not arising, not passing away, not eternal, not terminable, not one, not many. I pay homage to the Buddha, the foremost among teachers who has taught dependent co-arising in order to graciously uproot all fabrication. In this context of dependent co-arising, There is no arising or passing away, no eternal, no terminable, not one, not many. And uproot all fabrication, you could also say uproot all obsessions, uproot all dispositions, attachments, and so on. Before I forget, I wanted to tell you that in chapter 24... You have chapter 24?

[01:08]

Can I see your chapter 24? When you're reading chapter 24, in case it wasn't clear to you, Starting at the beginning, it says, if all is empty, then there exists no uprising or ceasing, and so on. And then for the first six karakas, the first six verses, this is the criticism of some imaginary critic of Nagarjuna's teaching. that he's been giving the first 23 chapters. So when you're reading, you're hearing what some people, what a person would, some people would think.

[02:14]

Hearing the teaching of emptiness and not understanding it properly, then they've been saying in the first six karakas what they think things would be like if things were emptied. But then Nagarjuna rejoins by saying, we say that you do not comprehend the purpose of emptiness. As such, you are tormented by emptiness and the meaning of emptiness. So they're tormented by their understanding of emptiness, which is not what Nagarjuna meant. Given what they understand emptiness to be, which is incorrect, these troubling consequences, these tormenting consequences of the first six karakas would follow. Pardon? They aren't passed out? Well, yeah, one's passed out. But then Nagarjuna responds to the arguments.

[03:21]

Also at the end of chapter 24, it says, whoever perceives dependent co-arising also perceives suffering. it's arising, it's ceasing, and the path to it's ceasing, the path to enlightenment. And as I've said a number of times, to see pen and core arising is to see dharma. To see what has dependently co-arisen is to see dharma. To see what has dependently co-arisen as dependently co-arisen is to see dharma. Another basic teaching in here, in Chapter 24,

[04:31]

uh... is uh... The basic thing in Buddhist teaching is that there's four noble truths. So the criticism of emptiness is that if everything was empty, then there wouldn't be four noble truths. And four noble truths are what? What are they? First truth? Second one? Cause or origination. Third one?

[05:50]

What? Cessation. And the fourth? Yeah, the path of freedom from suffering. Those are the four truths. So the argument in 24 is, if all things are empty, then there won't be these four truths. Yeah, but they would understand them as non-existent, right? So Nagarjuna is not saying that the four truths or anything else is non-existent. He's saying that ultimately things don't exist, or things have no inherent existence. Even the four noble truths don't have inherent existence. So then the critic then thinks, says, well then they don't exist at all. Which would be nihilism. but that's not what he means. So Nagarjuna is often misunderstood as being a nihilist, or people project nihilism onto his teaching, so then there wouldn't be the four truths. But Nagarjuna comes back and points out and explains how it is that if things weren't empty, there wouldn't be four noble truths.

[06:54]

Of course, if things were non-existent, they wouldn't be empty. And if they were non-existent, there would be four noble truths. There would not be four noble truths. But if they inherently existed, if things inherently existed, really existed, really, there would not be Four Noble Truths. And he explains that. So when you read it, in class we maybe, hopefully we'll get into it, but you'll read his explanation about why it is, how it is, that if things... had inherent existence, if things really existed, there would not be possibility to study the Four Noble Truths. There wouldn't be them. There would be no way to suffer. There would be no way for suffering to be caused, because there would be no way for suffering to end, and there would be no way to practice if things inherently existed. If things didn't exist, also there would be no suffering, there would be no way to practice, and there would be no end of suffering or beginning of suffering, if they didn't exist at all.

[08:03]

But in fact, if you understand dependent co-arising, you realize that suffering does appear, it does have a cause, it dependently co-arises, it has an end, which is understanding dependent co-arising, and there is a path to understanding dependent co-arising, emptiness and suffering And in terms of the Four Noble Truths, there's a recognition of the first truth, there's a relinquishment or abandonment of the cause, there is the realization of the cessation, and there is the cultivation of the path. So you'll hear him talking about understanding or recognition, relinquishment, realization, and cultivation. So those are the four ways we relate to these four truths. To accept or recognize the first, abandon the second, realize the third, and cultivate the fourth. Again, it would not be possible to recognize, abandon, realize, or cultivate if things weren't in fact lacking in inherent existence.

[09:16]

So that's his argument in short. You just understand that those first six verses are criticisms of Nagarjuna. And I don't know why he didn't put in better criticisms to his position, but he didn't. However, better ones did appear in centuries afterwards, but they weren't good enough to overthrow him. So he still stands undefeated after about 2,000 years. Yes? Yes? Would you say, Buddha had said, because of this, that happens. Because of that, this happens. No, he didn't say that. He did not say that. He said that, though. That's pretty good. Did you hear him say it? You thought you heard him say it. No, no, Buddha said, depending on this, this arises. Independence on this. Independence upon this. Independence is different from because of. See the difference?

[10:18]

That's a big difference. That's a big difference. Okay? So Buddha did say, depending on that, this arises. Okay? Then, would you say then, that because of our suffering, because of our misunderstanding, because of our misunderstanding we suffer, because of our suffering... Then... I thought you said, independent of... Pardon? Depending on... Depending on suffering, yes. I thought you just said, you can't say because of... No, I can't, but I did. Sorry. Thanks for catching me. Thank you very much. You're going to get bonus for that one. I don't... In pure land, you're going to have a nice seat. Yes? I'll get back to you.

[11:22]

All right. Martin? In chapter 24, verse 12, or chapter 24, we've been chanting, having reflected upon difficulty. I'm not sure what that word actually means. I think it should be having reflected upon difficulty. Well, we have to consult with Charlie. Charlie, should it be reflected? I'm sorry. It should be reflected. All right. If you can, in a tidy fashion, correct your book, we would appreciate it. Thank you, Martin. All right? So tonight... Oh, Walter. That the Four Noble Truths, the Four Noble Truths and the fact that we suffer come up together? Do the... Well, now they... Not necessarily.

[12:29]

I think people can suffer... The Four Noble Truths are not a condition for suffering because it isn't the case that... that you have to have the Four Noble Truths around in order to suffer. Some people don't have the Four Noble Truths around, they suffer very nicely without them. No, what I mean is, does that come into existence because we are dependent, because the dependent co-arise? Does what come into existence? Do the Four Noble Truths come into existence because... Did the Four Noble Truths dependently co-arise themselves? Is that what you're asking? Yes. The Four Noble Truths dependently arose... We wouldn't need them if... We weren't suffering. If we weren't suffering. Right. So the fact that we suffer, the Four Noble Truths and the suffering come together. They come into existence. They are created. It is created. I think the Four Noble Truths actually arose in dependence on enlightenment.

[13:32]

And enlightenment arose in dependence on suffering. When the Four Noble Truths arose, in the person they arose in, suffering had ceased. So in the actual historical arising of the Four Noble Truths was that it arose in dependence on awakening. Okay. But awakening arises in dependence on suffering because awakening is about suffering the buddha's awakening there's many kinds of awakening but the buddha awakening buddhist awakening is awakening about suffering in its cause and therefore liberation from suffering right but you know i'm You said before that the Four Noble Truths would not come up if there was no suffering.

[14:38]

That's true. The Buddha wouldn't have mentioned it if there wasn't suffering. But anyway, for him at that time there was no suffering. His knowledge of suffering in all beings gave rise to him to independence on his knowledge He gave these teachings. Sue. I don't know if you want to get into this now, but I just would like to know who you and us are in Chapter 24. You as the critics. Oh, I see. And us are the practitioners of the middle way. Us are the people who value the teaching of emptiness and don't make it into, you know, a non-existence.

[15:39]

Of course we don't make it into existence. Us are the followers of Buddha who recognize two truths, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. Conventional truth is things do exist and not exist. That there's existence and non-existence, that's conventional truth. Ultimate truth is that there isn't any inherent existing things, period. However, there is conventional existence. Ultimate truth recognizes conventional truth, but it recognizes conventional truth as conventional truth and nothing more. Conventional truth is to attribute reality or truth to the existence of things. Okay, so tonight I'd like to actually work on the first verse of the first chapter. Which is... What do you say there?

[16:49]

No existence whatsoever are evident anywhere... that are arisen from themselves, from another, from both, self and other, or from a non-cause. There's no evidence for anything that arises from itself, from another, from both, or from a non-cause. Okay, that's the first verse. And So when I first read that verse, I just had a strong hit that that was a beautiful description of upright sitting. Beautiful description of Zazen. So when you're sitting or standing or walking, whatever you're doing,

[17:54]

When, let's say, when you're sitting, and you have the kind of sitting that, for which, you know, there's no evidence, you have the kind of sitting where there's no evidence for anything existing, which arises from itself. So, for example, you're sitting, your body's sitting, maybe, you have this body sitting, this mind sitting, and there's no evidence that this body was caused by this body. You don't think like, well, this body caused this body. I should say you don't think that, but you may think that, but there's no evidence for that kind of thinking. And also, this body is not caused by something else. There's not some other thing that makes this body happen.

[18:56]

And this body doesn't come from itself and something else. And also, it's not like it has no cause. I mean, it's not like it is caused by not a cause. When it says, not from another, does that mean a single other? Or all-inclusive others? You could make it all-inclusive others or a single other, but if you make it all-inclusive others, then what about the all-inclusive other do you think makes it happen? I don't know if I'm answering your question, but we have a body that is evident to us while we're sitting, and it has some cause.

[20:02]

So he says, listen, we have a body and it has some cause, all right? Nagarjuna says, no. We have a body, there is evidence for a body, but there's no evidence for a body which exists, which has a cause. That's what he's saying. So it's the word evidence that's really key. Evidence is key, and cause is key. You see, it might be, who knows, it might be that there is a body that is caused. See, Nagarjuna's not getting, what do you call it, metaphysical about this, and saying, I'm telling you what's really happening. He's just saying there's no evidence for a body or a mind or anything that is caused. Okay? Now, before we go further, I will define some words. I will define the word cause.

[21:02]

Cause is that which produces an effect. a thing responsible for an action or a result. Second meaning, the basis for an action or a decision. That's a clause out of a dictionary, and I think it works just fine for this discussion here. So the way that these words are being translated from Sanskrit is such that we're deciding to translate those things which there aren't any of as cause, and that's nice to go through the English word. Causation is the act or process of causing. That's number one. Number two, causation is a cause.

[22:07]

Number three is causation is the relationship between cause and effect. Now here's the word condition. But condition, there's many, many, many meanings of the word condition, like state of health or sickness. These are the meanings of condition. But the ones that are relevant for our discussion, I think, are, first of all, the etymology is very nice. Condition comes from condisere, which means to agree. And it comes from com, com, plus lisere, to talk. Com means, has a meaning of coming together or agreeing, talking together or agreeing, condition. All right? Now, as you see in the second karaka, the second verse, Nagarjuna says there are four conditions.

[23:14]

He does not deny conditions. But conditions are not causes. Conditions do not have the power to make something happen. Conditions do not have the efficacy or the power to cause an effect. What's a condition? It is something having to do with a conversation. Something about agreement. And the relevant meanings are a mode or state of being. And number five is, fifth definition in this dictionary I looked in is, one that is indispensable to the appearance or occurrence of another. A prerequisite. Is it like suchness? Pardon? Is it like a suchness or something? Is the condition a suchness? Yeah. No. The condition is something that when you have that, you have the other. Those are the things we say are conditions. Depending on that thing, we have this thing.

[24:16]

That's a condition. Well... If it rains on dirt, you get mud. Well, it isn't necessarily... No. See, that's more like a cause. If it rains on dirt, then you get mud. In other words, rain causes mud. That's different from saying when you have... Mud arises in dependence on dirt and water. But we don't say, when you have water, you have mud. It's not true, is it? You have to have water and earth to cause mud, and a few other things too. But we'll just make the story short, the story short, the talk short, the agreement short. If you want to make it longer, we can have a convention and decide we want to make the list a little longer. For example, we say you have to have water, dirt, and they have to be together. And you could go on making the list longer, making your story longer, until we agree on the story of what mud arises independence upon.

[25:26]

But the cause would be, see how nicely she did that? The cause would be water causes mud. or even water and dirt causing mud. That leads back to John's question. How about a whole bunch of different things? So are each one a cause? If yes, then you don't have to have a whole bunch of things. But if yes, then one should be sufficient. If no, then where is the causal power? Is a little bit of it in each one? So each one has a small amount of causal power, and you add up a lot of causal powers. If you think about it, it gets incoherent quickly. It does not get incoherent, however, to tell the story of what is there usually, or conveniently speaking, for something to happen. That's more like talking in terms of conditions. This kind of talk Nagarjuna allowed as coherent and as related to the pentacle arising.

[26:28]

Causation, however, in terms of causes that have within them the power the actual efficacy to cause and effect, this he rejects as incoherent and also as tied in with thinking and believing that things have a central existence. Because causation is not like something indefinite causes something indefinite. We're talking about some thing caused by some thing. Or a whole bunch of things, but if a whole bunch of things cause it, does each thing have the essence of this thing in it? And if each thing has the essence in it, then in terms of causes, they're all the same. How could it be independent? Well, that's the beginning of it. How could it be independent if they have the essence of it in it? And so on. It gets incoherent. But anyway, making a whole bunch of them doesn't work any better than having one. You could say, well, doesn't something arise caused by everything?

[27:36]

But then why call it causes rather than conditions? So the set of circumstances that create mud are the conditions, or... The set of conditions... What do you term them? Yeah, the set of conditions upon which mud depends are the conditions. Water, dirt, and so forth. Yes, and I'll just tell you right away that the set of conditions that determine the existence of mud, or the appearance of mud, are a set of conditions which human beings... have decided, they've had conventions over the years, human beings had conventions and decided in different cultures what the things that mud depended upon were. And that is what's called the conventional existence of mud. Mud has no other existence other than conventional existence. However,

[28:40]

the Buddhist teaching is that mud does have conventional existence, and there's several different conventional existences that can occur in different conventional systems. But I was trying to give you a feeling for how this karaka is about zazen, and I sort of changed the topic. I mean, the topic got changed. Did you notice? Did you understand before we started shifting off what I was trying to point to? About Zazen being something that's not caused by another, not caused by itself, not caused by both itself and others, and not something which is caused by something that's not a cause. Yes?

[29:43]

But is it okay to say there are conditions? It's dependent upon conditions? It's definitely okay to say that. It's not caused by things, but it's dependent upon conditions? It's dependent upon conditions, yes. Yes? I just want to add that Garfield points out in his commentary that the word cause in Nagarjuna is used to mean an inherently existing cause. cause those conditions don't have that location in it, Roger, unless you're good at it? Well, um, I would say it a little differently. Rather than a cause is meant... Nagarjuna speaks of causes that don't exist as inherently existing causes. He says inherently existing causes don't exist. Or there's no such thing as a cause which has inherent existence. Okay? That's true, but he's not so much emphasizing that.

[30:46]

That's more like an implication. The thing he's emphasizing is there aren't things which have the power... to create something. Okay? Now it turns out that if you have something that had the power to create something, then it would be the power to create something which was something that had inherent existence, and that would lead you back to connect something that was inherently existing being caused by something that was inherently existing. So it's true, but the first point he's making is that there's no things which have within them the efficacy to cause a result. And also, adding all of them up still doesn't have the efficacy to cause a result. Yes? Okay, so mud, fire, you, me, the table, have conditional existences. Yes. But there is no cause for any of those. There's no cause, no. But there are conditions for all of them. And the conditions are what we say...

[31:50]

the conditions are. Yes? Somebody was talking about God the other day. But it was something to do with time. You don't want me to do the Zazen thing, huh, Walter? The birth of a star... Yes, the birth of a star... ...is dependent on conditions. Gas, heat, pressure. This is not a cause. There is no cause and there is only a condition. Is that correct?

[32:54]

There are only conditions? Yes, that's right. I mean, that's what Nagarjuna is teaching. That's what the Buddha is teaching. There's only conditions. According to that, there's no inherent power in any one. They just come together and boom, you have... over a period of time, you have a star? Well, you could say that story if you want, over a period of time, but if it's over a period of time, then when does a star happen? I would think we'd talk about when the star was actually arisen, rather than when we were getting ready for the star to happen. When we see it, it's maybe 60 billion years old. I mean, yeah, at the moment that there's a condition that comes together, at that moment is the birth of the star, but it may take a long time to appear, to come into fruition.

[34:00]

Is that correct? I don't know if it's correct, because I don't know what you mean by correct. Is that your understanding? Well, it's not exactly not my understanding because I just, I don't quite understand what you're saying yet. So, but before we get to, see, there's something about the way you're talking, you're talking as though there is something called a star out there. Okay, and what this teaching is saying is that there's not something out someplace that's a star. There's not like an inherently existing star. Okay. But there's something about the way you're talking, which I feel like you're talking about, well, there's a star out there, and then... I feel like already you just said there's a star out there. Already you said there's something out there which is a star. No, I didn't mean that at all. I mean in the same sense as mud.

[35:01]

There is no mud out there. Well, what do you mean when you say star? Conditions that come together and interact... And a star is born. You're still talking like there's conditions out there. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Well, just let me say, what makes sense to me is when you're sitting there, you're saying a star, and what I feel like what you're talking about is you're talking about, now you're talking about, but what you're doing is you're saying the word star. That's what I can relate to. Well, isn't it the same as saying the word mud? It's very similar, yes. But somehow, the star seemed to be somehow... I felt like we're getting farther and farther away from the word.

[36:06]

Yeah. But stars fine too, as long as you remember that star is a word. See, in this class, fundamentally, stars and people are words. Okay? People. Stars, mud. Okay? That's what we're talking about. We're talking about words. Now, Nagarjuna is saying, that there's no evidence for anything but words. We have no evidence for anything else. And the words are what we, you know, we have these language conventions and we decide on these words and then we use these words according to certain conventions, according to certain human needs and human purposes. So we've agreed, you know, under certain circumstances to use the word star. When we get in certain situations in life, we call it star. And other people say, OK. And when we're little kids, we sometimes say star, and you say, no, that's not a star, Johnny, that's mud.

[37:13]

Sorry. Well, we do traffic in words. We do traffic in words. Definitely, we do traffic in words. And so what we're talking about here is that all there is, is words. in terms of what we have evidence for, in terms of creating things. It's not to say that there's nothing but words, but we can't have any things without words. Before there's words, the world isn't a bunch of things. Now, if I tell you what the world is, then I'm making that into a bunch of more words, okay? But we have, for practical purposes, rendered whatever's happening, which no one really knows, because it's not a thing that's happening. It's, you know, blah, blah, blah. It's, you know, just before blah, blah, blah, whatever it is. But I'm not saying there isn't anything out there, I'm just saying that all the things that we have are things that we talk up.

[38:16]

Yes? What if you see something, though, and you don't have a word for it, It's still, you're still seeing. You can't see any things without words. Maybe you can see without words. Like a baby, sit back and see. But they're not seeing things. They aren't saying, this thing and that thing, and I can tell this thing stops and that thing starts because, well, this thing is different from that thing because I have a way to end that thing and start this thing. They don't do that until they get words. When you get words, the light stops there and then Soren starts. And there's a space in between. Light, space, Soren. That's how we have these things. The light thing, the space thing, and the Soren thing. Oh, and there's... the Judith thing.

[39:18]

Now, when there's things, but that doesn't mean everything that's happening is things. Now, I can say not everything that's happening is things, but then I just said that. What it is, whatever it is, whatever we say about it is really not cutting it. However, what we do say does cut it in the realm of things. Matter of fact, not only does it cut it, it makes it because things arise conditioned by or dependent on words. And we have conventions about how that happens, and we're built to use these conventions, and even if, as you know, little kids at a certain age, even if nobody's around to talk to them, they start to manifest their ability to make up these conventions, but without help, it can't be conventional. Conventional means we have a convention. We agree on it. There's a conversation to create agreement.

[40:20]

So it isn't just made up on your own. And that's what makes conventional reality useful, is that we agree on it. We have a talk about it. So it's quite useful. Now we say, it's time to have class. Now class is over. This is the end of the class. So we can get out of here. Okay? And we can get in here. Because we make these agreements. But we go too far. We get confused and forget the source of these words was the convention. Just like the case we're studying in the psilocon class. These guys looked up at the stars and saw these curved shapes in the constellations. They looked down at the ground and they saw these bird tracks and markings on the turtles. And they use those shapes to make the Chinese characters. And then they use those Chinese characters to talk about what's happening. And sure enough then, that was happening. In the creative process, maybe you know you're just making it up and you, at first anyway, you're not, you don't confuse these little marks with something out there.

[41:26]

But in fact, when you extract this shape out of the sky, and then say, this shape's different from the rest of the sky, you've made a word. But, you know, somebody else could come out and look at the sky from another planet, and that shape would look different. They would draw a different thing out of the sky. So all these different perspectives are equally... experience. It's just that how do, then we get together and we hash it out, you know, about what it's going to mean. And then we use these things and they're practical. And then a conventional reality appears, which we use and has practical use and it has a reality which dependently co-arrows out of this convention that we have. Yes? But it's not just quite useful. It's indispensable. Well, no, it's not indispensable. It's indispensable for the conventional life we live. Well, we live a conventional life, therefore it's indispensable.

[42:31]

We don't live in a... But some of us don't live a conventional life. Well, in that case, does that mean that words then are arising from themselves? Does it mean that? You took a big leap there. I was just thinking... I was just thinking recently... Babies don't do this. And they live very nicely. It's not indispensable for them to live and have this. It's not indispensable. And if they never learn this stuff, they just have a certain kind of an adjustment in the living system. They do not play the conventional games with us and they don't learn this language. But it's not indispensable. They learn language, not this language necessarily. They automatically learn language, not this language, but language. language appears, even words appear, even for themselves. Right, but they're not conventional words. They're just words. Yeah, they're words, but the thing is, without convention, it becomes, it doesn't lead to them being able to talk to us, but they do exist, they can live, and you can say it's indispensable, but it's indispensable, language is indispensable for a certain kind of life.

[43:39]

which most of us want, and it's useful to do it. As a matter of fact, once you learn the conventional existence, I would say more that conventional language is indispensable for enlightenment, but not for existence. Because all kinds of living beings don't have language and don't make things out of the world, And they can't practice Buddha way. They can't get enlightened. You can only get enlightened if you can speak a language with other people. But again, you don't need to get enlightened unless you speak anyway, because if you don't speak, you're not so deluded and miserable. Number 32 of Chapter 24 suggests that whosoever is by self-nature unenlightened even though he were to contend with enlightenment, would not attain enlightenment. Chapter 24 says that whosoever is by stout nature unenlightened, even though he, thus it says, he and not she, even though he were to contend with enlightenment, would not attain enlightenment through a career of a bodhisattva.

[44:54]

That's right. If he had inherent nature of being unenlightened, he wouldn't be able to get enlightened. So are all human beings, are human beings divided into those with inherent self-nature, unenlightened and inherent self-nature? No, they're not divided that way. No human beings have inherent anything. But if they did have inherent anything, if they had inherent enlightenment, they wouldn't be able to attain it. Because you couldn't attain something that was inherent to you. So by saying whosoever is by self-nature unenlightened... If there were such... Right. But there isn't such a person. There isn't such a person. So he's inventing... He's inventing... He's saying, these people, some people think there's inherent this and inherent that, okay? If there were inherently enlightened people, they couldn't attain enlightenment. If there were inherently unenlightened people, they couldn't attain enlightenment. But if there's dependently co-arisen unenlightened people, if there's people who are unenlightened depending on conditions, they can be enlightened.

[46:00]

And that's the way people are. Their unenlightenment, their delusion and confusion dependently co-arises and therefore it's not inherent, it's not permanent, it's not a permanent condition. We can wake up and practice is something we can do because practice also, if it was inherently existed, it couldn't be practiced. You couldn't practice something that inherently existed. It would just be fixed forever as such. Now be it. You don't want to do the zazen thing, huh? This verse is a wonderful instruction about how to practice zazen. If you think about how it would be if your experience, your physical and mental experience, were something that depended on conditions but was not caused by something. I propose to you that most people, most Buddhist practitioners, think in terms of their meditation practice as something that they do, that they cause or that something causes to happen.

[47:07]

Or they think of the body that they use to practice meditation as something that's caused. Or the mind that they're experiencing is something that's caused. That way of doing meditation then leads to you wanting to cause your mind to be this way or cause your mind to be that way. Or to think that your mind was caused to be this by that cause, that your mind is an effect of that cause. This kind of thinking is the normal kind of thinking that people do. And this first verse is pointing to the actual meditation practice of the Buddha, which is something which you do not do, is not done to you. And it's not something you do to yourself. It's something that's dependent on whatever you want to say, actually. Because when you're talking about dependence, then you don't have to have unique causal power between things. Then you can be dependent on as much as you want to be dependent upon. You can be dependent upon everything. You can't be caused by everything. But you can be dependent on everything.

[48:09]

And in fact... You can shorten the list to a much shorter list. That's fine. It doesn't have to be any particular length. It doesn't have to be exhaustive. You can just take a subset because you can never experience all the conditions. But you don't have to exactly experience the conditions. All you've got to do is work with what's happening and see it as something which is not falling into a causal thing in terms of affective cause. And I think if you think about this, and we talk about this now, you will see that that is a different way from the way you often do think about it, and certainly different from the way some other people think about it. Now, how does this relate, if it does, to cause and effect? How does what relate to cause and effect? Dependence on conditions that you just described.

[49:14]

How does he know conditions? The way I was talking about it, the way I'm starting to talk about it, I've just scratched the surface, but the way I'm leading up to and have been talking about it, it rejects causation in the sense of cause and effect. That kind of cause and effect is rejected. Karma is usually described as cause and effect. You see it in books, you see karma is cause and effect. Karma is cause and effect. So this is beyond... So how is it that you're not rejecting karma? You reject karma as something which is actually like inherent things causing inherent things. But if you think that an inherent su does inherent actions which cause inherent results, then that's karma. So Nagarjuna says that whole process of karma lacks inherent existence and therefore karma is emptied and you're liberated from karma by this understanding. But to say karma doesn't exist would be denying the first of the two truths.

[50:22]

Karma does conventionally exist and how does it exist? It exists by verbal designation. Su did this to her. And that had that result. That's how karma exists. It has conventional existence and no more. However, conventional existence is, I am now in prison and there's a star in the room with me. I am now being beaten by the police. I am now being harassed by this person. I am now harassing this person. And now this happens and that happens. That's the way karma works. It works by this way of talking to ourselves. That's cause and effect. But we have to use that way of talking to ourselves, don't we? Well, not have to, you do. You do. You don't have to, though. You do. You don't have to. You could take a break if you could take a break. You wouldn't have to start in the first place. But anyway, that's what we're doing. That's called karma.

[51:23]

You have to acknowledge karma and you have to be very careful of your karma because if you're not careful of your karma, because the explosive and power of karma is that karma is verbal. it is conceptual. Therefore, a tiny little piece of bad karma can be expanded infinitely through the imagination. You see, karma has the power of language to blow, to blow up into huge proportions. And therefore, if you do a small harmful thing, it can become extremely detrimental to yourself and others. by the power of speech and language and imagination, which can infinitely blow up anything. Vice versa, doing something good also can blow up infinitely and become incredibly, inconceivably wonderful. That's the way karma works, because that's the way language works. So we have to honor the process and be very careful of it, but remember what we're working with.

[52:29]

We're working with words. which we conventionally agree upon. And if you don't use words that you're conventionally agreeing upon, then that's a different kind of karma that you're doing, called, I'm not going to play the game with the other people. And that will have a certain kind of an effect. You don't want to talk about zazen. I offered it. Now, can you give me this back to zazen? I'm trying to. I'm saying, I'm asking you to look at your zazen practice. Yes, Susan? Maya? Sanh? She's conventionally mad. So you say we can't do zazen and that our zazen is dependent on everything, but isn't that also the case for everything else that we think that we do? No, no, no. You can play baseball. That's what baseball is. It's something you can do. I don't know if you can, but some people can. I'm not telling you you can't, but you can cook. You can talk.

[53:30]

You can sing. You can dance. You can scream. You can do good karma and bad karma. That you can do. As a matter of fact, karma can only be done. Karma can't be, you know, not done. That's what karma is. So you can do all those karmic acts. Zazen is not a karmic act. Zazen is unconstructed. It's unfabricated. But we do, in the conventional world, conventionally speaking, not really, not ultimately, not inherently, but conventionally speaking, in our little convention we have here, Susan says, I'm going to go out of the room now. I say, okay, see you later. And she starts heading for the door, and I say, yep, that's what we mean by going out of the room. She's doing it. And she says, I'm going out of the room, and she stays in her seat, and I say, now that's not conventional, Susan. Okay. And she says, well, yeah, well, no, no. And she says, it is conventional. We have an argument. I say, this person thinks that that's conventional use. Hey, come on now, is that conventional?

[54:31]

No, no. And you struggle back and forth. And maybe we change the convention so you say, I'm leaving the room and you stay there. But no, probably not. There's a convention about what that means. And either you say, well, I changed my mind or something, but you walk out. Okay, that's conventional world. You can do that. That doesn't inherently exist. That's just something we talked up. We could have made an entirely different story about what those words meant, and then that would be conventional world. And then we would go according to that, and if we didn't, there are rules, conventional rules, and language, language about what you do if somebody doesn't play the game a certain way. It's all worked out. That you can do. That's the realm of where you can do things. That's conventional truth, okay? Zazen is not doing those things. What's the causation there? Causation in what realm? Of playing baseball. What is it? It is thinking, it is, in that realm, it is thinking in terms of, you know, conventionally speaking, it is thinking in terms which are incoherent.

[55:33]

It is conventional to think in incoherent ways, nonsensical, uncommon sense ways. That is conventional, that's the usual way we think. The usual way we think is incoherent, and it is in terms of inherently existing things. But if Nagarjuna has shown, in this chapter which you are reading, he has shown how incoherent it is to be doing, for inherently existing beings to do things, to operate upon inherently existing things. It is incoherent. That's how people, and that's how karma is a result of incoherence. of delusion. Karma is based on delusion. Karma is not based on enlightenment. Enlightenment is what podependently arises out of understanding the delusion, which is the base of karma. But to pretend that you're not practicing karma when you're practicing karma, when you think in those terms, to pretend that you weren't, is nihilism.

[56:39]

and is probably worse than the realism of the karmic world. Nihilism is another kind of karma, which is saying karma doesn't exist. But Nagarjuna and Buddha did not say karma don't exist, we say karma has only conventional existence. And we must honor the first truth. As it says, Charaka, chapter 4, Charaka 10, only by basing yourself and becoming thoroughly fluent with the conventional truth, with the ordinary ways of the world, can you be taught the ultimate truth. So, if you're saying to me, don't we have to honor karma? Don't we have to practice karma? Yes, you do have to. Okay, you do have to. You should become proficient and careful with your karmic activity. It turns out that you have to be more careful and attentive to be careful and attentive than you do to be sloppy and unskillful. So that's why we recommend being skillful to pay careful attention to how you're acting on your delusion.

[57:44]

Watch how you act deludedly. Watch carefully. That's what you should do. Based on that, you can receive the teaching about how all this stuff is just conventionally existing and then That teaching can liberate you from the whole thing, but you can't receive that teaching and put it in effect if you don't master the conventional world of karma. And the way to master it is to practice good karma, because you can be very sloppy and inattentive and practice bad karma. but you have to be attentive and alert and mindful and careful to practice good karma, which brings you back to yourself and back to the world of the first of the two truths. And based on that experience, you can receive the teaching that this truth doesn't ultimately exist, it is only conventional, and then you can receive, by receiving that truth, you can attain liberation from karma. You've been having your hand in it for quite a while.

[58:49]

Go right ahead. So, would you say that the condition for enlightenment is unconstructedness? Would you say it like that? The condition for enlightenment is unconstructedness? Yes. Enlightenment dependently co-arises with the realization of unconstructedness. Yes. Could you say that again? Enlightenment dependently co-arises with the realization of birthlessness. Enlightenment dependently co-arises with the realization that conventional reality is just conventional reality. In other words, what's conventional reality? Got a body? That's conventional reality. What's the shape of your body? Well, it's something like around here, right? It's like, you know, like, I'm not real fat, right? That's the conventional shape of my body, isn't it? We had a convention here tonight. Is that the findings of the convention? I'm not real fat? That's my body.

[59:51]

So I have sort of a sense of my body. You have sort of a sense of my body. We work it out. That's my body. That's my conventionally existing body. Now, when I understand that this is just a conventionally existing body, that's called settling my body on my body. That's not saying this body was caused by this body. That's not saying this body was caused by something else. That's just saying this thing appeared depending on conditions called conventional discussions, and now I got this body, depending on those conditions. It wasn't like caused by something, like another body that really exists. It's not going to cause another body that really exists. It's just this thing that was conventionally conjured up. And it's nothing more than that. That's called settling the body on the body. I have mental experiences which I can discuss with you and tell you about them and I can say what they are and you can agree with me or not. Finally we work out the conventional existence of my thoughts. I let the conventional existence of my thoughts settle on the conventional existence of my thoughts and I don't make any more of them or any less of them.

[60:54]

And I realize that's to the extent that they exist. Then I settle my mind on my mind. my breath the same. In other words, I settle myself on myself. Settling myself on myself is not doing anything. It's just not doing more than what's happening. It's just taking conventional reality and letting it go at that. It's not making anything. It's unconstructed. It's unborn. It dependently co-arises. It is created by dependent co-arising. It's not created by a cause. Realizing that, is a prerequisite, is a condition for awakening. It is realizing this birthlessness, or this uncreated, the uncreatedness, realizing the uncreatedness of your body and mind is the door to creation. So how do you settle on, say, if a fear comes up for you, how do you settle on that? How do you settle on it? I let the fear be fear.

[61:58]

What is fear? It is a word. What is the conventional conditions for the word fear? Well, we have this convention, we have classes now to learn to say what fear is so we can get the right word, so that you can carefully settle on the word fear. It's a word. It's not really a word, it's just that its existence is due to a conventional designation. It's something that appears through that. And you let that be that and nothing more. But you will notice, perhaps, that you do do more or less to things than that. And that is karma. That is not zazen. When you shift from adding some reality to what's happening over and above conventional existence, then that's just karma again. Zazen should not be added to the list of the things you do that way. It's not one more thing on top of all the other things you do. Baseball,

[62:59]

Canasta, driving, cooking, walking, brushing your teeth, and zazen. It's not in that list. Zazen is that when you're cooking, the cooking is the cooking. And nothing more than that. And the cooking itself has no inherent existence. It does have conventional existence. So that the cooking, there's ways we decide when we're cooking. You know how we do that? We have these ways. He's in the kitchen, he's got the knife, he's got the carrot, you know, the pot's sitting there, the water's boiling, all this stuff, these are the conditions, now cooking is happening. But this, you know, that's not an inherently existing thing called cooking, because you know, there's many things that are cooking, right? There's not such a thing as cooking. But we say, okay, Jerry's in the kitchen cooking. And that's okay, right? Even though somebody else is in the kitchen in an entirely different way, And we say they're cooking too. But the funny thing is that we say there's an inherent thing called cooking and you can say, now he's not cooking.

[64:05]

That's not cooking. Even though he was cooking by this definition and it was different from her cooking, still we say, now he's not cooking. Because we, you know, by conventional existence, but we slip into thinking there really is a thing called cooking and now this is really a thing not called cooking. That's called karma. That way of thinking. The way of thinking of, well, now I say he's cooking and now I say he's not cooking, but just a conventional designation that he's cooking and a conventional designation he's not cooking. And actually, the not cooking is very similar to the cooking. How are they similar, ladies and gentlemen? No inherent. What? No inherent existence. They have no inherent existence. And how else are they similar? Pardon? What? By convention. By convention they're not similar. By conventional they're different. Let her finish. Since she made a mistake, she just had a chance. They're different by convention.

[65:09]

How are they similar? Using the word convention. Well, I would say by convention they're similar. By convention they're not similar. By convention they're different. By convention they're not similar. Right. That's it. They're not similar by convention. So how are they similar? By convention. No, no, no. They're not similar and different by convention. They're different by convention and they're similar in that they're both conventional existences. All things are similar in that they're all conventional existences. In other words, they're all similar in that they're conventionally existent, but they don't have inherent existence. Everything's similar in that way. All things are similar. All things are the same in that they lack inherent existence, which is the same as to say all things are the same in that all things are conventional existences. So your body and mind... Did you say something funny? That's what I meant. What did you say? I said that's what I meant.

[66:11]

Oh, I wanted to clarify for the other people. How does Zazen fit in that sameness of all things? Yeah, so how does Zazen fit in the sameness of all things? Can you see that, how that is? That Zazen is to enter into the sameness of all things. How are things the same? All things are the same in that all things are empty. All things are the same in that they're only mere designations, mere conventional designations. All things are the same in that they're completely pure. All things are the same and so on. Those ten samenesses, that's how you enter Zazen. But look at Zazen itself. Zazen is unconstructed. Zazen is unconstructed. How is it unconstructed? Is it some special thing? No, it's not a thing. Zazen is the fact that each thing is just a conventional existence. So every state you're in, when you're sitting, every physical experience you have, every mental experience you have is basically the same.

[67:12]

Namely, everything that's happening to you is just, everything that you're experiencing, everything you're experiencing is just a conventional designation. Zazen is to recognize the sameness of every experience. All day long. Pardon? It's really misleading when we say that thing we do in the Zando, it's Zaza. It's very confusing. Yeah, I'm sorry about that. What? I'm trying to... Yeah, it's very confusing. But we have to do that. Why do we have to do that? Because of what? Convention. And how did the convention arise? There was a convention back in the Tang Dynasty, you know. Bodhidharma was sitting there, you know. He was sitting there, and he was sitting, he was facing the wall, right? And something was happening, and everybody got really excited about it. What's he doing there? He's been sitting there for nine years. This is convention. Everybody agree? Yes, it is nine years.

[68:14]

We added it up. It's nine years. That's a thing that he's been doing for nine years. What's he doing? He's practicing zazen. What's zazen? It's this thing he's doing there for nine years. What's he doing? He's facing the wall. He's practicing concentration. So they called it zazen. They shouldn't have called it anything. But you couldn't get it. And then it got in the newspaper, all Chinese newspapers. Monk sits for nine years practicing Zazen. He did it. He's doing Zazen. People said, he's fantastic. He's doing this, he's doing that. He's terrific. And you couldn't stop it. So the Zen people said, OK, we give up. That's history. Paul? Well, this actually does have something to do with Zazen, what you're talking about. What we do there, the word zazen. Now, what we do there is do certain conditions. Now, can conditions eventually become conditioning?

[69:15]

If we all decided to be silent for the rest of tonight and tomorrow, and we stopped using words, and could that become conditioning where we would all use, we would think in our minds, wake up, we would go to breakfast, we would pick up You know, we would call it apple, but we wouldn't be able to use the words. So in conventional reality, we'd be seeing all this stuff that looks like maybe it's texture, you know, it's texture of existence. Do you understand what I'm talking about? I think I get it. Are you talking about if we stop using words, would we somehow come into direct exposure with the actual, whatever it is, before words? Yes, that's exactly what it would be like. And a matter of fact, that's going on right now. So enjoy it. Well, I would have liked to ask the question without using words, but... Now, it's okay to ask the question because no matter how much you talk, that kind of experience is going on right now.

[70:17]

It's just that that kind of experience doesn't get put into thing land. Therefore, that kind of experience cannot be thingified and graspified. So therefore, we're having that kind of experience right now. And if you sit still in zazen and appreciate the unconstructedness and stillness, that level of experience will come oozing into you and out of you, all around you. That's part of the fun of zazen. is you open up, you come into rapport with your actual biological direct experience of whatever it is before we talk about it. How do you get out of that conundrum? How do you get out of it? You get out of it by admitting that you're in the middle of a conundrum. You already gave it existence because you said it was a conundrum. So whatever conundrum you're into, get into it.

[71:18]

That's what I was saying about paint the portrait of a bird. Paint the cage. What's the cage? Conundrum. Paul Hayward has a body. It's this shape, not that shape, not that shape, this shape. You get into that conundrum. Your body is a conundrum. Get in there. Sit there. Enjoy it. Don't move. Accept it. Let it be what it is without adding or subtracting. Let it settle on itself. And when it settles on itself... You've done your job. Now you can hear the teaching but there's nothing to that really because look how it dependently co-arose. Then you can start seeing how it dependently co-arose. Then you can see how it lacks inherent existence and you can become free of the conundrum. But we have to accept this first thing first However, I'm assuming you're doing that. I'm assuming you accept responsibility for your karma. Therefore, you can receive the teaching of the first karaka of this verse. And you can practice Zaza in that way, which is tune into what it is about your sitting that's uncreated. And what is it about your sitting that's uncreated?

[72:22]

It's the fact. It's not a creation that John is John. John is a creation. that dependently co-arises by conditions. But the fact that John is John is uncreated, and it's exactly the same thing as Kamala being Kamala. It's exactly the same thing. There's no difference between John being John and Kamala being Kamala. There's no way you can tell the difference between those two. Look at it. That's what Zazen is. It's the way that there's no way to tell the difference between us. Scott being Scott, Adam being Adam, That's Zazen. There's no difference in those Zazens. Scott being Scott is not Scott causing Scott. Scott does not cause Scott. I don't cause Scott. However, Scott is a condition for Scott, and I'm a condition for Scott. That's true, but you already got that stuff. But to make, say, I cause God or he's caused God, then you're missing the point.

[73:27]

Then you're missing the point of zazen, which is, let's just take that God somehow has dependently co-arisen and there's conditions for it. Like, you know, he's there rather than there or there. That's part of the conditions. He has to be there all the time. That's part of the conditions. There are conditions. And we should accept them because that's how you know where to pay attention to what's settling on what. That's your location of your concentration and what you admit is happening is what's dependently co-arising. And that's it. Just let it be that. Don't have anything cause it. Not itself, not the other. Just... So... I'm going to keep trying to keep relating this to Zazen because that's what this is about. It's actually how to practice but I appreciate you distracting me into these totally relevant questions because those are all the things you think of about, those are all the excuses we have for why we don't think we should do Zazen.

[74:34]

Why we think we should do it. I didn't think we could do it. Pardon? I thought you said we couldn't do it. I didn't say that, but you did that, right? I did think that. But we think, we think we can do it, therefore we think we can't do it. Because we think we can do it, because we think it's a thing we do, then we have these reasons about why we don't. But it isn't something you can do. It is beyond, Zazen, it's beyond human activity. It's beyond. But that doesn't mean that when you're acting as a human, that zazen is some other place, because if it was some other place, it wouldn't be beyond. Zazen is beyond human activity means zazen is the fact that human activity is human activity, and not anything more than that. That's all zazen is. Human activity is human activity. That's it. Mainin, you know, tenshin. It means reb is reb. That's zazen. That's it. Are you pointing me at someone? Brent's had his hand up for 45 minutes.

[75:35]

Fantastic. That's the record for this practice period. I guess it's very persistent. Well, I think it's time to call on Brent. Am I right? Okay. We've been all talking about this, and I was like... Okay. Good, let's start. I guess, as you, maybe on the condition of my being German, I would like to ask for the definition of the term condition. Again? Yes, and I ask... in a conditional world, we think we have a choice. I think I have a choice. I can lead an unconditional life. Oh, thank you for bringing that up. Are you up for anything? Pardon? Is that irony? I'm sorry. No, no, it's not irony. I'll tell you what I mean. And I think, I mean, I want clarification because I think this is definitely not the way this term is being used here.

[76:43]

But, um, like conditional truth, as I understand it, I would like to have correction or comment, of course, is to me the same as the advent of culture and the advent of language. And not saying, for example, people commenting on me As he is doing Zazen, he leads an unconventional life. Yes. I'm sorry. I was confused. I meant conventional. Sorry. Conventional. be unconventional. Right. So I think here it's not a matter of choice, but convention is... Could you say that? Or is that meaning far? Convention is culture. Convention is language. Convention is culture.

[77:47]

Well, convention doesn't have to be culture, but culture is convention. Why does it have to be? I think convention is this broad thing. Yeah, it's broad, but when you say culture, culture is a limitation on convention. Convention can exist without culture. How? Well, I think you and I could make up a convention right now and I don't think it would qualify as culture. I think convulture is... To try to get all of convention into culture, I think, is just, is restraining it a little bit too much. I don't want to make an equivalent. I think the culture is a manifestation of conventional reality. But I think, I don't think culture includes all things that human beings do, in terms of convention. But, you know, maybe we should just... In terms of karmic activity? Yeah, I don't think so. I think, for example, a child can commit karmic acts prior to absorbing a culture.

[78:52]

This is too abstract, this thing about culture. The word culture is too complex for me to bring up at this point. So if you want to do that sometime, you can do it, but too much at this time of night to bring up culture. I don't mean it in an abstract way. I don't understand the word culture. I got the word convention down here, that's enough for me. And I'm just saying, when you brought up this thing about choice, in the conventional world, you have choice. In the conventional world, you have alternatives. In the world of Zazen, there's no alternatives. Because you only work with what it is. You work with the current manifestation of conventional reality. You have no choice about it. You have no alternative. But in the conventional world, it's part of convention is you have an alternative to what's happening. Therefore, you can do karma. You have an alternative. Yes?

[79:57]

So is Zazen the inside, the empire, as you talked about the other night, and the conventional world is where the general resides? No. Zazen is inside the empire when you're sitting by yourself, so to speak. And it's where the generals are interacting when you go and meet another person. So the interpersonal realm of Zazen is the general. The intra-psychic realm is the emperor. That's the way I would say it. But they're all it's all either conventional world, inside and outside, or the world of Zazen is the ultimate world. The ultimate world is not the least bit separate from the conventional world. The ultimate world is just that the conventional world is completely settled on the conventional world. That's all. But in the conventional world, it is conventional to make the conventional world into more than the conventional world.

[81:04]

The conventional world is conventional to be incoherent, although we don't admit it. It's rare in the conventional world that people are not incoherent. And when they don't try to make more out of the conventional world, then there is. But when the conventional world is just a conventional world, it's zazen. And there's no alternatives to it. For example, the alternative of making the conventional world more than it is. Or making it a different conventional world. Changing this one into that one. Zazen is not about changing this conventional manifestation into that conventional manifestation. But the conventional world is into that. That's karma. Change this conventional world into that conventional world. But as long as we're trying to change this conventional world into that conventional world, we'll just keep making conventional world after conventional world and there'll always be suffering in conventional worlds. Because in conventional worlds there's always belief that there is inherent existence in what is just conventionally existing.

[82:15]

So what we need is to settle the conventional world on the conventional world and then we're liberated from making too much out of it and then the suffering. And then when you make a world out of that world it's... It's a Buddha land instead of another suffering city. But it's time to stop. And I appreciate you being so enthusiastic about this convention that we had. Yeah, thank you.

[82:56]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_86.85