I usually do here this, and you might have them both ready. These two different versions of the Hare Krishna Mantra. Anything strike you about how they're different, or how they're different?

[01:05]

One sets up the scene and kind of finishes it off with the representation of who is there and where they were. What a nice story that was. The longer version has more of a setting before and after, more of a conventional setting, and lets us know that the Buddha was present at the speaking of the sutra. In both cases the sutra is spoken mostly by Avalokiteshvara. In the second case, in the first and longer version, Sariputra speaks, and also Buddha speaks at the end. Did you have a hand raised, Emmanuel? Also, the longer one spells out what things mean in greater detail. Like there are the five skandhas, and those he sees in their own being as empty.

[02:18]

So it really spells out what emptiness defines emptiness, rather than leaving it to possible misinterpretation. That's what it looks like in this translation. This translation, the shorter version is translated from Chinese, and the Chinese just says that the five aggregates are empty. But actually the Sanskrit original of the shorter version says that all five aggregates are empty of own being, they are empty of inherent existence. So actually the short version and the long version, they both say that Avalokiteshvara saw the five aggregates as being empty of inherent existence. But the Chinese just says empty. And for a while at Zen Center we modified, we did a combination of the Sanskrit and the Chinese, and we said, are empty of own being, but this recent translation has gone back to the Chinese, which just says empty.

[03:23]

So there's advantages of saying empty, so that you get used to understanding that when we say empty in Mahayana Buddhism, when we say all things are empty, when we say each and every phenomenon is empty, we mean empty of own being, empty of inherent existence. Empty of existing without dependence on something other. Inherent existence means not relying on another. But all phenomena rely on another. Nothing exists that doesn't rely on things other than itself for its existence. And things do not depend at all on themselves for their existence.

[04:29]

So inherent existence is how we exist not depending on another. But we don't exist that way. We only exist in dependence, therefore inherent existence, existence not depending on something other, there's no such thing. So all things don't have any such thing as inherent existence. However, funny thing is, things look like they exist not depending on others. So each one of us does not have a little label sticking out of our ear saying, this person depends on things other than himself. He looks like he doesn't depend on things other than himself. Doesn't he? He looks that way. And the reason why he looks that way is because of what? How come he looks like that?

[05:40]

How come he appears like that? How come he exists like that? Because you put a label on him. A label? That's part of it. I imagine there's something to put a label on. I imagine there's something to put a label on. Yeah, we mentally impute to phenomena that they exist independent of other things. We apprehend things as though they existed alone. Not in dependence. So that's the way they look to us. However, the teaching says things do not exist except through imputation like that.

[06:44]

So what's our difference between these two sutras? Sort of along those lines, I was interested in that top paragraph on the second part. So here it just talks about hindrance. The mind is without hindrance. But here it spells it out a little bit more. In the absence of an objective support to his thought, he has not been made to tremble. He has overcome what can be upset. And the answer is made by Nirvana. But the idea of objective support to his thought, maybe there's nothing to support it actually being there really. And so that removes fear. Is that what it means, do you think? I'm not sure. But that's a difference, you see. Anyway. What other differences do you see? Yes? I was looking at the longer version, the English translation of the actual mantras. And I was wondering if the Chinese version that we chant on a daily basis,

[07:49]

the English translation of the Chinese version, if they retain the mantra in Sanskrit? Yes. They do? Yes. And this translation we have here, where we say gatte gatte par gatte parasam gatte bodhisvaha, that is translating from Chinese back into Sanskrit. The Japanese way of pronouncing the Chinese characters is gatte gatte par gatte parasam gatte bodhisvaha. That's the way they tried to ... They used Chinese characters that sounded like the Sanskrit original to make the actual song sound like Sanskrit. So they didn't translate it into words in Chinese, which mean gone, gone. They used words in Chinese that sounded like gatte gatte par gatte. In that regard, they're not different though.

[08:55]

Because they both sing. So if you translated gatte gatte, you get gone, gone, beyond. Any other differences you notice? Would you hand raise? Yes? In the second one, the Chinese version seems more poetic. Like it's the essence taken out of the historical narrative and it's just the language kind of shimmering itself. OK. Anyway, it is more of the essence. It is honed down even more than the other one, that's true. This English translation maybe seems more poetic. Looking at the two originals in Sanskrit, I don't know which one would be more or less poetic. I'm not up on the poetic status of the original in Sanskrit. But I think it is more essence-like.

[10:00]

Any other differences? Yes? This longer one is sort of an account of what Avalokiteshvara realized in meditation. The shorter one is just sort of a narrative of what went down. And this one seems to suggest that if we want to follow in those footsteps, that we should meditate on these certain things. The longer version, the question is being asked, how should a son or daughter of good lineage, of good family, in other words, how should a male or female bodhisattva practice if they wanted to practice this perfection of wisdom. So that's actually the question. And then Avalokiteshvara says they should, first of all, try to consider that the five aggregates lack inherent existence. They should actually consider that. They should actually try to view that the five aggregates lack inherent existence.

[11:06]

They should try to thoroughly and clearly comprehend that the five aggregates lack inherent existence. So we're not, in our shorter version, we're not being told that we should practice this way. We're told that Avalokiteshvara practiced that way. In the longer version, it tells us that Avalokiteshvara was practicing the deep perfection of wisdom. So that's like the shorter version. And that Avalokiteshvara saw that the five aggregates lack inherent existence, were empty of inherent existence. But in the longer version, we're not asked the question, how should we practice if we want to practice the perfection of wisdom? And the answer in the longer version is, we should try to learn how to see like Avalokiteshvara sees, or like Avalokiteshvara has been seeing in the past and is now seeing.

[12:07]

In the past, Avalokiteshvara has been looking at existence and seeing that existence lacks inherent existence. That's what the Bodhisattva is looking at. So if we want to practice the perfection of wisdom, we should also look at things that way. And then, in both cases, then it follows up by telling us, giving us some assistance on how to look at it. So then the next part is similar, pretty much the same. Another difference? Any other difference you'd like to bring up between the two? Yes? Well, it was already mentioned, but I think I would like to come back to something that Rosie said in the beginning. Because already last week, what really struck me is that this dialogue on wisdom is, let's say, surrounded by Buddha's meditation.

[13:11]

So one way I read it is that actually this is given to us. Or as it says here, very specifically, it's given to Buddha's mind. Right. So, like, all week I asked myself if I couldn't understand this even as a meditation instruction. Like, there is something before considering whether the five skandhas are empty or not, which is Buddha's stillness, which I don't want to minimize, but could one understand it as an instruction to practice shamatha? And within this stillness, then to engage in this dialogue. Let's see. You brought several points here.

[14:14]

Anyway, I think that this, as I think I mentioned last week, this is considered to be a Buddhist scripture because even though the Buddha is not talking through most of it, the speaking is coming from bodhisattva and the bodhisattva's speaking is coming from the Buddha's meditation. And Shariputra is actually now a bodhisattva asking another bodhisattva to give a discourse on how we should practice in order to realize perfection of wisdom. All this is coming through the Buddha's meditation. This is all the activity of Buddha's meditation. And Buddha actually is in a state of tranquility during most of this discourse. Now, are we supposed to be practicing tranquility during this discourse? I would suggest that actually you could be in a state of tranquility,

[15:22]

but I wouldn't advise you to try to practice, train yourself in tranquility while you study the sutra. If you've been practicing tranquility and have been successful at tranquility, fine. Once you're stabilized, unless you're in a very deep state of tranquility, so that you can't even follow sentences, you can still be quite calm and enter into study of the sutra. But the training in tranquility, unless you're training in tranquility by listening to the sutra, I wouldn't think necessarily you would be training yourself in calming practice as an approach to this. However, the deepest understanding of this will come in the state which is the fruit of training in tranquility. And there must be some tranquility in order to be able to listen to the scripture.

[16:29]

And also, for some people, listening to the scripture might tranquilize. However, you would not be listening to the sutra primarily to tranquilize, even though it did tranquilize. You'd be listening to the sutra in order to start to practice, considering that the aggregates are lacking inherent existence. You're trying to understand that teaching and start to see this way. However, people that are already calm are perfectly happy, perfectly ready to look at things that they're experiencing as actually lacking inherent existence. That's one of the virtues of tranquility, is that you're happy to practice wisdom, happy to practice wisdom when you're calm.

[17:32]

But the kind of training where you're giving up discursive thought in order to develop tranquility, that type of training is kind of antithetical to learning how to look at things as lacking inherent existence. And looking at inherent existence as not separate from the things which lack it. I mean, looking at the emptiness of inherent existence as not separate from the things which lack inherent existence. This kind of meditation, you need to keep using your discursive thought. But once again, if you're already calm, you can use discursive thought without getting upset. Does that make sense? So the training in tranquility is implied in this practice, but not exactly simultaneously, explicitly training in tranquility. So either you have the fruit of tranquility training, which you then can use to study this,

[18:37]

or you study this and later return to develop tranquility and immerse your understanding in the tranquility practice, in the tranquility state. Anything else about the differences between the two you want to bring up? Yes? So, well, just similar to what Weston said, it seems like the longer version is just a learning process, because learning is done in context, and it's set up in a context. And the second version is an abstraction, so more like knowledge. So one's learning, to me, I felt like one is a learning and the other is knowledge. That's shared, because one's abstract and one's contextual. The other thing is there are some translations that are real different, like the advocates themselves are translated very differently. Like the formation and the one-way chance versus impulse state in the longer version.

[19:46]

It does seem like very different words. Yes, well, it's a different translation, but the words are the same. The word is referring to the fourth skanda, which is samskara, which you could translate as impulses, but really I think there's no difference in the sutras. The translations are different, but what they're translating is not different. It's just the translation is different. So, is the emphasis different? Sometimes when we choose different words to translate it, we're emphasizing a different sense of the root word. The person who translated it as impulse, if he was looking at the Sanskrit of the shorter version, would have translated that as impulse too. Okay. So I'm talking... Second generation translation or third generation translation?

[20:48]

No, I'm talking about if you're looking at the two Sanskrit texts, the word samskara would be in both texts. The fourth skanda is the same in both texts. So the person who translated this longer version, if he had translated the shorter version from Sanskrit, he would have used impulses. So your question is, you're saying the difference is not really the difference between the texts, it's the difference between translators. Right. I understand that. But I'm asking about the texts, not the translators, okay? The difference between these two texts, the original texts. So, I'm just pointing out that that's not a difference in the texts, that's a difference in the translation. We used to have impulses in our translation of the Chinese, years ago, because we used the same translator. Translator? Who translated in his book impulses for the fourth skanda, the fourth aggregate.

[21:49]

Which is, you know, we don't use that word anymore. Any other differences that you'd like to bring up between the way the texts appear? I don't know if it's appropriate to ask about deep splendor at this point, because it's in one, not the other. But the meditation is referred to as deep splendor. Well, I think that's the difference, is that we're being told about the meditation in one case, and you want to know about what deep splendor meditation is? Well, it's just the name of the state of calm that he was in. So, it had a deep splendor. Oh, okay, so it's descriptive instead of a technical term then. Yeah, like we say Jewel Mirror Samadhi, or Precious Mirror Samadhi, and Self-Fulfilling Samadhi, and Self-Actualizing Samadhi, and Ocean Seal Samadhi, and Heroic Stride Samadhi. These are different names for bodhisattva samadhis,

[22:52]

emphasizing different dimensions of the bodhisattva mind. Right, and does deep splendor emphasize any specific kind of characteristic of the meditation? It's emphasizing the deep splendor aspect. I happen to have the whole translation, if you want it. No, thanks. Any other differences you'd like to point out? Yes? The translator's choice between spell and mantra makes me think, how would you apply this teaching? Would one go around and label everything empty, empty, empty? Or would one, like, listening internally, everything is empty, and then a few changes by itself? Yeah, so you're asking me a question about the mantra. The mantra isn't different in the two texts. Two texts are the same, same mantra. That's not a difference.

[23:53]

How to use the mantra, we can talk about later. Any other differences? Yes? The shorter one says, without, with nothing to attain. This one says, owing to a bodhisattva's indifference to any kind of personal attainment. That's indifference in translation. Interesting difference, though. And not only, I wanted to say, but then the next one, non-attainment. So the shorter one... Again, the original Sanskrit of the shorter one and the original Sanskrit of the longer one says no attainment and no non-attainment. The Chinese just says no attainment. Robert Thurman visited here and said, you guys should change your sutras to say no non-attainment. So there's no attainment and there's no non-attainment. The two texts are the same that way. But still, both of them also say, with nothing to attain. And this other one says, indifferent to attainment.

[24:55]

So indifference to attainment, I think is true. Bodhisattvas are indifferent to attainment. In a sense. Or they're kind of equanimous vis-a-vis attainment. They're cool about it. But actually I think it says, with nothing to attain. A bodhisattva. So on and so forth. Anything else? I mentioned this before. I just want to mention it again. The only difference is that in the shorter version it mentions that Avalokiteshvara relieved all suffering. That the vision of this relieved all suffering. And the other one doesn't mention that it relieved all suffering. That's the only difference. And I believe that is also in the Sanskrit, in the shorter version. Okay? Is that Fu back there? Yes?

[25:56]

In this, I guess it's the fourth paragraph from the end on the long version, In the absence of an objective support to his thought, he has not been made to tremble. It seems like, is that a different translation from Beyond All Inverted Views? No. It's a different translation from, I believe it's a different translation from Without any hindrance there is no fear. Without any hindrance there is no fear. Is what is translated without objective support, he does not tremble? So I think this idea of without, that's the question there. This is getting into text, I don't want to do this too much right now, but I'll just say that the idea here, that what's actually being talked about is without obstructions to your vision, when the obstructions to reality are removed, there's no fear.

[26:59]

So, without objective support, you know, that's interesting, but really what it's saying is without these coverings, the person who translated without objective support changed the translation himself, changed his translation there, and he changed it to, without any hindrance or without any obscurations, there's no fear. When you see things as they are, there's no fear. But when you see things obscured, then there's fear. Okay, did you have a question? Yes. Alright, so... When you're talking about tranquility, you mean tranquility as one of the, or serenity as one of the other five perfections? Yes. Then, if those two are so closely aligned, Which two? Tranquility and Prajna,

[28:02]

Yes. Do the others come into this? The others are also... If you're more sensitive to the other three, could you also see where they... Yes. For example, someone has recently made a book trying to make the point that basically the perfection of wisdom called the Diamond Sutra, the Diamond Cutter's Perfection of Wisdom, that person feels is really talking about the perfection of giving. That's really what's being emphasized in that text. Giving really is, the perfection of giving really is enlightenment, actually. But most people, because of lack of wisdom, they don't understand how to practice giving. But when you practice giving as a perfection, it is enlightenment. All these practices are actually enlightenment

[29:03]

once they're connected with wisdom. But also these practices are necessary in order to develop wisdom. So wisdom purifies them, and it's based on them. Same with patience. If you actually accept the way things, if you can be patient about things, you actually will accept them as they are. And so on. So all these compassion practices are actually not really different from wisdom practices. And yet, it's possible to practice compassion without wisdom. But once they are fully realized, there must be wisdom there. But you also must be practicing them in order to have wisdom. So they're all perfectly aligned. But in a sense, tranquility is, you often call meditation, whereas people don't so often say that giving is meditation, and precepts are meditation, and patience is meditation, and diligence is meditation. But those are also meditations. Everything is meditation.

[30:03]

Everything is like paying attention to certain practices, contemplating certain practices. But in this scripture, the other five are implicit. They don't actually say them, except for in the longer version, they say that Buddha was actually, it doesn't say Buddha was training in tranquility, it says Buddha was in this state of tranquility, was in this samadhi. He probably, you know, the Buddha just goes like that and snaps into it because he's so experienced at the training. All he has to do is think of the state and he's in it, because he's already trained himself so well at tranquility practices. But it doesn't say he was training in that tranquility, he was in the state. But aside from that, there's no mention of compassion. But it's implied, because we've got bodhisattvas here, and what are the bodhisattvas working on in this sutra? They're not so much working on giving precepts,

[31:05]

diligence, patience, and concentration, they're working on prajnaparamita, they're working on the prajnaparamita, prajna, transcendental practice. But the other practices must be understood as being practiced too, at the same time. It needs to be practiced together. But now we're going to look at, there's two meanings of the mantra. One is the mantra, gone, gone, gone, beyond, gone, altogether, beyond. Enlightenment, welcome. But the other way of thinking of the mantra is that we're going to do a mantra of considering every experience as being empty of inherent existence. We're going to consider every experience as being empty of existing

[32:08]

independent of another. Now, one way to do that positively is consider every experience as being dependent on another. So, as I've mentioned over and over, the Buddha starts teaching by saying whatever is happening happens in dependence on things other than itself. Everything is a dependent co-arising. Everything you look at exists in dependence on things other than itself. And in particular, everything that you experience exists in dependence on mental apprehension, on mental computation. What you experience has no existence apart from the way your mind grasps it. And it does not exist the way your mind grasps it.

[33:11]

Ultimately. But conventionally, it does exist the way your mind grasps it. The way things exist is not the way they ultimately are, but just the way you grasp them. And that's the way they exist in dependence on the way you grasp them. So, you grasp them as independent and that's the way they appear to you. So, we start that way and when you get settled in that, then you're ready to consider that things actually lack that independent existence. But you have to do both, I think, because otherwise the teaching that things do not exist in independence of this imputation is not appropriate. But if you can keep grounded

[34:12]

in that things do exist in dependence on mental imputation, they do exist in dependence on mental imputation. They are actually merely existing as mental imputation. Then you can say on these same things lack any existence independent of this imputation, which is the way I'm grasping them, which is the way my mind grasps them. And that can be a mantra, that can be something you can do all the time. But that mantra needs to be practiced together with the other mantra of dependent co-arising, which again is also understood as the basis for the emptiness mantra. Would there be an emptiness mantra?

[35:54]

Emptiness mantra? Yeah, because... An emptiness mantra can be like it could be gone, gone, gone, beyond, gone altogether, beyond bodhi, welcome. Or it could be... Well, I thought when dependent co-arising you wouldn't speak any mantras anymore. I thought there would be maybe a point of emptiness where you don't speak a mantra anymore. If you are considering that all phenomena lack inherent existence and you do that repeatedly, then that is like considering things as though you are practicing a mantra with those things. You are repeatedly considering the teaching about their nature.

[36:56]

So in that sense that teaching becomes like a mantra for you. We have another mantra that comes spontaneously and instinctively, which is things inherently exist, things exist independent of other things. We are doing that mantra all the time. We are projecting self onto conditions. We are mentally grasping conditions as something which exists independent of those conditions which we are grasping as a self of those conditions. We are doing that all the time.

[37:59]

That is our spontaneous innate mantra. And if we stop for a little while we can feel the impulse coming back to make something again. Impulse to that samskara means to make, to make, to make, to make. Without mental imputation, without this mental grasping, nothing exists. There has to be this mental apprehending for anything to exist. And things don't exist in another way where they are not apprehended.

[39:02]

But these things that do exist through apprehension, the way they actually are, the way they actually are is that they don't exist independent of that apprehension. That's their emptiness. And things are empty of inherent existence and things are also emptiness of inherent existence. Things are both empty and emptiness. The sutra doesn't say actually Actually the sutra says both. The Gosutra says that Avalokiteshvara saw that the aggregates are empty and then also that the aggregates are emptiness. Do you see that? All five aggregates

[40:06]

are empty of own being. And all five aggregates are emptiness. So form is the first aggregate, it's emptiness. It doesn't say it's empty. It says all five aggregates are empty and then it says the first aggregate is emptiness and emptiness is the first aggregate. And it says the same is true of feelings, formations, consciousness, perceptions, same for those. All these aggregates are emptiness and emptiness is each of these aggregates. But also these aggregates are empty. So both empty and emptiness. I'm not following that. I don't understand the distinction. I mean emptiness is a noun? Right. Emptiness is a noun and empty is adjective.

[41:07]

Right. And as we were talking about this morning they're both predicates of phenomena. All phenomena are red and all phenomena are apples. Right? All phenomena are empty and all phenomena are emptiness. All phenomena are predicated by having the description of being empty but also they are actually also predicated or qualified by the noun emptiness. So both of those. The sutra is doing both. There's no emptiness apart from form. There's not emptiness by itself. There's also that but they could also say it's kind of funny to say there's no empty apart from form. Right? There's no form

[42:08]

apart from empty. All right? So does it work to look better to say there's no form aside from emptiness and there's no emptiness aside from form? Did it work better? That's the way the sutra decided to do it. Also emptiness is identical with dependent co-arising but empty is not exactly identical with dependent co-arising. All dependent co-arisings are empty but dependent co-arising is emptiness and emptiness teaches you what dependent co-arising is. So all things are dependent co-arisings and

[43:10]

from the early days the Buddha taught dependent co-arising and the Buddha said when you see dependent co-arising you see Dharma. When you see Dharma you see Buddha. But how do you see dependant co-arising? Well you see dependent co-arising by looking at dependent co-arisings and what are the dependent co-arisings? Do you know what those are? Phenomena. Do you know what dependent co-arisings are? My attention just answered with the phenomenon. Yeah, phenomenon are dependent co-arisings So, you start by looking at dependent co-arising, which means you look at phenomena. But when you look at phenomena, can you see dependent co-arising? Can you see it? It's hard to see. You can think you see it, but in order to see it, actually, you have to understand emptiness in order to understand dependent co-arising. So we hear the teaching of dependent co-arising and we're told where to look. Where do you look to see dependent co-arising? Look at the five aggregates, look at any experience, look at anything that exists, and you're looking

[44:14]

at a dependent co-arising and you're looking at dependent co-arising, but you need to meditate on emptiness in order to be able to actually see dependent co-arising, because otherwise, what do we see when we look at dependent co-arising? What do we see when we're looking at a dependent co-arising? What do we see? We see the form, yes, but when we're looking at a form, what do we see? We see it exists independently, because the way it exists is by mental imputation. So we see our imputation. We see our imputation. Poor things. What could go wrong? Right. What could go wrong? Nothing goes wrong. and it's called suffering. By misconstruing dependent co-arising as the way we grasp it, that's where suffering arises,

[45:15]

is taking dependent co-arising as the way we grasp it in order to make it into something, in order to convert it into existence, that's where suffering starts. If we can see dependent co-arising, we can understand dependent co-arising, that follows from actually seeing the lack of inherent existence. We're already free of suffering when we see the lack of inherent existence, and then we also get to see and understand emptiness, I mean, understand dependent co-arising, which is beyond freedom from suffering, actually. It's understanding the way things function, it's understanding the way these conventional things actually work, they do function, and we can see and understand them, once we stop believing that the way we grasp things is actually the way they are, rather than the way they conventionally are, which we must have and be that way, because that's exactly the same.

[46:21]

In order to understand dependent co-arising you have to meditate on emptiness, but isn't that like the dog chasing its tail because to meditate on emptiness you have to understand the dependent co-arising of phenomena? Or how do you meditate on emptiness? You can use the teaching of dependent co-arising as a way to understand emptiness, but you don't understand the teaching of dependent co-arising before you understand emptiness, but you can understand emptiness before you understand dependent co-arising. By listening and teaching dependent co-arising and not completely understanding it, but applying the reasoning and the feelings that are associated with interdependence and so on, using these teachings and think about them and emote about them and live with them, you will come to actually understand emptiness, which means you will be convinced of it, so much so that

[47:28]

you'll stop believing the way you usually believe, it will change your belief. Then you'll be able to understand and see dependent co-arising really, but you can use the teaching of dependent co-arising before you actually can understand it, and that teaching will be one of the main ways you can understand emptiness. So that means when I hear the teaching of emptiness I basically trust it even if I don't understand it, is that right? You trust it even though you don't understand it? Well if I don't understand it, how can it work in me or with me? I just said to you that all phenomena exist in dependence on conditions and mental imputation, okay? And again, most people that come to Buddhism anyway are aware that things exist in dependence on things other than themselves. However, even those people, many of them still think, yes, things exist in dependence on things

[48:34]

other than themselves, but actually they also depend on themselves, and they also depend on mental imputation, they say that, and some people say, yeah, I guess I can see that too. And then you say that without mental imputation the thing doesn't exist at all, and that's kind of unusual for people. However, if you see that we do say that things do exist by virtue and by means of mental imputation, and then you say, but they have no existence without that mental imputation, as you listen to that and look at that, you can start almost to be convinced, yeah, that makes sense, that there wouldn't be anything there at all, if it depended on this, something that depended on imputation couldn't be independent of what it depends on.

[49:37]

And as you start to see and understand better that actually things do depend on mental imputation, then you can get closer to actually being convinced, being convinced, even though you can't directly see it, being convinced, yeah, it really makes sense that there wouldn't be anything there, and yet I think there is. And you do that again and again, you get more and more convinced, just like that example I gave you last week about the chessboard, you can't actually see how it's impossible to cover a chessboard missing the two corner pieces with 31 dominoes, you can't actually see that because it can't be done. You can see all the different ways that it doesn't work, but you can't be convinced that it would never work except through reasoning, but by reasoning you can be convinced, you

[50:45]

can actually somehow almost see, you actually are convinced, you actually understand that it's impossible to cover the chessboard, the modified chessboard with 31 pieces, you can see it. But you have to listen to the picture of the chessboard and think of the dominoes and then you hear the teaching that the chessboard has alternating darkened light squares, so if you take off the two opposing corners, you're either taking away two white or two black, and if you take away two white, then there's only 30 whites left, and if there's only 30 whites left, since you have to cover, whenever you use a domino, you have to cover a white and a black, you wouldn't be able to cover all the blacks, you wouldn't be able to.

[51:48]

So you can see that. In the same way you can be convinced that things do not exist at all without the mental imputation, but you don't have to believe it any more than just to try it on and reason it until you're convinced. So there's a faith there that you're going to actually try to convince yourself that things are other than the way you instinctively see them. So there's enough faith there that you're going to apply the teaching, but you don't have to believe that things are empty. He doesn't say believe that they're empty, he said they are, but it's more like, not that you should believe this, but you should consider that things are this way. Keep considering, keep considering, keep considering it until you are convinced, because just to believe it isn't sufficient because we deeply believe the opposite already.

[52:52]

So believing that they're empty isn't, I think, sufficient. You have to reason with yourself and feel with yourself and emote with yourself until you overthrow your basic belief, your false beliefs, and then you don't have a belief in emptiness. But what you do have a belief in is you have a belief in, perhaps, rather than belief in emptiness, you have a belief in the Sutra. You believe the Sutra, which means you believe this is the Buddha's teaching, which means you believe it's worthwhile paying attention to. That you believe. You're devoted to the teachings, you're devoted to the Buddhas, those you trust, those you believe in. But the meditation, the basic meditation that we're being told to do here, we're not told to believe it, and we're also not told that we don't believe it. But actually, I can tell you we don't believe it. We do not believe this teaching. So I'm not telling you to believe what you don't believe.

[53:56]

You don't believe it. I'm saying, the Sutra's saying, please consider what you don't believe and consider it and consider it until you are convinced strongly enough so that you stop believing what you have been believing your whole life. And the Sutra is saying, if you trust the Buddha, if you trust the Mahayana, it's saying, this is what you have to learn. This is what will relieve suffering. And, not just relieve suffering, but also lead to understanding how things work, which is also part of what will help you then, you know, teach after there's relief of suffering. Yes? Do you mind if I go back to something you said earlier? No, uh-uh. You said that when, that we can't see dependent co-arising.

[54:57]

And surely when we look at something, what we tend to see is our invitation of its inherent existence. But it seems to me that if we try to investigate that thing, the only way that we can describe it is to all the constituents that make it up and all the conditions surrounding its existence. It seems like a way that we would be able to see dependent co-arising. Did you hear what he said? But each one of those constituents, if you look at a constituent, if it exists, it exists with mental imputation. Right, so it's just sort of an infinite regress. It's not really, it's not exactly a regress, it's an infinite creative process. There's more dependent co-arising you're seeing, but the way you see the dependent co-arising is that you see it by taking it as your imputation. But that's part of it, that's fine. And just remember that when you look at something and then you look at the constituents of it,

[56:02]

if you're thinking about the constituents and you have thoughts about the constituents and then those exist as thoughts, but those exist as thoughts with mental imputation too. Which is fine, that's how they can eventually exist. The conditions for a conventionally existing thing depends on conditions and mental imputation. The conditions for the thing also, if they're actually existent, then they also depend on imputation. If you think about the conditions of something but you don't say that they exist, then they don't depend on mental imputation. But if you talk about them even before saying what they are, then they exist for you with mental imputation. Which is fine. Each one of those things too, which is contributed to, does also have lack in existence independent of that imputation. So you're still meditating on emptiness, you're still considering emptiness throughout this, you're still looking at the emptiness of the five aggregates while you look at the conditions for an example.

[57:05]

So pick any phenomenon, pick it, look at its conditions, that's fine. But can you actually see the conditions for the thing arising with the thing? Can you? You don't. You don't see that. You see the thing. Because your mind apprehends the thing. The thing your mind is apprehending is what you see. You don't see the conditions. But you hear the teaching of it and you notice you don't see it. That's part of what you are admitting to yourself. I suppose in some respect, I mean, if I see an apple, and I imagine seeds and air and my... Yes, right. My optical senses... But when you see the apple and you imagine a seed,

[58:06]

then you're thinking of a seed. Then you have a mental image of a seed. And that also exists with mental imputation. And one of the conditions for thinking of the seed was the apple, which you thought of being the seed for. Okay. So your mind is constantly apprehending conditions as being the mental apprehension. And all the things that so exist have no existence whatsoever without the imputation. And not only that, but the way that they exist with mental imputation is not other than the way they do not exist without it. The way that they have no existence without the mental imputation is exactly the same as the way they do exist with it. So their ultimate mode,

[59:07]

their emptiness of inherent existence, is identical with their conventional existence, which depends on mental imputation. They're not dual. They're an identity. But they're conceptually distinguishable or distinctive. And one we can see, and the other we're trying to learn to see and learn to be convinced of. And if someday we can see it, then that's because it exists and it will exist because of mental imputation. So the way things do not exist independent of mental imputation can also exist the way other things exist with mental imputation upon how they don't exist without it. They can also exist in the same way.

[60:10]

Those emptinesses can exist the same way as the forms. And that's the only way they can exist, too. Nothing can exist any other way than depending on mental imputation. Was there any people that are sort of in my periphery of my vision? Yes? I just wanted to clarify when you say without depending on the mental imputation it has absolutely no existence. But that means no inherent existence, right? I mean, it's not like there's nothing there at all. Is that correct? There's nothing there at all. I mean, there is production, right? No, it's not actually... It's actually just saying that it has no existence. As a thing. There's no existence as a thing. Is there some other kind of existence besides things?

[61:16]

Well, I... What I'm trying to clarify, I thought that dependent arising... I thought... I thought that saying that nothing exists without the imputation purely to be like mentalism because what we mean is that it doesn't exist as a separate thing or it doesn't exist without depending on everything else. But to me that's a little different than saying it has no existence whatsoever. The thing does exist. Got something that does exist? Got it? It does exist. Got it? It does exist. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about this thing that does exist. We're talking about something that does exist. It exists in dependence on mental imputation. That's how it exists.

[62:20]

Okay? This thing has no existence independent of mental imputation. Now, you want to say something about that? Like, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. No? You want to say, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all. Right? I want to say... But we're not saying it doesn't exist. We just said it exists. We said it existed. It does exist in this dependent way. But it doesn't exist at all. At all in an independent way. That's all. It just... It has no... It has no existence at all independent of the way it's dependent. Okay? Now, are you happy? Yeah. Let's see. So, Marioko and Bernd and... What's your name, Roger? Huh?

[63:21]

Still? Marioko? Was there somebody else over there? Oh, and Liz? Maybe Liz, since Marioko already asked one. Liz? What about a meditation on... Since we don't have the vision to see the event normalizing, a meditation on how would it be to relate to things as if they were all dependent... Relate to them as though they were? Yeah, that's a good meditation. In other words, you listen to the teaching that whatever you're looking at is a dependent co-arising. Okay? That's good. And that means you look at everything and you remember the teaching that whatever I'm seeing exists in dependence on things other than itself. Whatever I'm looking at exists in dependence on things other than itself. Notably, it depends on mental imputation.

[64:24]

Looking at you, seeing you, seeing the existence of you, your existence for me depends on mental imputation. That's a good teaching to remember, right? That's how you conventionally exist. Okay? Okay? I think you said you can't see dependent co-arising. We do see dependent co-arising, but we apprehend dependent co-arising, which we're looking at, as our mental imputation, because we want dependent co-arising to exist. We want to make something out of it. So we impute something there to grasp, and then it exists, then dependent co-arising... The dependent co-arising exists, and it exists, dependently co-arises, in conjunction with mental imputation. So that's all good. Then the next step is emptiness of the thing, which is that this thing that dependently co-arises, this thing that exists in dependence on things other than itself,

[65:27]

there is no existence independent of what it depends on. Then you're meditating on emptiness too, along with dependent co-arising. What really changes is you keep looking at how your mind functions. Exactly. Over and over, like that. Yes, you're looking at how your mind functions. Like that's all that's happening. You're looking at your mind functions, and also you're looking at some descriptions of the implications of the way your mind functions. So now I think the second part... Yes? You're new? You didn't ask a question yet, right? I was going to ask... I'd go to another question, but since you're a first-time questioner, go ahead. I'm a little unfamiliar intellectually. It seems like the doctrine of dependent co-arising is extrinsic to the text,

[66:28]

and maybe I'm not... I'm not certain it helps me. In particular, I guess I have this association that the emptiness that we start with, in some sense, the emptiness that the Buddha, the Buddha taught us, in some sense, actually experiences and uses to... well, not uses to, but that breaks down the form and he presents himself to him. And it seems like it's the experience and the understanding of that that allows him to see that all these other things also are not always of a form to present themselves to him, are not final, in some sense. So, I guess I read it a little more as sort of almost a description of what happens,

[67:29]

or what is happening for him, not in that time sense. In that sense, emptiness is actually an experience that kind of breaks these things down. It's not a theory about the emptiness that the Buddha taught us. It's the emptiness of one's perceptions. Is that... am I... So I'm wondering about that, whether I should follow that line of thinking, if I'm trying to follow your line of thinking, which I think is helpful to me, and also follow this line of thinking, which I'm not certain yet if it's helpful. So, the line of thinking that you're questioning whether it would be beneficial was that made the line of thinking to tell yourself that experiencing the emptiness of phenomena would break them down? Is that what you said? I guess I didn't have that other phenomenon in there,

[68:32]

that experience, you know, in some sense, if one is experiencing emptiness in the form, to me it's just that there's a division, a line, if you realize that the line is an illusion, or you are an illusion, then that can break down your... your making that form. Maybe what you're calling the imputation. Stop the imputation? It doesn't stop the imputation, it stops you from believing that the imputation is what the thing is, rather than the imputation is part of what's necessary for the thing to exist. So, we usually misconstrue what's happening as the way we grasp it, because we must grasp it mentally

[69:33]

in order for it to exist. So, everything we experience has to have this grasping, including if we're going to experience emptiness. So, it isn't that the imputation stops, it's that we understand that the thing that we're grasping through our imputational process has no existence beyond the imputation, independent of the imputation. And that doesn't exactly break things down, it just liberates us from the suffering which arises with everything, because we misapprehend things. We take dependent co-arisings as our imputation, but they're not our imputation.

[70:34]

However, the imputation is part of the way dependent co-arising comes into existence. So, that's there. Things do exist, and based on their existence, independence on this imputation, we're ready to hear the teaching that they don't exist, independent of that imputation. And if we can then experience that with mental imputation, that cures us of believing in something which I haven't mentioned lately, and that is that we do think that things exist independent of imputation. We do. That's the problem, is that we think that they do exist independent of our imputation. We think if you took away the imputation,

[71:37]

the thing would still be there. You take away the imputation on yourself, you think you'd still be there. And that's how we suffer. Because we think things can exist independent of the very things they depend on for their existence. Including we think emptiness can exist. We think emptiness can exist that way. We think emptiness can exist independent of mental imputation too. We think that too. But it can't either. Emptiness only exists as a mental imputation also. However, it is a medicinal, a very medicinal, very powerful and helpful mental imputation. Very powerful, helpful, thought construction. When you can actually see it, like you can see a cow. You know? Just like a cow,

[72:37]

when you see a cow, it can convince you, you know, that the lack of cow is just like not there. So when you see emptiness, it can convince you that things existing independent of mental imputation is like not so. Because it isn't so. Things do not exist apart from your mind. They don't. And we think they do. Even advanced sense students think that if they go out of the room and they're not imputing the existence to things, the thing is still sitting there without their mental imputation. But ultimately they do, right? Didn't you say that they do that ultimately? What? You said earlier on, ultimately they do exist without our imputation. I said ultimately they do exist without your imputation? You said that? I might have, but that's wrong. Things do not ultimately exist, period. And they do not ultimately exist

[73:40]

without our imputation. They ultimately do not exist without our imputation. Things do not exist without our imputation. They don't. They do exist with our imputation, though. But that's not to say that there's nothing there. The third characteristic of phenomena is suchness or suchness. It's not quite the same as to say there's nothing there. It's just to say that things that do exist, things that do exist dependently do not exist at all in another way called independently of the way they do exist dependently. They don't exist at all in this other way.

[74:41]

Things do not exist at all in this strange way called not other dependent. They do not at all exist that way. But that's not the same as saying they don't exist because we just said they do exist. We're talking about things that do exist in this, you can say, wonderful, but you also can say kind of lame way. It depends, you know. From the point of view of inherent existence, then the way things are actually being told, from the point of view of, like, self-existence, from the point of view of the great empire of self-existence, from the adamantine, gold-plated Cadillac of self-existence, then the way things actually exist is kind of wimpy because they exist all dependent. I mean all dependent. Not all. They don't exist at all. They don't exist at all without dependence.

[75:42]

However, with dependence, they do exist. So those things which do exist are dependent things and dependent things do not exist at all without the way they do exist. But that's not to say they don't exist at all because we just said they do exist in this kind of wimpy, dependent way. But it's not co-dependent. It's interdependent. It's just other-dependent and it's not self-dependent. Self-dependent is like really bossy, right? This bossy way, from the point of view of the bossy way, the way the Buddha says things exist is not so bossy. It's more, you know, like, thank you very much way. Things do not exist in a way that's independent of the way they do exist. See, this is subtle. This is what you need to go over and think about until you start thinking this way rather than the other way, which is that things do exist in a bossy way. We think that's a strange thing.

[76:43]

We think that things exist in this big, bossy, hey, I make myself way. And even if I stop thinking about me and you stop thinking about me, I'll still be here. That's what we think. We don't know. We don't know. But we think that anyway. So we have to train ourselves with this teaching, with this mantra of this teaching until we start to, actually, start to, like, more and more see this new way, which is still, when we start to see it, we see it because of mental imputation. So it also doesn't exist except dependently. And I know you're just warming up, but, you know, some people want to go to bed. Can you believe that? Yeah. Is this considered mind-only school?

[77:46]

Is teaching considered... Is this mind-only school? No. It's not mind-only school. However... Huh? So what would it be considered? What it's considered? It's considered, if you excuse the expression, Buddha's teaching. Okay. Buddha's teaching is not one of the schools of Buddhism. The schools of Buddhism are different ways that people have interpreted Buddha's teaching for, you know, for certain purposes. So the mind-only school definitely looks at these sutras and honors these sutras. And they may try to, what do you call it, co-opt these sutras. There are some other sutras they look at that they might want to co-opt too. There are some that may be their favorites, but none of the Buddha's sutras are of a school. Okay. Except for, you know, the main school, the Buddhist school. Now, some people who are...

[78:51]

some of the scholastics have written treatises, but those treatises, you know, are not the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha's teaching. And they don't say that they are. They say this is a certain word representing a certain take on the Buddha's teaching. And that's helpful sometimes to do that. Because then it's specially suited for certain people. But the Buddha teaches everybody at once. Buddha's teaching everybody at once. Buddha's teaching like the beginners, intermediate, advanced, and post-graduate. All at once. So you can get all the teachings out of the Buddha's teaching. So this Heart Sutra can be interpreted by many different schools. Simultaneously. And some may choose to pass on it. We'd rather not even look at it, some may say. That may be the way they relate to it. Okay.

[79:54]

Let me show this to you.

[79:57]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ