At this time, what I think makes sense is for me to continue to study these teachings beyond the practice period and to particularly concentrate during the rest of the practice period, not only on the text, but in learning how to study it. So even if we can't finish the text, even two chapters of it, we may be able to develop a good understanding of how to apply ourselves so that over time we may be able to deeply penetrate into the text and its meaning. I've spoken to you before about Zen practice being described in terms of two aspects, an aspect of what we call just sitting, and another aspect called going to the teacher and discussing the Dharma.

[01:42]

Heard about that before, right? Those two aspects. Or in more contemporary speech, Shikantaza and Sanchimongpo. These are popular terms now in certain subcultures. Kalen smells slightly at that. That was good, Kalen. I knew it was okay. Yeah, that's good. Or another way to talk about it is intrapsychic work and interpersonal work. And in terms of studying something, It can be anything.

[02:48]

It can be your body, your breath, your thoughts. It can be a text. There are three levels of insight that are usually spoken of in Buddhist studies, which I think you can also find in other spiritual traditions. The first level is called in Sanskrit, srutamaya prajna, which means insight or wisdom, which arises through hearing, from hearing, but also could be from seeing. The point is anyway, it's interpersonal. In some sense, the beginning of studying something usually is interpersonal. Usually somebody first points out, why don't you pay attention to your breathing, or why don't you sit still, or why don't you try this or try that, or this is good, or that's good.

[03:56]

So this is things you hear, and [...] finally, in terms of listening to the teaching, you can have an insight and understand through the interpersonal work. If you'd like, there's a cushion up here in front, Suki. You have a good seat there? Okay. The next level is called Chintamaya Prajna, which is wisdom which arises through reflection, you know, in your own mind, reflecting. So you take what you've learned through interpersonal work and you start working interpsychically by taking the images and ideas which represent or which arise in relationship to your insight and then reflecting on them, thinking about them in lots of different ways, relating them to various aspects of your existence and your being and your experience.

[05:05]

And then when you've done all that you can do, then you shift into a deeper level or fall into a deeper level of insight, which is called bhavanamaya prajna, which is insight arising out of your being. Or bhavana, you know, bhava means being or existence, and bhavana means to bring into existence. So it's a It's an insight that arises out of, you know, sort of being brought into existence. That's the deepest level. So that you can, when you get to the level of, at all three of these levels, even you can sort of, what do you call it, understand, you can weave in this interpsychic and interpersonal with all three of these levels.

[06:09]

So the first level is interpersonal. So at that level it makes sense to be listening to somebody and talking to somebody back and forth. Somebody says something to you or shows you a text and then you talk back and say, well, does it mean this, does it mean that, does this word mean this, does this word mean that, you clarify terms. back and forth. So at that level, it's interpersonal. Then as you move into sort of reflecting on what you've learned or what your insights, you do that work internally, but then you can also still go talk to somebody and talk about what you're doing internally, talk about your reflection, and make your intrapsychic work bring it into an interpersonal conversation. so that you can get some feedback on what's going on internally. Sometimes the person doesn't need to say anything. Sometimes just as soon as you say something, you realize that maybe you've left something out or some new direction to go.

[07:17]

Sometimes the person says, no, I think that's really You know, that's not what that means. You know, you're getting off track here. Or they might say that's the right track. There's many other possibilities. The next level, too, it's really deep interpsychic work, but you can still have a conversation about that deep interpsychic work. The deepest is wisdom which arises out of your being and out of you sort of bringing the teaching into being. This kind of wisdom you have when the teaching has actually come into being, become, has become, been brought into existence. This is the deepest level of insight. Well, for example, you understand the teaching of interdependence at these three levels.

[08:20]

When it's on the deepest level, you don't have to even think about it anymore. You can almost forget about the teaching entirely. and not think about it at all. And yet you act like someone who thinks that way. You act as though that's what you really thought was going on without even thinking about it. Sort of like that's the way you are now, is that you relate to people interdependently. At the other level, you're still conversing about it or thinking about it and reflecting on it and trying to understand it. And it's not exactly... you don't necessarily act in total harmony with that teaching, which you understand pretty well. So, you could almost say, in terms of the body, like it starts in the head, you know, and moves into the heart. Maybe you could say, and then moves into your gut. So, it's like, the first level is part of your body, the next level is more of your body, and the next level is your whole body. Something like that.

[09:22]

Then when you have really settle completely into some teaching then you can also bring it back up from that deep place back into your reflection and your reflection now will be supported by that deep realization and you can bring it back up into conversation with another so at all these different levels you can converse But the inner ones you can also do without talking to anybody. The second two you can do just by yourself. But in order to deepen those processes and make sure you're not leaving something out, it's good to get some reflection. Now, part of this is that... So another way to talk about it, if you're learning a text like this one, or kind of, you know, re-educating your philosophical systems like these teachings are, the first level, you've got to be sure about what the words mean.

[10:25]

Before you take these words into your mind and start reflecting on them, it's good for you to be sure about what they mean so that you're reflecting, you've got the jewels are, you know, clear to you. So at the first level of insight is achieve when you're pretty clear about what the terms mean. Once you're clear about what the terms of a text mean, if you haven't already done it, then it's time to memorize the text. And generally speaking, if you don't understand a text, it's good to memorize it. But before you memorize it, it's good to learn the words before you memorize it. You don't have to wait until you know what the words are before you memorize it. But it's good to have, you know, like a poem. I would say that before you memorize, you probably should read those things at the bottom of the page, you know, about what the word meant in Elizabethan times or whatever. So when you're doing the memory work, you don't just have to be thinking, which of those meanings is it?

[11:28]

You sort of got that all clarified in your mind. Then you can just work on memorizing. And you have the right constellation of meanings feeding into the word. You've trained yourself in that way. Now you memorize it. In order to do the interpsychic work, I mean, in order to do the reflective work, you have to have memorized this thing. Not have to, but it's much better if you can memorize it because, and you can do it as you're walking around, you can still work on the text. Because reflecting means not just that you reflect while you're reading the text, but you reflect all day long. Reflecting doesn't just mean the reflection that comes up when you're in the function of studying. It means you're reflected on all aspects of your being. It means, you know, hopefully that you would be reflecting upon it when you're talking to people, even. So that you bring all the different resources of your day into the reflection process. When all those factors come into play, then it tends to move into the next level of just your being.

[12:30]

But it takes a long time to be able to carry on this reflection in all situations. When you can do that, you've done as much as you can with your thinking process, and now the only thing you can do is to do it, or to be it. It's like, I don't know, like learning a dance, you know? You get the instruction, and you try to do the dance, and then the teacher gives you feedback, and you think about it. But also, if you're learning a dance, it's good to practice it not just in the dance class, but all day long, you know? And not just like in the form of doing the dance the usual way, but try the dance in ways that aren't usually considered to be the dance. Like that, you know, that week there was a movie out a while ago called Strictly Ballroom? Mm-hmm. And a lot of the way this guy learned about how to do the dance was through another dance. He was taught other dances and other ways to get in touch with what the dance he was doing was. He was very good, this guy, but he was still somewhat circumscribed in his understanding.

[13:34]

So then he got other ways to reflect on the dance from other traditions. And he got more of his, got more of his body into it. And then also he, he developed this relationship with his partner, which was, uh, um, also developed another dimension that he had never worked on before. Cause usually he worked with really good dancers and she was really, she was, she was very unskillful at the beginning. And, um, I went to, when my daughter was getting ready to go to high school, I went around to look at different high schools, and one of the high schools I went to was the urban school in San Francisco. And I went into the math class, and it was just, the teacher had given some talk, you know. It just ended when I came in. And the kids were, they were split up into different groups, and not in all the groups, but in a number of the groups, some of the students were you know, they knew the tech, they knew the material much better, and they were teaching the other students, even though they were, I think, sort of in the same grade.

[14:40]

They might have been in more than one grade, but some of the students were definitely teaching the other students. And at first I thought, well, do I want my daughter to go to a school where she's going to be taught by students? Then I thought some of the advantages of being taught by students, some of them are, number one, if you're a student, you get to teach. And when you teach, you learn things in a different way, and you feel a different responsibility than you do as a student. Plus, also, sometimes students learn better from students than they do from teachers. Sometimes students understand students better than teachers do, and so on. So the more I thought about it, I thought it was a great method. The teacher puts out some things. But to have the students both be able to teach and be taught by students seemed really a good idea. So, again, in a text like this, I would suggest that you think of ways that you can work with each other and teach each other this kind of thing. Anyway, this dancer was taught this young, his partner, this young woman, he taught her and that brought an only dimension into his dancing.

[15:51]

So this is the reflective stage. And when you do all that, when you do all those things, then the dance moves into like, it's like your being, you know, it's no longer like you and the dance anymore, or you and the teachings. And then you can bring, when you're at that level of realization, you can bring it back up into the level of reflection and the level of interpersonal work. So then you can teach it in these other dimensions and help other people do these other dimensions and then help other people go down. So this is the kind of work that, and again, I say once again, in order to do this kind of thing, it really helps if you memorize the text, just like it really helps if you basically know the step so that you can work on it when you're washing dishes, or walking down the fields. It turns out that around here it's okay to turn around a few times as you're walking down the fields.

[16:53]

It's okay, people won't give you a lot of trouble for that. And to make a few side steps and a few of these and a few of those, in order to learn how to walk in this new way and another thing which is traditional in Buddhist studies is once you have a certain level of understanding I should say a certain level of familiarity you always have a certain level of understanding everybody's got a certain level of understanding right now right but in order to go deeper it often helps to write a commentary you might think me write a commentary in Nagarjuna yes you So, I already talked to the Practice Period about this, and they've had a couple days to start composing their commentaries, or one day. And also, I work with the priests on this text, and they're writing verses.

[17:56]

Every week they write a verse on the text. And they wrote verses last week, so I would suggest you might also either write verses and or commentaries on the text. And the relationship between your work on the text and the verse can be, you know, there's many, many ways they can be related. I think the important thing is, for me, the important thing is that you, you know, that you face the text, that you hopefully uprightly face the text, that you place yourself in the text in relationship and you look at it and read it and think about it in this face-to-face way.

[19:01]

That's the first thing. The next thing about this is that you express yourself. At first you don't have to worry about anybody else's in hearing this. Just express yourself. You don't have to tell everybody everything, all your expressions. Some of you may feel you don't want to share, that's fine. But start expressing yourself out of this meeting with the text, out of your meeting with this teaching. And again, as I've said, I said to the practice period people, this kind of text, if you just sit there, even if you just sit upright, that may not be enough for you to...

[20:25]

to develop a real living relationship with anything. So it's okay to start with, like just be close to it and don't do anything to it. But at some point there should be some kind of like give and take, start to develop so that you're proactive and you get more of yourself into it rather than just listening or looking at it. So saying it out loud, memorizing it, writing it, writing commentaries and verses, these are ways to get yourself into the text, to get the text into you. And for you and the text to start interacting in this way, this thing, some kind of thing, dependently co-arises from that interaction. And this thing that arises is called an evolving understanding. If you don't bring energy to the text, it's possible for your understanding to stagnate or degenerate. But if you bring your energy consistently to the text, even if you're not upright, you'll still learn something.

[21:31]

You'll learn about maybe you weren't upright in the way you're related to it. You're literally leaning into the text when you're reading, your body leaning into it, rather than sitting up straight. So you'll learn a good relationship if you just keep bringing yourself and be aware as you come to the text. Now, someone might say, if I think about this, I say, gee, that's kind of hard. Yes, it is. It really requires a lot of effort to study this way. During Sashin, my experience is that by sitting upright in the middle of suffering day after day, If it should happen to be the case that a text is brought before me when I'm in that state of effort, my level of understanding is... I shouldn't say level of understanding, but the accessibility of whatever is brought to me is much greater.

[22:39]

It's like everything opens up to me when I'm in that way of being. So it takes a while to sort of give up all this... the meandering and laziness that sometimes we develop in daily life and to sit upright. But once you sit upright, you can, I think, you may be able to agree with me that in that state, in that way of being, you can walk deeply into texts that usually are rather daunting or they seem almost as though they're withholding something from you. But what's, they're not. It's just that they're not, they're not like, what do you call it, they're not geared for people who aren't present. Like I think Thoreau said, the classics should be read in the morning, you know.

[23:43]

Like the classics, like these texts and the classics of Western civilization like the Iliad and the Odyssey are not necessarily available to you unless you meet them uprightly. But when you're concentrated, you find out they never were withholding anything. You were withholding your attention. That's why they wouldn't talk to you. They won't talk to you unless you're present. Some texts reach out to you and say, you don't have to pay attention. I'll tell you something even without you listening. Just buy this book and you will be rewarded. and you'll want to buy more of them because this book feeds people who aren't present. This even draws you into being distracted by this book. We won't require for you to pay attention. These are not classics. These kind of books. They're bestsellers for a little while. They catch the spirit of distraction of the times and pull people in. You can read them. when you're really distracted.

[24:48]

But these texts, as you may have noticed, almost none of you have ever read this text before. Even though you may have heard of Nagarjuna, he's not a very popular writer. How come? That's why I started studying Abhidharma some time ago. I read in this book that the Abhidharma had been preserved and passed down for really long time, more than 2,000 years, and that in Salam they had it like engraved in gold, you know, and they had like this, I think it was a 729-room fortress, you know, which is nine squared, 729-room building. that had the different parts of the Abhidharma on these golden tablets all throughout the building. How come they do this and nobody reads this thing? I started reading it and then I found out why.

[25:50]

Like, even the telephone book, I mean, not the white pages, but even, of course, the yellow pages. It's kind of interesting to read. I used to read it when I was a kid. Did you ever read it when you were a kid looking at the pictures? It really neat pictures, really neat line drawings of trucks and machinery and people in various occupations. It's really nice reading for the pictures. And it's a huge book, you know. But the white pages are more like the Abhidharma. LAUGHTER And the white page is in the part where, you know, like where in Minnesota you hit the Scandinavian news. So it's like, this is like this stuff, except it's even a little harder because there's something like maybe you should understand. Usually when you read the telephone book, you don't think you're supposed to understand what I understand means, right? So you think, oh, I still don't understand. So what? I mean, nobody understands a telephone book, do they? But if you hear that the telephone book has a deep wisdom in it, then you read it and say, oh, this is very frustrating.

[26:54]

What's so good about it? Well, the telephone book has something in it. I don't know what, but something's in there. But that's more advanced than this. Anyway, here it is, Nagarjuna, and I wanted to say to those things, also I want to use this as a way to I want to ground this as a way to relate this first karaka to Zazen, because this first karaka, this first verse, is Nagarjuna's rejection of our ordinary idea of causation. And again, okay, got that? Nowhere and at no time can entities ever exist by originating out of themselves, from others, from both, or from lack of causes.

[28:16]

And the translation we're using now is, what is that? Where did I put it? No existence whatsoever are evident anywhere that are arisen from themselves, from another, from both, or from a non-cause. Okay, so, again, I think, just to sort of, what do you call it, find a practical use of this right away, again, I would like you to think about this in relationship to what we call zazen practice. And Zazen practice, the Zazen practice of, if you use the expression, our school. Our school means Dogen Zenji school. So he says, the Zazen of our school is not learning meditation. Zazen is, you know, a lot of schools have Zazen. There's lots of schools of Buddhism that have a practice called zazen. Even non-Buddhist schools have a practice called zazen.

[29:20]

But the zazen of this school, of this soto lineage, is not learning meditation. I would also say the zazen of our school is not in the realm of cause and effect. The zazen of our school is not karma. It's not one of the varieties of karma. It is deportment beyond hearing and seeing. It is deportment beyond doing and not doing. It is deportment as described in this first karaka of the realm where there's no evidence for anything which is caused by another, which means there's no evidence for something that causes another either. So this zazen is not something caused by itself, caused by another, caused by both, or something that arises by a non-cause.

[30:35]

It's not any of those possibilities. It's beyond that kind of way of thinking. Therefore, it is totally culminated in enlightenment. It is liberation from the world of karma. It is not fabricated. And again, although it's not fabricated, it is not without speech. Speech can come out of this zazen. A person in zazen can talk. without leaving zazen to speak. This zazen can talk. It doesn't necessarily talk. Zazen itself is silent and still and unfabricated, but speech can dependently co-arise with this totally culminated enlightenment. Speech can also dependently co-arise with totally culminated delusion. Even from uncomilinated delusions,

[31:36]

This zazen of this school is uncreated. Uncreated means it's not caused by another, not caused by itself, not caused by both itself and another, and also not caused by non-cause. That's the kind of thing it is. It's not a thing. It's not a thing. that arises in these four ways. And there's no other ways in terms of causation of something producing another thing. That exhausts the ways that causation can occur. It is unconstructedness in stillness. So zazen is an enactment of this first verse. This first verse is unconstructedness and stillness. So when we sit in zazen, in the zendo, we're doing a ritual celebration of this first verse.

[32:52]

Now, when we are doing that ritual, you can then think, oh, now I'm doing zazen. When you think that way, you are doing a ritual celebration of, well, you may not think it's a ritual, but anyway, you are celebrating the refutation of this verse then. You are disagreeing with Nagarjuna. You are saying, now here is something which I can do. It's something which is caused by me, So this state of this practice is a thing that exists which is caused by me or caused by the Zen practice group. This verse is about a situation where there is no causal power.

[34:00]

Power is not an operative figure in this first verse, and power is not an operative figure in Zazen. However, as you know, there is a world of personal power. We do sometimes think of our life in terms of our own power. And Zazen is also not to reject the world of power. What is zazen in relationship to the world of power? What is zazen vis-a-vis or in relationship to the world of power? Yes? What is zazen in that power? Power means the power of something to cause and effect.

[35:07]

What is zazen in that world? I just said Zazen isn't in that world in a sense. And I said Zazen is not that world. So what is Zazen in your relationship to that world? Yes? Instrumentality. What? Instrumentality. It's something you use to do something else. Condition. What's an instrumentality? Zazen in the world of power is something you use to get something you want. Oh, I see. Are you saying that the world of power is instrumentality if you use something to get what you want? What you said? And zazen of that world would be that way. But what I mean is, what is true zazen in relationship to the world of instrumentality? What is true zazen in relationship to that? It has no relationship. It has no relationship. Okay, good. So what kind of a relationship is no relationship?

[36:10]

The relationship that understands how it is that it has no relationship. Right. Or the relationship which is not separate from that. So Zazen is not separate, isn't separate from the instrumentality world, from the world of power. Zazen is just the world of power being the world of power. So Zazen is form and form is Zazen. Cardin? So Zazen is form and form is Zazen. No. Zazen is that form is form and emptiness is emptiness and form is emptiness and emptiness is form. That's Zazen. Zazen is not in one of those sides of that thing it's not in relationship to form it is form being form and nothing more than that so it is the world of power being the world of power and nothing more than that so so I'm going to read a little verse that one person wrote about this verse

[37:30]

Arriving at the space between the end of the out, beginning of the in-breath, sit very still. When the next cycle begins, sit upright in its midst. In its midst. In its midst. Now, When this person read this verse to me, I asked the person, have you arrived here? And I said, say it again. And he said, arriving at the space between the end of the out-breath and the beginning of the in-breath, sit very still. I said, have you arrived there? And he said, yes, but as soon as I say so, I leave. Okay? So, Maybe you can exhale, and you can exhale yourself into this verse and sit there.

[38:44]

And sit and contemplate the place that's not caused by something. You didn't cause that place by following your exhale, but you just followed your exhale. And now, as you follow the exhale, you contemplate a place that's not caused by itself, by another, by both or by neither. The person who accords with this place The person who accords this place transcends the self. Is it the same as forgetting the self?

[39:49]

When you go to this place, or when you contemplate thus, such that you contemplate How it is, whatever's happening, you sort of like let go of this whatever's happening as being something caused by itself, like the breath causing itself, the breath being caused by something else, the breath being caused by something else in itself, or the breath being caused by something that's not a cause. You give away all those things and live with the breath in that way. You accord with the breath in that way. Now, he said, I said, have you arrived there? And he said, yes, but as soon as I say so, I leave. So again, if I say to you at that point, if you're contemplating thus, I say to you, have you arrived there? And you answer that question, like you say, yes, yes. But when you answer that question, you slip into being the person who is caused by something again, or who can cause something, or the person who can cause speech to happen, and you leave that place.

[41:01]

But you can stay present there and maybe not answer the question. Have you arrived? Maybe you don't have anything to say. Maybe the person who is contemplating thus doesn't have any words yet. That's fine. But that space can talk. That space can answer questions. That space can also speak without being talked to. Words can come from that place. But as the words come, if you slip back into thinking of self which speaks, you left that place. Because when you think of self that speaks, you're back into something causes speech. Yeah, but you're back into the speech now. You're back into a thing called speech which arises because it's caused by you or your voice. or whatever, or your breath. Anyway, you think of something caused this voice, something caused this word, and you leave that place. Yes?

[42:03]

Get up and strike the teacher. Yes, that's the place. Zen teachers also sometimes do paradoxical things from that place. It's also the place where you can do something quite ordinary when you're in an extremely extraordinary position. A place that isn't caused by itself, isn't caused by another, both are by another cause. That's quite an extraordinary place for most people to actually... be aware in that place. And in that place, you might do something really ordinary, like... Yeah, or you might sneeze or whatever. Anyway, it might seem quite ordinary, and that might be just exactly what is coming. Because it's not fabricated, it's not... fabricated by itself, it's not fabricated by another, it's not fabricated by both, and it's not fabricated by something which isn't a cause. In other words, it has no cause and also doesn't even have a cause of not a cause.

[43:04]

There's no kind of fabrication here. There's no construction. In this place, one is graciously free of all fabrications. What do you say when you reach that place? But is it Nagarjuna saying that every place is that place? Every place is that place, yes. But maybe when you reach the awareness that every place is? When you realize the awareness, when you arrive at the awareness, when the awareness has inhabited you or you've inhabited, when you're intimate with such an awareness, when, you know, when the meaning of what I'm saying arrives all things are that way so there's nothing that's like there's nothing like like there's nothing that's caused by another there aren't any things like that however there are things which aren't caused by another there are things which dependently co-arise but there aren't these things which are caused by another because things that things that are caused by another are

[44:22]

actually caused by another. And this other's got the power to make this happen. And this is the son or the daughter of a thing that has the power to make something happen. So it also is that way. These are not just regular old things. These are powerful, independent operators. This is the source of karma. And this makes the world go round. actually things are much not exactly wimpy but things are much more flexible and elusive and interdependent and vulnerable to each other that vulnerability actually makes things in a sense indestructible in their vulnerability because they're vulnerable to everything and also through their vulnerability they are supported by everything and nothing can take this thing away from being what is happening. So they're not strong, like independently strong, they're strong or they're real through their inner connections.

[45:38]

So, a little bit more about this place. Someone was talking to me today about this place, you know, in this place, things, it's not like there's nothing there. It's not like you get to this place, okay, this place which is described as, this place is, in this place, okay, this place or in this way of being, okay, there aren't any things of the following type. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? There aren't any things which are caused by another. Again, things that are caused by another are the children of these powerful causes. And therefore, these are real effects of real causes and therefore real effects that really exist. Because this really exists and this has the power to make this exist. So, in this place of Zazen, there aren't any things like that. There aren't those kind of things. So first of all, you just sweep those away. They're gone. And in that space, now, this space is empty.

[46:51]

But this empty lets things happen. Now what kind of things happen there? Things that dependently co-arise. Do they have existence? Yes, they do. What kind of existence? Dependently co-arisen existence. What kind of existence is this? It's conventional existence. They exist by convention. It's not that they don't exist, they do exist, but by convention. And without convention, they wouldn't be there. Call off the convention, nothing's there. They have no real, inherent existence, but they do have a real, nice, conventional existence. And conventional existence is a pretty big deal, actually. Pretty big deal. Like, you know, for example, Katie. Yes, and look over there. There's Christina. This is a conventional existence. This is enough, isn't it? Yes. When you say if there's no convention, there's nothing there. The thing won't be there anymore if there's no convention, right? But isn't it that there is...

[47:55]

There is something, but it's not graspable because there's no convention? Well, I didn't say there wasn't anything. I just said there's no things. Or you said there's nothing. Well, what? I don't want to say there is nothing. I don't want to say there is nothing. But there's no evidence of anything without convention. So, again, I'm not saying there's nothing out there and we make it all up. I really have no idea what's really happening. All I'm saying is that what we make up as the things that are happening, they are entirely born of convention. Like, for example, if you make up by convention, all of you make up by convention me, but I'm not, I can tell you, what you make me up to be. Because, for example, if you all take a break from making me up, I keep living.

[48:59]

You can all just like, nobody can think of me for just a few seconds now, and I'll just keep living through that horrible hiatus. You know? So that's why I'm... It's something, you can say that something's there, but you have, there's no way to identify it. Okay? And therefore you're making a case for something being there that you have no way to identify. So you're postulating something which you'll never know and never be able to identify. Buddha didn't do that. So I don't want to say, take the position of identifying that there isn't something there either. I'm just saying that this is totally hypothetical that there's something there. Except in the sense that you can reason by the same way that I say I'm here even though even though you don't think of me. And then what you think of me, then when you think of me, you define me by convention. So you can reason that there must be something there, but I don't know how far you want to go on that.

[50:02]

So I don't want to say there's nothing there. I would just say that whatever conventionally exists, put it this way, whatever exists conventionally, the conventional existence evaporates when you take away the convention. How about that? And what's left, I wouldn't even say, I wouldn't even leave it to the philosophers to figure it out. I would just say, it's probably an unhealthy area to spend too much time on. Unless, except when somebody says that there isn't something there, and then we say, well, yes, there is. Like, you all look at me and say, well, we just made him up and there isn't anything there. I say, no, I'm not saying there's something here. All I got to say is, I'm here. I'm not saying there's something here, I'm just saying I'm here. In other words, out of this unconstructedness and stillness, I'm talking back to you when you talk that way. But that doesn't mean I'm going to say, well, I am here. So I think taking the position that there isn't anything out there, I don't want to take that position. But also to say that there is, is too much also. But to say that there's something which conventionally exists, that's not too much.

[51:07]

Because we can actually just have a story about how that happens. And our story about how that happens is not saying this is really what's happening. It's just saying this is what we get when we tell this story. Yes? One more question? Sure. So when one can see Holy Panhandle rise and... When what? When one is able to actually see co-dependent core arising, does one then still relate to the convention of what one sees, or does one relate to something beyond convention? Seeing the dependent core arising means that you see the dependent core arising of a thing. You see the dependent core arising of an identity. Seeing that, you see convention working there. What changes your relationship?

[52:10]

You're also part of it. You're also part of the dependent horizon. You're not outside this. Really seeing it, you're completely included in the process because you also watch how you and other are involved there and how mind and objects are involved there. So there's no you outside this process. And this whole process is the process of conventional designation. So, anyway, so this person was talking to me about conventional existence, and she said something like, but when I think about or contemplate conventional existence, it seems like there's something beyond it. And there is something beyond conventional existence. But what's beyond it is not ultimate existence. What's beyond it is ultimate meaning. And ultimate meaning, which is beyond conventional existence or conventional meaning or conventional truth, I said was, what's beyond it is the no more than it of it.

[53:21]

That's what's beyond it. So, when you look at conventional existence, you feel something is beyond it, and that's right, but what is beyond it is not like beyond it, like up beyond which is something in addition to it. As a matter of fact, specifically, that which is beyond it is the very fact of nothing more than it of it. That's what's beyond it. The no more than it of it, or the no more than it of you, totally transcends you. Or put it in words, Beyond words is the no more than words of words. Transcending self is the no more than self of self. That is totally... Can you see how that's unconstructed? No. You don't? Transcending self. Take the word, or take a self, okay? And then have... And look at the no more than self of that, okay?

[54:25]

Okay? It's not the self. It's the no more of the self. Can you see how that's not constructed? And can you see how the no more of Martin than Martin... To have no more of self... There's nothing. The self is self-contained. No more than the self of the self. You still have the self there. You don't have nothing. The no more than Martin of Martin is not that there's nothing there. It's just that that quality of you being nothing more than yourself or the quality of you just being yourself is exactly the same quality of me being myself and no more than that. It's exactly the same thing for both of us. And neither case can you grasp it, and also there's no difference between them. It seems like there's no more of self, as I first heard, or some sort of category that was beyond the self in some way.

[55:29]

But it's not. You said there was the self, and then there's no more of self. There's a self, and there's no more of the self of the self. In other words, the self's completely settled on the self. That's it. But we somehow sense that there's something beyond that. Well, there is. It's the very factor of that being only that is beyond that. Because self is a conventionally defined, conventionally designated thing. But the fact that that's just that way is not a conventionally designated thing. There's no way to conventionally designate that because it's the same for everything. There's no convention for that. There's no convention for it. We have no convention. It is just... I don't know what to say. See, I really can't say anything about it, and that's why it's hopelessly beyond convention, and yet it totally is just convention being that and nothing more. That is also what we call just settling the self on the self, and that is unconstructedness in stillness.

[56:33]

Okay? And then this person said, gave me a T.S. Eliot quote, liberation is not loss of love, but expanding of love beyond desire. Liberation, not a loss of love, but an expanding of love beyond desire. So liberation from self, for example, is not a loss of love for the self, but an expanding of your love for yourself beyond desire in relationship to yourself. Usually when we come to our self, we love the self, but we also have some desire in there. And because of that desire, we try to make something out of it. We try to, you know, get some stuff for it or whatever. But to take our love for our self and expand it, beyond desire. That's liberation.

[57:35]

Usually we love ourself and we're still caught in desire in relationship to it, so we're stuck in it. If we would expand it beyond the desire in relationship to the self, then we'd be liberated from the self. Or in other words, if you just leave the self alone, That's love of the self. It doesn't mean you leave yourself alone and say, see you later. I'm not going to take care of you anymore, you worthless, conventionally existing thing. That's all you are. Got no ultimate reality? Well, later, I'm going to go find something that does or somebody that does. Oh, wow, look at that. Ooh, there's some ultimate existence. I'll go and be that person's slave. No. Keep taking care of yourself. take good care of yourself, be devoted to yourself, but so thoroughly that you go beyond desire in relationship to yourself.

[58:40]

Then you'll be liberated. That's what this first character is about. Desire, and when it comes to causation, our vulnerable area since we're not very up on it. When it comes to causation, desire means we desire to have a self that is a self that has a cause. Either caused by a self, which would be fine, a self-caused self, or at least caused by another, a God-caused self or something, or caused by both, or how about a self that's caused by something that's not even a cause? These would all be very fancy selves. Yeah. So a self to be really proud of, a self to have a lot of desire about. But the desire is already been manifested by the way you think about its causation. That's a desirous, lustful way to think about being caused, rather than just caused by convention, you know, by certain stories, mom, dad, blah, blah, and kid. That's what makes the kid.

[59:43]

Before that, there was no such thing. But we learned that, and we learned these stories, and pretty soon we got these people. And that's fine. It's beautiful. It's wonderful. It's called conventional existence. Now, if we can just leave it at that, leave it at that, and take care of it like that, and love it like that, and not then go over into making too much out of it, then we're liberated from the story which we made up about ourself. That's the first card. And that's the Zazen. To take good care of yourself. Take good care of your body, your breath, your thoughts. Constantly taking good care of yourself, moment by moment. But beyond desire. In other words, just let it be that. Take care of yourself and no more than that. Don't then make a big deal out of yourself. Put a big metaphysical crown on yourself. Make yourself something that's caused. And therefore, something that is in effect.

[60:47]

Therefore, something that's got independent reality. That's too much. Only a desirous person does that. And most of us are desirous. Therefore, we do that. Now we've got to step back from that and just start letting it be. Letting it be close to it and don't mess with it. This is Zazen. This is the first Karaka. And one more thing I want to say before I stop for your edification. In the Mountains River Sutra, Dogen Zenji says, It's too bad people don't understand that discriminating consciousness is words and phrases. And that words and phrases liberate discriminating consciousness. By discriminating consciousness, we create a sense of self and other. a sense of an independent self, independent of it. And it's by words that discriminating consciousness does that. As a matter of fact, discriminating consciousness is words. And with the use of these words, which is the same as with the use of consciousness, we create a world.

[61:54]

However, we don't stop talking then in order to get free and start fighting it in order to get free or denying it. We use words to get free from the words and liberate consciousness and then liberate the self which arises dependently with the consciousness. Okay? So, that's it. And now, a word from our sponsor. I'm confused about words. I've been trying to think about this conventional reality and the thing to do with Sabrina you know like if I take a bucket of water and pour it over my head she does the same thing but there's no there's no what I think of as words and she imitates me a lot and And I don't, I guess I don't understand what words are because it seems like there's this much bigger thing going on that has not, what waiting for words to understand.

[63:00]

She's proceeding without what I think of as understanding our language. Right. Well, babies even younger than her relate to to the world. They relate. They function. Actually, I say they relate to the world. Babies at a certain age relate. We watch them relate, but they don't think they're relating. Okay? There's a level of our consciousness right now at which we're not relating to something. It's consciousness, but it's not a relational consciousness. It's called, you know, alaya. And in alaya, um... the elaya consciousness the storehouse consciousness in that realm it's conscious it's a living consciousness it's an awareness but there's no identities there there's no locations there there's no like here and there in there there's no self and other there's no this thing and that thing it's like being in the dark you know and reaching out you know

[64:14]

And you touch something, you know. But maybe with the side of my hand rather than my fingers, you know. If it's my fingers, then I can say, oh, hair. But with the side of my hand, I'm not sure whether this is a teddy bear or a person or, you know, a car or what. You know, really, in the dark, you know, it's hard to tell with the back of your hand. Or, you know, so a baby can, like, reach over and... and grasp the breast, the tit with the mouth and not feel like it's relating to anything. It just got this, it just responds in that way without calling it a thing aside from itself. But it does discriminate. It does discriminate because it prefers its mother's tit to somebody else's. At a certain age, I don't think so. It was. Yes. Research is showing that until six days old babies are already beginning to discriminate. Well, maybe they have a way to move towards their mother, like, what is it, like the, what do you call it, the salmon come zipping down from Alaska, you know, and then they hit the certain chemicals in the water and they take a left turn and go to mere woods, okay?

[65:30]

So you can say they discriminate. But they don't necessarily think, oh, this is my home, and here's a stream. So at that level, they may not think there's a thing called this chemical which I'm relating to. But they do relate to it. You could also say that if you take a piece of furniture and you light it on fire, it discriminates because it relates differently to the fire than it does to wind. Okay? But it doesn't think, as far as I know, well, this is fire and that's wind. But it does respond differently. So at a certain age, I think, in certain realms, when we don't have words for things, we can still relate to them. But when we don't have words, then we can make them into things. And the words are the way we make them into different identities. Like I was talking to someone today about, I have in my room a little cushion, and there's a bell on top of it. Right? that could be seen as a bell and a cushion. But someone without the word bell and cushion probably wouldn't think that it was two things.

[66:34]

Now, if they reached over and touched him and then the two things started moving separately with the two hands, they still might not think it was two things, even though there would be a discrimination of different ways of relating to the different parts there. With words, we suddenly have a bell and a cushion. And we think that the cushion exists by itself and the bell exists by itself. And by the words, there is like this independently existing thing. But without the words, you can't have this independently existing thing. But it doesn't mean you can't function because on some level of our being, we are always functioning without words. That's part of our being. And as many other living creatures which do not have words, And they do not have selves, as far as I can tell. And they do not have self-clinging, and they do not make more out of themselves than they are. But we do, because of this process of giving rise to conventional existence, and then, that's not so bad, but giving rise to conventional existence, and then saying that this thing which we have now made as an independent thing by words, it actually is independent.

[67:46]

So again, there is whatever. We don't know what it is. Something may be happening, but whatever it is, we segment it. Like we say, okay, there's a room, okay? And in the room there's this thing, and this thing has these two parts called bell and cushion. Is it really that way? Or is it just the words we have for it? People without the words wouldn't see it that way. Is it they're wrong and we're right? Or is it just that we have words to see it that way? I think it's the latter. And some beings don't have words to discriminate, like some people don't have the words to discriminate between men and women, or black and white people, and they just don't do it. They just don't do it. Still. They can tell the difference between the colors of their skin. If you gave them pieces of paper and say, now, which piece of paper goes with this person and which piece of paper goes with this person, they can maybe put them on there and do that. They can see the different colors, but they wouldn't think that these are two different types of people and that they really are different and they differ in all these other qualities and so on.

[68:52]

They wouldn't do that, but if you start giving them enough words, pretty soon they start thinking, oh, well, white people really are different from black people. And once you have that story, then according to that story, they are. But it's only because of that story that they are. This is just, and that whole thing dependently co-arises, and then also we project realities on these things which dependently co-arises, and that projection dependently co-arises, and so on. Once you understand the story, however, and leave it at that, you are liberated. Once you understand the story without desire. And understanding the story means you love the story. You love the story. You take care of the story. You study the story. You learn all the words. You learn the story. You learn all these stories. You learn them. You love them. You listen to them. But so thoroughly that you go beyond desire in regard to them. Then you're liberated from all these stories. You're liberated from all these beings as being separate from you and so on.

[69:55]

Yes? In the realm of karma, you said this person thinks they caused this person and A is the son of B or something like that. That happens in the realm of karma? Yes. And then in the realm of dependent co-arising... Excuse me, you said that happens in the realm of karma. I'd like to also add that that defines the realm of karma, that way of thinking. Okay, yes? But then the realm of dependent co-arising, certain situations or identities arise that are conventional reality. But those conventions say the same thing? Don't they say, I've caused this to happen? Isn't that what we do at conventional reality? It is conventional reality that we think karmically.

[71:04]

Yes, that is conventional. In other words, it is conventional to think nonsensically. And there are conventions by which we come to think nonsensically. I don't see what the limits are between. Karma, as you're describing it, is a dependent co-arising. It's like they both result in the same things happening. Karma independently co-arises also, okay? So, when you're talking about the dependent co-arising of karma, then you're talking about the dependent co-arising of karma rather than the causation of karma. When you talk about the dependent co-arising of karma, you become liberated from karma. When you talk about the causation of karma, you attribute reality to karma, and you stay trapped in karma.

[72:05]

It's the same story. It's just that one case you realize it's a story, the other case you think it's a causal process. Now, that was a story I just told you. But that's the difference. The difference is dependent core rising is describing the process by which we create the illusion of karma without attributing causal power to the creation of that illusion. Because it doesn't make sense to say causal power creating illusions causal powers create real things, real illusions. So they're illusions, but they would be real illusions. And they would be real causal power. But to talk about the dependent co-arising of karma is the road to freedom from coming. There is also the dependent co-arising of non-conventional understanding.

[73:11]

Namely, talking about conventional reality at just conventional reality is not conventional reality. It is not conventional reality to talk about conventional reality as just that. That is not conventional. However, we could make, in Buddhist circles, that does become a convention. And then it's the convention of not making more out of convention than convention. Then it becomes a liberating convention. Then it becomes a reasonable common sense coherent convention description. Without adding any reality to it other than this makes some sense as a description of how we created karma. So if somebody presses me and says, is this the way it happens? I say, this is just my story for tonight. I can tell another one next week. And it's not that I'm changing my story. I'm just offering different stories.

[74:13]

This story is not better than another story necessarily. There are more or less valid stories, but they're all ultimately stories. We should tell the most valid story we can. But that's the story I think which is most coherent in terms of convention. We bring, again, which has the most love and care to the conventional independent core rising of things is the best story. But you said that in the realm of karma, we don't realize that we're telling a story, and in the realm of, hey, that's what I said, we realize that we're telling a story. Yeah, kind of like that, right. In the realm of karma, we think that we're not a story. Okay? Right off. We don't see that we're not even the result of a story, but we're something that co-dependently arises with a story. We forget our story. We forget the story of our social security number and our fingerprints and our parents and stuff like that.

[75:17]

We forget that story, and we think we're something independent of that story. Therefore... And then, once we've forgotten our story, then we can do things. And then, of course, then we can tell that story, but we've already forgotten the basis of our own existence. Once you forget the basis of your own existence, then you're an independent operator. Now you have the story of independent operators. And that then, if you tell the story of that, that's the story of misery. And then you're talking about the dependent core rising of misery. But that story is sometimes people who have forgotten the story of their own origination through dependent co-arising, not even origination, but their own appearance through dependent co-arising. That story people can often follow because that's the story of karma. That's the story of how karma causes misery. So karmic beings can follow that. And then we're in the realm of karma.

[76:20]

Then we're in the realm of conventional existence, which is based on something nonsensical, namely independent existence. And then there's a story about how that works. And the way it works is be very careful of karma. Believe in cause and effect. And if you can be very careful of karma, in other words, study karma very thoroughly, you will start to see dependent core arising. And then the dependent core arising will come back and be applied to your own existence. And then you'll notice that you're adding something to your existence. And you start studying that. And then you start loving yourself without desire. in this way this kark is describing, and then you're free of self-existence. So there's probably a lot more questions, but I would guess that there's probably a lot of people who are kind of like, had maxed out too. So we're moving very slowly to this text, as you notice.

[77:39]

But I think if you can really understand the first karaka, then you'll be able to move really into the next karaka. But if we don't understand the first one pretty well, then we probably should stay here longer. I often refer to the practice of circumambulation as a good way to study, too, or a good way to relate to the Buddha or Nagarjuna or this text. I just keep walking around it. And... you might want to reach in there and grab it and understand it or you might want to leave town and never look at it again but to stay close to it and just keep walking around it every time you walk around it's a little different and over the circuits it gets clearer and clearer and deeper and deeper without like in a sense copping out and just sort of like grabbing and saying this is it

[79:06]

you can do that you can go in there and grab the Buddha but that's just for today you know that it means that but if you just keep walking around it you'll notice I think that just are you noticing that it's coming a little bit was it kind of like a while ago was it kind of like just super kind of inaccessible and it's getting a little bit a little bit closer something yeah And, you know, I heard some rumors which, you know, touch me, and I feel the pain of the difficulties some people have with this study. I understand that. But it's also interesting that, you know, some people are, like they were at Tassajara, I said, well, how was the class? Was it repetitive? And they said, well, a little bit, but also I'm really, now I'm kind of like almost understanding it. So after three months at Tassajara, now going over it again,

[80:09]

People feel, oh yeah, it's starting to... And it's always for me, too. Even after going over this text for quite a long time, every time I go around, it gets a little bit more like my life. It gets a little bit more closer to being above and above my personality. I really encourage you to make a big effort to study this text. It is really a foundation of the practice of millions and millions of Buddhists over thousands of years. It's really an important text. It's really a great resource. And you can understand it if you work at it.

[81:18]

Like I told people this weekend, you know, When I was in Japan, I said to Okusan, Suzuki Roshi's wife, I said, you know, Suzuki Roshi taught us many things, Okusan, but what didn't we understand, do you think? And she said, well, Suzuki Roshi said, always said, Americans are really sincere. They understand Buddhism much better than most Japanese people. And they will definitely understand Dharma eventually. When Chakyamuni Buddha died, he was an old person, apparently, according to all accounts, 80 years old. And he probably would have lived longer, except that, you know, he wasn't careful of his diet. But as I was talking to someone the other day, you know, he was enlightened when he was just a young, kind of a young guy. Some people say he was 29, some people say he was 31, some people say he's 35.

[82:26]

In other words, a person your age could be enlightened, really greatly enlightened. So it is possible for you to actually understand Buddhism if you really apply yourself. But also, you know, he really did make a big effort. So it's probably going to be the same for us, that we're going to have to make a really thorough, sincere effort. But we are sincere, so that's not the problem. The thing is to be even more sincere. Again, as the Suki Rashi said, that time when he almost drowned, you know, at the Narrows at Tassahara, he said, after that I was, I really realized I wasn't serious enough in my practice. So since that time I've been much more serious. He said this when he was 65, or 64. So, he was serious, but then he got even more serious about his practice.

[83:28]

So you are serious, you are sincere. So as it grows, he feels that way. It's very clear. You know, that's very clear, but still we have to be even more. And this text is a good case to apply your sincerity. So, good luck. on studying Nagarjuna's teaching.

[84:01]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_91.41