftentimes scared to death.

[67:22]

Yeah. And then they were like a child again, or I always want to describe it, like my dog, you know, it was him this world, being cared for by other beings. Yeah, well that... But the time before that was incredibly scary. Right. Being around that person during that time and trying to calm them. Right. But some people don't... where they stop being frightened. So I don't... If you just lost your marbles and you were happy and free and not afraid, that would be one thing. But a lot of people... just get scared and terrified, really terrified of losing their marbles. I think needing people to take care of you, I've already reached that state.

[68:23]

And it's not that bad, actually. But the being scared part, that's no good. That's the part. And I think if you get over being scared, do have your marbles, there's a good chance that the way you practice when you have your marbles so that you don't get all tripped up on your marbles, that way of practice will work for you when your marbles get all scrambled. Because it won't be dependent on your marbles. It'll actually depend on your marbles. You're not depending on your marbles. You're more in the realm of actuality where you've been cared for by everybody. So when you lose your power, it doesn't matter much because you've already set up this nice, basically, this nursing home for yourself that you're in all the time. No matter what happens, that's where you are.

[69:27]

You're in this nursing home. That's the way you see the world. That's the way you understand the world. And that's the way the world is. The world actually is nursing everybody all the time. Even people who are in terrible poverty are actually being nursed But as we understand, they're very unlikely to be able to get that. But some people who have understood it, then you put them in poverty and they still understand that they're being nurtured. Because in fact, if you're alive, you're being nurtured. And even if you approach death, you continue to be nurtured. And you finally have enough of this nurturing of this body and you check out. You say, thank you very much for nurturing me up to this point. I've had enough. Bye-bye. Okay, can I go now? So yeah, I think the practice will... to the point where you're not depending on your smarts anymore. And your smarts are what you put on...

[70:28]

something that nobody's smart, nobody's smart enough to, like, comprehend the pinnacle of rising. You say, well, maybe Buddha, a thoroughly enlightened Buddha can comprehend it, but really they don't, that's, they play with it, they dance with it, but they don't make it into an object. So you're smart, you've got a great nervous system that can, basically, that can categorize and conceptualize anything that happens to you, pretty much. They almost never come up short. If you're traveling in Afghanistan, you wake up in the morning, it takes you a few seconds to figure out where you are, you know, kind of... Oh, Afghanistan. So you actually... But, you know, usually you do pretty well, right? Unless you're sick. And Alzheimer's is like getting sick. Your brain can't do that anymore. Giving up using that thing as your basic mode of operation... then when you lose that, it won't be such a big problem for you.

[71:29]

So that's part of the advantage of practice is you don't so much depend on your smarts anymore. But you can notice sometimes when you don't have your smarts to mess with your state, sometimes you do get depressed because sometimes you do rely on your smarts to play with your state and get yourself out of certain trouble. But sometimes that won't work anymore. So you need to eventually have to shift to another mode where you're not using your conceptual equipment to manipulate the situation anymore. But it's gotten late again. I don't know how it keeps happening, but it's gotten late. May our intention equally penetrate every being and place.

[72:49]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_86.78