I want to express my gratitude for the very wholehearted devotion to the practice that this group of people has realized. Even though there's some difficulties that you're having, You're all coming to practice together really well. We also so far have not had much illness. I hear a little bit of coughing starting. But in one of the past practice periods we had here, almost everybody got sick. And so we've had now about almost ten days of just a few coughs. By the way, we have a kind of etiquette at Zen Center and it seems to, some doctors think it's a pretty good one of when you cough, not to just cough out into the room, but also not even put your hand on your mouth, but to cough, to put your head down and cough into your, sort of into your elbow, into your robe.

[01:31]

so you don't get this stuff on your hands. Does that make sense? So it's like that rather than other ways that I saw some people are doing. Does that make sense? Is that right? That's a pretty good way, doc? Doctor, do you agree? Do you agree, Ray? Yeah, I also include don't touch your face unless you absolutely have to, and avoid doornails. That's right. Hospitals did away with doornails many years ago. You use your elbow to open a hospital doornail. But don't use the inside of your elbow. Right after this reason, right? In this first two pages of this chapter on yoga, this chapter, the questions of Maitreya, in the Chinese translation the chapter is called Analysis of Yoga.

[03:07]

That's the name of the chapter in Chinese, a discourse on looking at the different aspects of yoga practice. So at the beginning the analysis is that there's four types of objects. One type of object is an object that doesn't have any images to reflect on. You're looking at something. but there's no images around it that you're reflecting on. That type of object, if you train your attention on that type of object, it comes to fruit as tranquility. Another kind of object is an object that is accompanied by images for reflection. And that type of object is an object that one uses to develop insight.

[04:12]

And then phenomena, the actual full reality of all types of phenomena, both conventional phenomena and ultimate phenomena, that's the object of when samatha and vipassana are practiced together. And the other object is the object which is actually the supreme perfect enlightenment. That's also the object of when tranquility and insight are united. And then... You just said phenomena. I see. I said more than phenomena. Didn't I say something about the total reality of phenomena, something like that? So I take limits to be like... You didn't mean individual phenomena.

[05:19]

Each and every single individual... It's each individual phenomena, but all of them, every type of phenomena, the knowledge of all kinds of phenomena, So all kinds of conventional things plus all kinds of emptinesses, all those things are the objects of the wisdom and tranquility united. Does that make sense? I thought the limits of phenomena was something different from the phenomena, various, you know, multiple phenomena, one, two, three, four, five, but maybe I misunderstood. It means exhausting all phenomena to the limits of phenomena. It means there's no, in other words, you understand all things that can be known, all things, you have correct knowledge of everything. I see. Everything that can be known. It's exhausted to the limits. All the things that can be known, except that there's one special object that they leave over, and that is the accomplishment of the purpose of the whole program.

[06:28]

So the knowing of the objects along the way to reaching the limit of knowing the objects, like those phenomena known through the combination of samatha and vipassana are included in this third? Until reaching the limit, you say? Is this third thing only the reaching of the limit in the combination of samatha? The way I understand it. Object by object by object. It's object by object by object. It's not necessarily object by object. It's just that all types of objects are understood with the combination of these two. And there's no limit to what these can understand. They understand all conventional and ultimate things. But then they separate this one special thing And there's probably some reason for that. And as I mentioned to you, if you want to look at what that thing is, it's on page 205 of this chapter in the Tibetan translation from Tibetan.

[07:35]

Did you have your hand raised, Will? Did you say the four yoga practices or yoga? Yes, four objects. there's four objects of, four things that are objects of the yoga practices. And the yoga practices that are being taught here are basically the yoga practice of tranquility, the yoga practice of insight, and the yoga practice which is uniting the two. And when actually, when those two are united, it's called shamatha, vipassana, yoga, ananda. So when samatha and vipassana are yogad, are joined in blissful union, that's the yoga practice that's also spoken of in the beginning of this chapter.

[08:44]

I don't know if it says it right here, but that's one of the things it's called. It's called samatha-vipassana yoga. yogananda, yoga ananda. Ananda means bliss in this case. So the blissful union of shamatha and vipassana, that's when it says how many things are objects of both. All knowable things are objects of both. So both can look at the things which are objects of shamatha and both can look at the things which are objects of vipassana. Does that make sense? But the things that are object of vipassana are not the same as the things that are object of shamatha. But when they're united, then everything can be their knowledge and also, yeah, that's enough. And then it says, then after introducing that,

[09:48]

Maitreya says, abiding in and depending upon these four objects, bodhisattvas, no, excuse me, objects of observations of shamatha and vipassana, how do bodhisattvas seek shamatha and how do they become skilled in vipassana? So we've just been told what the objects of shamatha and vipassana are and now given these objects, how to bodhisattvas become skillful in these two types of meditation. And then the Buddhist says, I have set forth these twelve forms of doctrinal teachings to bodhisattvas. Then he lists the twelve. And these twelve are the same twelve that you find in the tradition before the arising of the Mahayana, the standard twelve divisions of the teaching. So the Buddha says, I have taught these to bodhisattvas.

[10:56]

And then bodhisattvas hear these and they apprehend them well, repeat them well, analyze them well with their minds, and through insight they fully realize these teachings. It says, then remaining in seclusion, having genuinely settled their minds inwardly, they mentally attend to those doctrines just as they have been contemplated. So the way I read that, and you can see if you have some different reading of it, is that they've heard these teachings and then they enter into meditation on objects which are not accompanied by images for reflection. They become genuinely settled and then they contemplate these teachings which they have heard.

[12:03]

And then, so that's the first part, then it seems to me that it goes back again now and it says, with continuous inner attention they mentally attend to the mind which is contemplated by any mind. So there again he says, now he's giving further instruction in what? Samatha. Samatha. So first he says, I give these teachings, bodhisattvas hear them and understand them. Then they enter into tranquility and then they understand them again. And then they meditate on these teachings again in the tranquility. Then he gives another Samatha instruction. And at the end of it he says, well, I'll just read the whole thing. They mentally attend to the mind which is mentally contemplated by any mind. The physical and mental pliancy, prashrabdhi, that arises through engaging in this practice of attending to the mind which is contemplated by any mind, that prashrabdhi is contemplated

[13:17]

The prasabdha that arises in this way is the shamatha. And this is how bodhisattvas seek shamatha. So again, we're saying you're looking at an object. It can be any object. But the object is not accompanied by any images for reflection. the object might be accompanied by images, but you're not reflecting on them. This is the same if you look at some object without it being accompanied by images which you're reflecting on. Then you're actually looking at the mind which is contemplated by any mind, according to this sutra. So when you're looking at an object and you don't get into reflecting on images around the object, or even the image of the object, I should even say.

[14:29]

Because when you look at an object, you're often looking at an image of the object. So if you look at an object and you're also looking at the image of the object, you don't reflect on the image of the object. And in that way, you're actually looking at the mind which is contemplated by any mind. What does any mind mean? Means all the different minds, all the different states of dualistic consciousness which you've ever had, and also non-dual consciousnesses are also, you're looking at the same mind all the time. But the mind appears as different objects. When you look at objects, the mind appears as different objects, and in conceptual cognition, the mind which appears as different objects is apprehended through images. When you don't reflect on the images that you're using to apprehend the object, which is the mind appearing as an object, you enter into tranquility.

[15:40]

But you're actually contemplating always the same mind and you realize that in a sense when you don't reflect on the images or when the images that come with the, that are part of your experience of an object, you don't reflect on them. In fact, you're realizing a contemplation of the mind which contemplates all minds. So the mind is contemplating all minds in some sense means the mind which is contemplating how all minds appear as different objects. Yes? So focusing on the breath or on the body would be insight meditation? No. If you focus on the breath, not focus on the breath so much, but if you choose to practice mindfulness of body, so you have this frame of reference of the body.

[16:49]

So in particular, you're watching the body. You assign yourself that thing. So the bodily objects arise. And if you see those objects and don't reflect on them, on the imagery around the object, or imagery as the object, that's tranquility. If you examine, if you look at the object and examine to see what it is, then you're doing insight. So actually in the early text, what is it, Digha Nikaya 22, Herak? Digha Nikaya 22, is that it? The Maha Satipatthana Sutta, the great foundation of mindfulness sutra, the first part of it, the beginning of setting the foundation of mindfulness, looks to me to be shamatha practice. But then it moves into another phase where you start to look at the object and see how it relates to various conditions.

[17:56]

Then you switch to insight practice, to vipassana. So to look at the breath and then don't see or get involved in reflecting on any of the images of the breath or around the breath, which means you don't reflect on the images of the breath, like how the breath itself appears. You don't reflect on that. You don't think about that. But also, you don't reflect on any other images around the breath, like stories about the breath or not about the breath. You don't get involved in any reflective imagery in relationship to the breath. It's just in the breath as the breath. That's it. That way of being with the breath establishes mindfulness and also This establishes tranquility. But then, if you start looking at what is the breath? How does it arise? How does it cease? What are its conditions? So it says in the sutra, in the early sutra it says, watching the origin and ceasing of whatever, some bodily function, some bodily appearance.

[19:07]

That moves into a vipassana level. Does that make sense? When you talked yesterday about that, I can't remember the words you used, wrong understanding or tainted idea of what you're looking at. I was thinking of, just saying I'm looking at the graph, but I think I've given up conceptual thinking or any discourse of thought around it, but I actually haven't. In other words, if you jump into the vipassana... Excuse me. I think what you're referring to is that I said that even if you are looking at some phenomena called the breath, and if you give up reflecting on any imagery accompanying the breath, and you enter into tranquility after doing that for a while, you still may have some misconceptions which are accompanying the breath.

[20:11]

which were there at the beginning of the meditation and had not been removed. You also have some conceptions of the breath which aren't misconceptions, perhaps. Like, for example, that is breath isn't a misconception. In Samadhi practice, you're not messing with the conceptions. And some of the conceptions we have about things are misconceptions. For example, we conceive of the breath as having some independent existence. That's a misconception. In the Food Notes of Chapter 8, it talks about the... So my question was really about, if you jump into the Vipassana side too fast, how do you recognize that there are still these misconceptions there If you jump into the Vipassana side too fast, that's a kind of tricky question in itself because if you mean by too fast, do you mean before you have tranquility?

[21:21]

No, before all the misconceptions are being removed. Excuse me, right there. Almost no one is going to move into Vipassana before they've removed the misconceptions. It's not really Vipassana. Huh? Because it's not really Vipassana then. Vipassana is a practice to remove the misconceptions. So we're born with the misconceptions. So as we move into tranquility practice and Vipassana practice, we move into Vipassana practice to abandon these misconceptions. So when we first start Vipassana practice, and then for a while after, we still entertain these misconceptions. So it isn't that at the very beginning of of training in vipassana, or becoming skillful in vipassana at the beginning, we're not skillful enough at vipassana to overcome misconceptions. But it still can be real vipassana if we're tranquil.

[22:24]

So in some sense, moving into vipassana too soon would be, number one, because you're not tranquil enough, and number two, because you don't have your vipassana instructions properly established. Those would be the two ways you'd be going to soon. So you get instruction, usually you get instruction in Vipassana before you start practicing Samatha. But you could also practice Samatha and then get instruction in Vipassana. And then with the Samatha and the instructions in Vipassana, you start practicing Vipassana. But through this whole process, sentient beings still have misconceptions about whatever they're looking at. But by applying vipassana, especially by uniting vipassana and shamatha, you come to what is going to be happening in a couple more lines, namely a correct understanding of the way things are, which will overthrow the deeply established tendency to see things in a misconceived way.

[23:33]

So the third note was Abandoning non-conceptuality, which is the shamatha. Abandoning non-conceptuality means abandoning the training in shamatha, yes. Okay. And the non-conceptuality is the discursive thought? No. Non-conceptuality is giving up the discursive thought. So in shamatha you're training yourself to be non-conceptual about you know, whatever object you're being conceptual about. So usually, usually when we start training in shamatha, we're really, we're at the level of conceptual cognition. So we're dealing with objects in terms of images of them. We're apprehending objects through images of them. Okay? And so you're in a class in Berkeley where we've made this point, which is very difficult, and so I'm going to say it now. Okay? Okay. In conceptual cognition, when an object appears to us, we apprehend the object by means of an intervening or mediating image or concept.

[24:54]

That's how we have conceptual cognitions. And we confuse the two. So conceptual cognitions are basically mistaken because we can't tell the difference between the image by which we apprehend something, like the breath or the posture, and the breath and the posture. The actual object of the breath is confused with the image of the breath. So in that level we're mistaken. And in that level of conceptual cognition where we're mistaken about the body and the breath, in that way In other words, we're mistaken about what is appearing to us. What's appearing to us is the image, but we mistake the image that's appearing to us for the object, which is actually the basis of the image. Still, it's in that realm that we're hearing the instructions about how to practice Samatha. And the instructions are, this object or this image or this concept which you're meditating on, Now, don't be discursive about that.

[25:56]

Be non-discursive. Be non-conceptual about this concept, and then you'll calm down. Then when you're calmed down, then you can start using vipassana to not only understand the mistake you're making in terms of conceptual cognition, but you can also understand another misconception, which is that the object has inherent existence and exists separate from the mind. I've had lots of questions, but I think it would be good to go a little further in the text for you to gobble a few more huge... Actually, I think I'm going to go a little further if you take this big, huge bite that's coming up. So this is the shamatha. Then Vipassana, having obtained this pliancy, this shamatha, and abiding only in that state... You're abiding in the state which is the result from the training.

[26:57]

Having abandoned certain aspects of mind. And the way I understand that is you're abandoning now being non-discursive. You're abandoning the shamatha training. It's like you've launched yourself into tranquility and then you abandon the training which puts you there. like a rocket, you know, those booster rockets, they go up and then they drop the lower one. So you're in this state of being lifted into the sky, but you're not holding on to the booster anymore. It's like that. So you abandon that thing that got you in the state, for a while anyway. And then in this state of tranquility, they analyze and inwardly consider those doctrines in the way that they had been contemplated as images, which are the focus of samadhi. So these doctrines are still images. You're still looking at the images of the doctrine, so still conceptual cognition.

[28:02]

However, it's operating in, number one, tranquility, and number two, you're reactivating the discursive thought to analyze the images by which the teaching has come to you. And then, we move into this next phase, which is, this is how bodhisattvas... Oh, no. The differentiation, the thorough differentiation, the thorough investigation, the thorough analysis, forbearance, interest, discrimination, view, investigation of these objects that are known with respect to the images that are the focus of the samadhi is vipassana. It may be that during this retreat we'll go into all those different aspects, but they're going into the details now of the analysis of the image by which the teaching or the doctrine has come to you. All these things, you know, the differentiation, the thorough differentiation, the thorough investigation, the thorough analysis, the forbearance, interest, discrimination, view, investigation, all those are aspects of your discursive analysis, of your conceptual analysis, of your reflection on the images about the teachings.

[29:29]

And that's the Vipassana work. And we may go into those different aspects, but in short, you could just say you're reflecting thoroughly in many different aspects. You're reflecting on the teaching, but this is at a conceptual level also. But you're also calm. That was a big bite there too, but there's a bigger one coming. I want to go a little further. This is how Bodhisattva has become skilled in vipassana. And then here comes the big thing, okay? Bhagavan, prior to the attaining of physical and mental pliancy, this isn't really the big thing, this is important, but prior to attaining the physical and mental pliancy, when bodhisattvas inwardly attend to the mind observing the mind, okay, the mind observing the mind, what kind of training is that?

[30:31]

Chamatha. So you're looking at objects, right? breath, posture, sound of a bird, pain in your leg. You're looking at those objects, but you're actually training the mind to observe the mind at that time. And you're observing the mind to watch to see if the mind doesn't reflect on the images there. And he says, prior to attaining this physical and mental pliancy, what is that kind of training called? It's not shamatha. But it resembles intensified interest concordant with Samatha, which is a kind of bulky way to say it's really the training in Samatha which of course is in accordance with it. But it's not actually Samatha. Samatha, for whatever reason, is speaking of the result of the training. But it's the training inwardly attending

[31:37]

to the mind observing the mind. You're watching the mind which contemplates all minds. And prior to pliancy, it's not Samatha. But it's still, if you're doing this correctly, it's still the right thing to do for Samatha's sake. And I wrote this little note in here, practicing with the trust, guiding one to concentration and contemplation. So to some extent you're putting down your bet that this would be a good way to use your mind. to spend time giving up discursive thought for the sake of developing concentration.

[32:43]

And, of course, based on that, insight. And then Maitreyi says, Bhagavan, prior to attaining mental and physical pliancy, when the bodhisattva inwardly attends to those doctrines, just as they have been contemplated as images, that are the focus of samadhi. What is this called? And the Buddha says, this is not vipassana. However, it resembles intensified interest concordant with vipassana. So it could be the same type of discursive thought, basically, quite similar to the same type of analysis that you'd be doing if you were tranquil, but it's not vipassana. So this is a big deal about this book, as this book is saying, vipassana is done in a state of tranquility. This sutra is saying that vipassana, insight work, is done in a state of tranquility.

[33:45]

And some people... But still, you can learn the teachings which are contemplated in tranquility as vipassana work. You can study those same teachings, but studying them before you're in tranquility is not vipassana. And practicing analysis of your experience based on those teachings before you're in a state of tranquility, according to this sutra, is not yet shamatha. It's not yet vipassana, but it's similar to vipassana. It looks like it. The mind seems to be operating the same way, but it's in a different world. It's in a different world. Yeah. Most of us are right now perhaps not really in a state of tranquility and we're hearing these teachings about how to practice tranquility and insight and we're also hearing other teachings which would eventually be the teachings which we would be contemplating just as we learn them but in a state of tranquility later.

[34:57]

So here's the big one. I think it's coming now. Yeah, here it is. And then he says, Bhagavan, are the path of Samatha and Vipassana different or not different? Bhagavan replied, Maitreya, although they are not different, they are not the same. Why are they not different? Because Samatha observes mind, which is the object of observation of Vipassana. Samatha, we know, is observing the mind which contemplates all minds. But all the objects that Samatha is studying, all the images, are also mind. So in that way they're not different. Samatha observes mind which is also the object of observation of Vipassana.

[36:04]

Why are they not the same? Because Vipassana observes conceptual images. Bhagavan, what is the image, the focus of the samadhi, which perceives an image? Bhagavan, what is the image, the focus of samadhi, which perceives the image? Is it different from mind or is it non-different? So if you're looking at an image of an object, which is the focus of samadhi, is it different from mind or not different? And Buddha says, Maitreya, it's not different. He doesn't say it's different. He says it's not different. Why is it not different? Because the image is simply cognition only. And that's the big, that's the punchline of this part of the text. Hmm?

[37:06]

Do I? Do you want to have the text? Do you want the text? Some people want the text? Okay. Pass the text out. And while we're passing the text out, I'll text the questions. Is there any? Yes? Could cognition only also be said as mind only? Yeah. One of the ways it's translated is mind only. mind only, cognition only, concept only, conscious construction only. In Samatha, in the state of Samatha, in meditation, is it awareness of mind as objects or a rising power, but yet there's no contemplation as to what they are, what they're exerting? Would you say that again, please?

[38:11]

I'll try. In Samatha. Are you talking about in training in Samatha or in the state of Samatha? In the state of Samatha. Yes? Yeah? Is there an awareness of mind, which is a difficult thing for me to say because I don't feel they're separate, but awareness mind as images, sense things can go without any kind of conception about them? So almost like the attention is on the watching and not... the attention is on the mind. You're mixing the two. You're mixing the state with the training for the state. In the training for the state of tranquility you're attending to the mind

[39:16]

which is observing whatever you're experiencing. You're actually looking at the mind by not getting involved in discoursing about the images through which the mind appears to you. That's the training. Once you're in tranquility, you can continue tranquility meditation if you want to. So once you're completely tranquil, you can continue to train in tranquility. That's perfectly all right. But this text is also saying, well, how do you practice insight or vipassana? Well, the way you do that is you put aside the training of meditating on the mind which is the mind which contemplates any object, which is the same as saying the mind which contemplates any what? Yeah, right. So in Samatha you're contemplating the mind which contemplates any object, but in this text they say the mind which contemplates any mind.

[40:25]

They're setting you up to tell you that whatever object appears is actually mind. Yes. In what state? In what state? In the state of Samatha. In the state of Samatha. You then would recognize that and then turn your attention on Vipassana. You could, yeah. That if you desire to drop the... So you drop then, you drop then meditating on the mind, which contemplates any mind, and you'd now then switch to contemplating perhaps the teaching, which is that any mind you're looking at is all the objects that you're looking at, or any object you're looking at is actually mind, then you would shift from shamatha to vipassana. Okay? And a little bit further ties us together.

[41:27]

So we just introduced... that the Buddha is being asked now, and he's saying that, I have explained that consciousness is fully distinguished by the fact that the object of observation is cognition only, or the object of cognition is mind only. That's what he's teaching. And then he says, Actually, I'll go a little bit further. Bhagavan, if that image, the focus of samadhi, is not different from the physical mind, how does the mind itself investigate the mind itself? And the Buddhist says this kind of difficult sentence here. Maitreya, although no phenomena appears, apprehends any other phenomena. In other words, no phenomena apprehends some other phenomena, no mind apprehends some other phenomena from mind.

[42:35]

Nevertheless, the mind that is generated in that way appears that way. So the mind that is generated as though it were an object appears as though it's an object other than mind. That's the way mind generates itself sometimes as objects that appear different from itself. But that's not so. So this is another teaching which you can receive and contemplate and then you could study this teaching and reflect on this teaching which is coming to you in images in a state of tranquility. Maitreya, for instance. Based on form, form itself is seen in a perfectly clear, round mirror. But one thinks, I see an image. The form and the appearance of the image appear as different actualities, but are not different actualities.

[43:44]

Likewise, the mind is generated in that way and the focus of samadhi known as image also appear to be separate factualities. So even in samadhi that appearance of separation is still there. the part I'm trying to get to is really a little ways away. Let me go a little further. Bhagavan are the appearances of the forms of sentient beings and so forth which abide in the nature of images of mind, not different from mind. And, of course, Buddha says, Maitreya, they are not different. However, childish beings with distorted understanding do not recognize these images as cognition only. just as they are in reality, they misconstrue them.

[44:48]

Bhagavan, at what point do bodhisattvas solely cultivate vipassana? So in a sense, we're going back to the earlier thing where he says, how do they cultivate vipassana? And Bhagavan says, when they attend to mental signs with continuous mental attention. So when you're practicing Vipassana by itself, you're actually meditating on mental signs, on images. Okay? Does that sound familiar? Well, like I'm looking at you, and if I'm doing Vipassana, I have images of you, and I actually contemplate the image, and I reflect on the image. And now I'm getting more information that the image I'm reflecting on is like a sign. which means that I'm reflecting on an image which has the appearance of being a substantial thing separate from me. In Vipassana, I will not reflect on the images by which I am in a state of conceptual cognition in either case.

[45:55]

So in Vipassana, I'm not going to reflect on the images by which I apprehend you and know you. In Vipassana, I will reflect on it, and not only that, but I'm going to reflect on the signs. In Vipassana, I am going to reflect on those images. And in particular, these images are going to be mental images that are signs, and signs mean an image which has some sense of, like, some separate substantial existence. So it isn't just that I have like a fleeting image of you which I, you know, don't really know if it's, I'm not really sure if it's me or you. It's like I'm really pretty sure it's you, not me, or me, not you, or yours, not mine. And it really is that way. To work with that kind of stuff is the job of insight work, insights dealing with these misconceptions. But Vipassana, I mean, Samatha is not getting involved in them for the time being.

[47:02]

So these signs are imagined substantial entities. So Vipassana, you're actually studying delusion. You're studying the images of substantial existences. along with teachings, they're telling you that that's wrong. At what point did they solely cultivate samatha? And now we're back to a similar but slightly different statement. When they attend to the innermost mind, excuse me, to the unerupted innermost mind with continuous mental attention. So that's kind of a repeat, right? And then, this is what I was going to, related to what we were talking about a minute ago, At what point, having combined the two, shamatha and vipassana, do they unite them? When they mentally attend to the one-pointedness of mind. At that point, the shamatha and vipassana are united.

[48:18]

And then, what are the mental signs? Maitreya, they are the conceptual images which are the focus of samadhi, but he doesn't tell us that they also carry with them the sense of substantial existence. He doesn't say that at this time. They are the conceptual images that are the focus of samadhi, which are the objects of vipassana. So when a samadhi is looking at conceptual images, reflecting on those, those conceptual images are the focus of the vipassana in the samadhi. And what is the uninterrupted mind? Maitreya, it is the mind that observes the image, the object of observation of shamatha. So Samatha is looking at the object which is the uninterrupted mind.

[49:29]

Vipassana is looking at the uninterrupted mind seen as a mental sign. And then what is the one-pointed mind? It is the realization that this image is the focus of samadhi, is cognition only. This image, which is the focus of samadhi, is cognition only. That realization is one-pointed mind. Could you explain? I'm completely not understanding the phrase, this image, which is the focus of samadhi. Maybe I don't understand the focus of samadhi very well. Pardon? Maybe I don't understand what samadhi is very well, but I don't even know where it began. It seems to me that they're using samadhi in different cases. It sounds like they're using samadhi in the case where you're practicing tranquility, you've attained tranquility, and you're in a samadhi.

[50:39]

And you can continue in that samadhi to meditate on whatever is happening, basically as the uninterrupted mind. So I'm in the samadhi situation, but I'm practicing shamatha. So you can practice shamatha in samadhi. Well, the definition of samadhi is one-pointedness of thought. That's its definition. It means to be gathered or concentrated. Shamatha means to be at ease or calm. And Samatha is, in a sense, a type of Samadhi, or Samadhi is a type of Samatha. So why would the focus of Samadhi be an image? The focus of Samadhi being an image? Yeah, why is it an image? Well, in both cases, at this level, we're being, this is, what do you call it, you're being initiated into this meditation, right?

[51:50]

This is an initiation process here. And at the beginning, you have to get this stuff through your ear. You have to get it through words. You're in a conceptual cognition mostly in your life. It's in conceptual cognition that we have our problems. Because it's in conceptual cognition that we have misconceptions that are the basis of our problems. So for people who are caught up in misconceptions about life, now conceptual teachings are coming to them. And the teaching is, now, what kind of objects are we going to teach these people? Okay? The first kind of object is an image unaccompanied by images for reflection. Unaccompanied. So we're talking about people who are like in conceptual cognition, who are hearing the Buddha's teaching, are hearing the Bodhisattva's instruction. And the instruction is, if you look at your...

[52:51]

at what you're looking at, you're basically looking at images. They don't say that. Now look at an image which you're having of an object and see if you can look at that image without any accompanying images that you're reflecting on. Another way to say it is look at the image but actually look at it in such a way that you're looking at the uninterrupted mind. The uninterrupted mind is the mind which looks at all images. It's not the mind that's jumping around, reflecting on things. So in the Samatha, when you're training in Samatha, you're not yet in Samadhi. But if you continuously attend to this uninterrupted mind, it may come to fruit as shamatha. So now if you continue, if you wish to continue the same training of looking at images of objects without getting into any kind of discursive analysis or conceptual elaboration on the image, turning your imagination off

[54:07]

after it's done its basic work of imaging a particular phenomenon. Then you can deepen that trance deeper and deeper and deeper. Or you could look at the image and let there be some reflection on the image. And then you would shift into vipassana. Now the vipassana is now looking at an image and reflecting on it. But we're still in a state of samadhi in the sense that we're in a state of tranquility. So the tranquil mind has this same object that the vipassana mind has. Does that make sense? So we're in a state of samadhi and now we're going to do vipassana work in the samadhi. Vipassana work has the same object that the tranquility work would have. So the same object you can treat in such a way as to promote tranquility or you can reflect on various images associated with it and teachings about it and analyze it and develop insight.

[55:20]

objects and image. Because you're going to be using images, in Vipassana you're going to be using images to reflect on objects which are images. You're in the imaging or imagination realm where you can receive teachings and apply teachings to objects which are images. Then the two can be united. And when they're united, then we create a yogic state which is identical to the teaching which we're going to contemplate. So there we're going to be like meditating on the object without conceptual elaboration and we're going to be applying a teaching by which you reflect on the teaching through conceptual elaboration, a teaching which says that this image is nothing other than mind.

[56:30]

In other words, this image is free of any conceptual elaboration. It's not the least bit separate from what knows it. So looking at how those two come together, And being in the state of where those two come together is the realization, not just the hearing the teaching, but the realization of the teaching that whatever image appears to you is the mind appearing that way. So that's the big thing. That's the big teaching of this part of the sutra. Yeah. Is it similar to say seeing sees thoughts, thinking, I mean thinking, having thoughts and that's the way it appears in the mind? Say it again. I mean the lack of understanding just with us is if I, I'm just checking if I understand it.

[57:33]

It's like I'm seeing something. It's more seeing is seeing or hearing is hearing. is an object in mind. There is a hearing. I mean, there is... There's hearing. There is something. There is hearing, and the hearing is hearing the way the hearing is in the mind. The hearing is hearing as opposed to I'm hearing some sound. Yes. It's... or thoughts are thinking. It's close. Or another way to say it would be the sound heard is nothing other than the awareness of hearing. Yes? When mind realizes that what's coming up is mine, where does that leave you? Where does it leave you? It feels kind of like, geez, everything I'm seeing is just myself generating.

[58:35]

Is there something there that's... It's a little bit different from my self-generating. It's that whatever you're seeing is mind-generated. So you want to know how to proceed from there? When you actually have that realization, again, you're now in a state of samadhi where your state is like that. Your state is like that and you're realized like that. then you're starting to meditate on, as it says, then you're starting to meditate on suchness. And now you're basically initiated into the meditation practice. And you just continue that meditation until you become a Buddha. This is the initiation into, if you use the expression, Buddha's meditation. Before that, you're not really doing Buddhist meditation. You're just basically getting ready for it. because you're still seeing things, you still see things and kind of believe things are separate before this.

[59:38]

So you're just continuing to regurgitate, to reiterate a misconception of the nature of your experience. Plus you're maybe even agitated and upset too. But at this point, from here on it says, as it says in the next part, that now at this point you're meditating on suchness and by continually meditating on suchness you will progress along the bodhisattva path. Yes? Mind is a sense organ. Mind is partly a sense organ. It has a sense organ part. But it's also an awareness. And the awareness isn't really an organ. It's a knowing. So then once you get to that mind knowing that what's arising is mind, there are awarenesses that we possess that we're unaware of because the mind is in the weapon that will take you into the blue for practice?

[60:48]

It opens the door to other kinds of awareness which are blocked because we believe that objects are separate from mind. Yes. And also kinds of other emotions that arise with the belief that objects are separate from mind that block our vision of the way we actually are relating with other beings. And we have earlier teachings in this sutra, and in particular I'm thinking of chapter six and seven, where they teach that the actual fundamental character of things is that they're interdependent or other-dependent. However, it also says there that when we look at the other-dependent phenomena, we see it through conceptual imaging. So we see it in an afflicting way. When you enter into samadhi, you start to remove the superimposition over the way things actually are and start dealing with reality

[61:57]

in an unpackaged, non-conceptual way, or you start dealing with your life free of conceptual clinging through this kind of samadhi. So in the earlier chapters it proposes the possibility of seeing suchness and how that's important. And it points out in chapter seven how our problems arise from our believing that our conceptual imagination of things is them, or that our problems arise from believing that our conceptual superimpositions on our interdependent life are actually our life. And this is showing the yogic practice to overthrow that belief in the superimposition of images upon our existence. And it's a very extensive path of practice for the bodhisattva.

[63:02]

Yes? I have two. One is that I really want to get into why this instruction has come to Maitreya and not Manjushri or one of the other bodhisattvas. Does this have to do with initiation? That's the first question. Yeah. I don't know if the sutra that we've just been going through, plus the way I've been talking about it, comes across to you as a story or not. But it could. You could see what I just said and the sutra that I'm bouncing off of as a story. And so now, in a sense, your question could lead me to more stories. Okay? And Paula asked me something about the history of this sutra. And so I could tell you his story of this sutra.

[64:11]

And I kind of feel like this sutra is a really good example of a teaching appearing in this world sometime, you know, it seems like in history it appeared maybe five to nine hundred years after the Buddha died, this teaching appeared in this form of cognition only. Where did it come from? And so the question is something George was just there about. What about Maitreya? How come Maitreya is the one asking the questions in this chapter? And I've already told another story about this bodhisattva who is again a bodhisattva who a lot of guys have a story about.

[65:16]

A lot of his, a lot of he's have stories about this bodhisattva named Asanga. And somehow Asanga felt like Maitreya was who he needed to meet. He was trying to practice and he was having trouble practicing. He wasn't getting anywhere. And he somehow got the idea that the Bodhisattva Maitreya, the next Buddha, would be just the person he would need to meet. And Asanga, by the way, the most important sutra to Asanga seems to be this sutra here, this sutra revealing the intention of the Buddha. So there's something really important about Maitreya in this tradition of this sutra. He's, in some sense, the most important chapter in a way, is this chapter. And the most important bodhisattva for the founder of the Yogacara school, which is Maitreya, uses this text as the main text, main sutra.

[66:27]

However, Maitreya has a bunch, excuse me, Asanga has a bunch of other scriptures which he wrote down. which he tells us were transmitted to him directly from Maitreya. So a big part of the history of this text and a big part of the teaching development of this text is that this text was made most influential through a historical person named Asanga. But this historical person named Astanga tells a story that he had a very close personal relationship with a celestial bodhisattva named Maitreya. And that's a story. And we can go into more detail, but before we get into it, the question is, how do we understand the story of a supposedly historical person

[67:33]

whose authority is like, you know, aside from the Buddha, unsurpassable in the Buddhist tradition. And he has this little brother named Vasubandhu who is also like incredibly important in the history of the tradition. These two people who launch this Mahayana version of the understanding of mind. And my son is telling us that it's through divine inspiration or through divine revelation that he's able to write these amazing texts. And it seems to me that this text too, this sutra, is coming through divine revelation. This sutra is coming, however, from the Buddha directly. Whereas Sangha's works, he's not getting from Buddha directly.

[68:35]

He's getting from the Bodhisattva, Maitreya. And he also then studies the sutra, which is coming from the Buddha, but he wasn't the one that the Buddha inspired to write the sutra. And in this sutra is this teaching, which is, where did it come from? Did human beings make it up? That could be a story you tell. Human beings made this up. But you could tell another story, is that human beings were touched or reached or entered, or human beings invoked and were met by celestial bodhisattvas and Buddhas, in this case met by the Buddha. Does it say Shakyamuni Buddha at the beginning of the sutra? It doesn't, does it? So we don't know what Buddha this is that came to meet some human in India. And in this face-to-face transmission between this Buddha and this person, like the face-to-face transmission between Moses and somebody else on a mountain,

[69:49]

or the face-to-face transmission between Abraham and somebody in Mecca? I don't know. These meetings between humans and divine beings, it seems to me, you could tell the story, that that happened between some being or some gang of beings, some gang of yogis, in India that they invited and were met by some Buddha who gave them this teaching about mind only. And Asanga got Maitreya to come to meet him. And Asanga uses this text and then he uses what Maitreya taught him to launch this this practice of meditation. And the sutra is like the main sutra, and the sangha's teachings are the main commentaries coming from bodhisattvas. So we don't call the teachings of the bodhisattvas sutras.

[70:53]

And not only that, But this story about where this sutra comes from is pretty much a direct reflection of the teaching we just were talking about. Namely, that the mind of sentient beings and the mind of Buddhas who come to stimulate them to give rise to a realization of Dharma, they're not separate. That human beings don't think up these teachings. on their own. That's the story of this tradition. It's not that the Sangha made up those amazing things that he wrote down. He did write them down, but he was taking notes from his teacher, who happened to be a celestial bodhisattva. And he went to Tushita Heaven to receive the instruction. And after he received these instructions and wrote down these five major texts, which are closely related to the five major texts which reflect the view which we just read about.

[72:04]

And the view is, from the point of view of the Heart Sutra, from the point of view that everything's empty, we teach that everything's mind. So first of all, all dharmas are empty And the next teaching is, and the meaning of that is that all dharmas are mind only. So, and the bodhisattvas who taught that all dharmas are empty, they didn't make that up either. That was something that happened to them to speak that way and write that way because they had an interaction with the Buddha or Buddhas. And then they said this, that all dharmas, just like Avalokiteshvara in the Heart Sutra starts saying that all dharmas are empty, but he's saying that while he's basically Buddha's mouthpiece, Buddha's in a samadhi animating Avalokiteshvara to tell us that all five skandhas are empty.

[73:06]

This sutra now, these bodhisattvas and Buddhas are animating human beings to write down a story of different bodhisattvas talking to Buddha and receiving these teachings and then writing them down for us. And then Maitreya, I mean Asanga, actually writes commentaries that he received from Maitreya. And these commentaries are in accord with the teachings which he got from the sutra, which is, again, the teaching of emptiness, of perfect wisdom, in the form of teaching the nature of mind. And And what is Buddha? The Buddha is, or these Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, they are a state free of conception, which is a compassion which wants to teach.

[74:15]

They are emptiness which wants to teach. And one of the ways they teach is they teach everything's empty. But now, at this point in history, given what was going on in India one to four hundred, five hundred years after the first wave of Mahayana teachings, the first wave of Mahayana teachings was beings were inspired, humans were inspired to say all dharmas are empty. All dharmas are free of conceptual clinging. All dharmas are free of any kind of conceptuality. That's what they taught. Now they're saying all dharmas are free of conceptuality means that whatever you're seeing is mind. It's the next wave. And that's because this great emptiness wants to teach beings. And if beings make clear that they want to be taught these beings make contact and the face-to-face transmission occurs.

[75:20]

But the beings do not make this up. That's the story that I tell. The story arises between the beings, the beings who are not yet free of conceptual clinging, and the beings whose compassion is not yet purified of any conceptual clinging. Interacting with beings who are compassion, completely free of conceptual clinging. That union brings forth the wish to practice and the ability to somehow express these teachings, these new teachings. which have never been seen before but are necessary for the current historical situation because the old ones are not necessarily as relevant as these new ones would be. And so these new ones were more effective and had more influence than the old ones did, even though the new ones could not have happened without the old ones and totally in accord with the old ones. So that's a story, Bala.

[76:25]

That's a story about where this sutra comes from and where the other texts on the school, which is called the Yogachar school, come from. Yes, Will? I mean, Kazan? Is that why you said that the Dharma is not in the sutra? Well, it's related. I don't know if that's why I said that, but it's kind of saying the same thing, yeah. So the Dharma is not in the sutra? No, but the Dharma causes the sutra to arise. So, you know, actually, what is it? We have these three refuges, the three jewels, right? Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. And maybe it might be useful to post the Kyoju Kaimon.

[77:27]

So Dogen wrote a little essay. It's called Kyoju Kaimon, which means essay on teaching and receiving the precepts. And tonight we're going to do a bodhisattva ceremony, right? And traditionally in Soto Zen we read the Kyoju Kaimon, that essay on Dogen. Okay? And in that essay he says there's three virtues or three merits to the triple treasure. First one is called the single-bodied triple treasure. The next one is called the manifested triple treasure. And the third one is called the maintaining triple treasure. The maintaining triple treasure means the triple treasure that's always changing and adapting to the present historical circumstances. And under that heading, the Dharma

[78:30]

is written down on shells and leaves and put into the storehouse. So Dharma gets transformed into words written down on palm leaves and on shells and paper, and now onto discs and cassettes and video screens. It gets transformed into these forms to help people. But the first level of Dharma, under the first triple treasure, The first treasure is unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. That's Buddha. The second treasure is purity and freedom from dust. That's the Dharma. The Dharma is purity and freedom from dust. Of what? Of what? Dust. Purity and freedom of dust is the Dharma under the single... Looking at the triple treasure under the heading of...

[79:36]

single-bodied triple treasure. The Buddha is unsurpassed enlightenment. That's Buddha. It's not a person. It's the actual enlightened state. It's this freedom from all conceptual clinging which is full of compassion for beings. That's Buddha. That's unsurpassed enlightenment. The Dharma is purity and freedom from dust. Freedom from dust about what? Huh? No? Huh? What? The misconceptions are the dust. Freedom of misconceptions means freedom from dust. Dust means like that you see things. When you see things, it's like they get in your eye. In other words, to see things as objects, we mean dust. So dharma is freedom from seeing things as objects. So the freedom from dust means that everything you see is free from dust. Everything you see, including especially Buddha, is free from the dust of it being out there.

[80:45]

And also when you see things, they're free of the idea that they're separate from your mind. Dust, impurity is that you defile what is one by seeing it as two. That's the first kind of dharma. The second kind of dharma goes with, excuse me, the first one is unsurpassed enlightenment, purity and freedom from dust, and the third one is peace and harmony. Not peace and harmony. It's the harmony of the previous two. That the Buddha and the freedom from dust is in perfect harmony. That's the third. Then in the second one, the manifested triple treasure is the historical Buddha. That's the manifested triple treasure. And the Dharma which the Buddha realized, that's the historical Dharma. And the people who study that are the historical Sangha. The maintained Buddha, the first one is... Yeah, the first one is actually people being edified, people waking up right now.

[81:55]

That's the Buddha. us waking up, us being edified and being liberated, that's Buddha now. There's no historical Buddha here now anymore. But the third aspect of the Triple Treasure, the evolving, maintaining Triple Treasure, is us practicing and waking up. And the Dharma is the Dharma being transformed into whatever will be helpful. And the Sangha is peace and harmony in the world. So there's different meanings of Dharma. But the Dharma isn't really in those things, but the Dharma can appear as those things or cause the appearance of those things, and then people can look at those things and they can be told, the Dharma's not in this thing. So this wonderful thing can appear and you go, wow, and then you read it and it says, what you're holding is not it. Close the book and go out and help people. So, I'm trying to actually say that this tradition, this teaching here, is a teaching which comes from this deep and ancient sense that the actual teaching comes from the interaction between enlightened beings and unenlightened beings to make enlightened beings.

[83:22]

This is another example of that. this teaching here. That's the history of this. But even when Buddha was alive, people maybe didn't understand that the transmission of the Dharma required meeting the Buddha. Maybe they think Buddha gave the teaching, and then people could go find the teaching, and then they'd study the teaching, and then they'd understand the teaching. But that isn't what the teaching says. The teaching doesn't have stories of too much of people hearing about Buddha's teaching and becoming enlightened. The stories are about people hearing the teaching from the Buddha and becoming enlightened because the transmission was not in what he was saying, but was in the meeting with the Buddha. So this is a big, kind of like, what is it? This is a big, big,

[84:25]

issue about whether you can go pick up these Buddhist teachings and study them and understand the Dharma, or whether you have to actually, while you're studying these teachings, you have to actually have the Buddha come and meet you in order to be able to hear the Dharma while you're studying these teachings. Pardon? this practice, the meditative state, do you get into it? Or do you talk about literally meeting the Buddha? Well, actually, that's something else you can get into. I'm talking about literally meeting the Buddha. I'm talking about not literally meeting the Buddha. And I'm talking about literally and not literally meeting the Buddha. And those are the, also right in this first few pages, those are the three types of insight, three types of wisdom. One type of wisdom is literal. Next type of wisdom is not literal.

[85:29]

Third type of wisdom is both literal and not literal. First type of teaching depends on the word. Second type of teaching does not depend on the word. Third type of teaching, the deepest type, depends on the word and doesn't depend on the word. That's the three types of insight which are discussed in the first two pages. And they're also discussed on page one, I think around 180 in the same chapter, and later too. There's three or four places in this chapter where these three kinds of wisdom are touched. Buddha is unsurpassed perfect enlightenment. Unsurpassed perfect enlightenment is a state of being that's free of conceptual clinging. and full of compassion to teach people to wake up to that state and be free of suffering. That's the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment. But also Buddha can be a historical person. But also Buddha is when you wake up to the teaching.

[86:33]

But you're waking up to the teaching, you don't do it by yourself. And I think a lot of people think that you can go and study Buddhism and wake up. You have to have a face-to-face meeting with the Buddha to wake up. A literal Buddha, not a literal Buddha. The Buddha which can appear to you in a conceptual form, if you want to, but then you realize, oh, the Buddha isn't actually the image there. But nothing is actually the image there. So some people appear to you and say, Hi, see the image? You say, yeah. And they say, well, okay, now, calm down, give up any kind of elaboration on this image, and now analyze this image until you realize this image you're seeing is none other than your consciousness. And then you realize, oh, the person isn't the image. Of course they never were. But sometimes you need people to teach you that, or we need people to teach us that. Not sometimes.

[87:33]

Actually, all the time when it comes to hearing the Dharma, you actually have to hear it by being in the company of the state that you want to realize. It's a transmission between the state of emptiness full of compassion to awaken the state of emptiness full of compassion in another being, which in no way is separate from the previous one, but entertains that misconception. So we feel separate from each other and we feel separate from all of our objects. That's our misconception. So the face-to-face transmission goes really well with this teaching here. And that this teaching is coming through a face-to-face meeting between the disciples of Buddha who wrote down this tradition and the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. It isn't that these people who wrote down this tradition are not people who are walking around saying, you know, we made this up.

[88:41]

They're people, like I say, who have somewhat authority, like a sangha. Like, was it that Carlos Castaneda? He wrote those books. Do you know Carlos Castaneda? How many people don't know Carlos Castaneda? Anyway, he's a writer, he was anthropologist and he wrote these books which some people say are novels and some people say that they're based on some actual experience he had with Native American shamans in Mexico. And some people say either he really did meet a shaman or he's a really great novelist. So, you know, I don't necessarily want to make a statement about him, although I do think he certainly, in some sense, if he's not authentically contacted these teachings, he is a great, great novelist, I would say.

[89:48]

So I don't know which he is either, but if Asanga didn't meet Maitreya and he wrote the things he wrote without having... Huh? I think he's a great... Then he's a person who wrote some of the most amazing teachings that have ever appeared in the world who chose to tell us that he didn't write them. And then after he told us that, he just chose to tell us another story, which is of his relationship with this bodhisattva. And I don't think he said that to get people to believe what he said, because the texts speak for themselves. And he was a devotee of this text, this sutra. And the other people too, in the tradition, as it evolved after him, are very much concerned to make us understand how necessary it is for them to have a relationship with the authority of the supremely enlightened Buddhas.

[91:05]

They really want us to understand how it is that Buddhas are authorities They want us to understand that, not unbelief, but actually understand, not just unbelief, but actually understand how it makes sense that these are the most authoritative states of consciousness, states of being. And that they, you know, are disciples of these Buddhas and that they have this relationship with them. Yeah? So would it be okay if I let maybe Wouldn't these Buddhists think that we were making this idea? Well, you can think that. That can be your understanding of the story, is that I think the story is ridiculous. It's a story, right? Until I actually experience the meaning. Because it seems like until there is the experience, it's only an idea. Well, you can say idea, but it's a little bit more than an idea.

[92:11]

It's a story. It's a discursive idea. It's kind of an elaborate idea. So I would say story is story or idea or imaginative tale. So you have these tales, and you can say that they're ridiculous or whatever, far-fetched, unhelpful, all those things you can say, but that's what you say maybe at a given moment. And then later you might say, something different. And then later you might say something different. Later you might say something different. So my approach to various stories is that if I don't find them interesting or helpful, I just let them go for the time being. I don't feel like, okay, people say this is really an important story, so I should believe this story. I've never been that way. So that's the way I've been.

[93:12]

That's my story, is that I have not forced myself to believe the stories, various stories I've heard in this ocean of the Buddha Dharma. So that's fine. But there's quite a few Zen stories. There are a lot of stories about people who go to see Zen teachers and, you know, they say hi and the teacher says hi and they say, you know, I'm here to receive the teaching and the teacher says something and the guy thinks, well, that's really ridiculous. See you later. And then the guy walks out the door, you know, down the hill and he walks and he says, shh. well, maybe I'm being a little hasty. You know, maybe it's just a cult up there. But I looked in the eyes of those other monks and there was a thousand of them. Maybe that guy has some point to what he's saying. Maybe I should go back, give him another chance.

[94:15]

So he goes back up the hill and he says, now what did you say again? And then the guy says, I said blah, blah. And you say, that's the same ridiculous thing you said before. And the guy says, that's right. And then the guy wakes up. That's the story. Now you can say that's a ridiculous story. But there's stories about monks who, and these are the monks, a lot of these stories are the monks who became the big names in history, who thought that some of the other big names in history were ridiculous. So if you hear stories about some of the big names in the Buddhist history and you think they're ridiculous, you're in good company. But it wasn't just that they said they're ridiculous. Actually, there are some stories, actually. There are some stories of people who go see the Zen teacher or the Buddhist master. They hear the teaching, they say it's ridiculous, and they just walk off, and that's the end of the story. And...

[95:15]

changing the tape, you know, so you can miss the sad part, is that those people who just walked away with, and just stopped at, that's ridiculous. Those are tragic lives, if that's as far as they went. But the phase of thinking this is ridiculous is quite common because this dharma is not going to be in a form that makes sense to you, that goes with your program. So when you're walking around in a certain world, and I'm walking around in a certain world, and certain things are not ridiculous in this world, and certain things are, and a lot of things that are ridiculous are things that I'd never heard of before, or totally refute everything I've been thinking, or at least suggest that maybe I'm a little off. or maybe even suggest that I'm way off. And things that suggest I'm way off, generally speaking, I think they're ridiculous.

[96:20]

That's just the way I am, you know. How come all those people have been studying with this guy and it's so peaceful up there, you know? And everybody was nice to me, and even when I grumbled and I left and I said that he was ridiculous, people didn't, you know, they said, well, nice to see you. Everybody was really nice to me, and they didn't say, you know, you're going to burn in hell. So maybe I'll go back and try again. So that story is repeated quite a few times that students thought the teachers were way off, and they went back and checked, and somehow... the meeting occurred, the face-to-face transmission occurred. So I think don't push yourself to believe and I don't think that's good. I think let yourself disagree. And I think, you know, most of those teachers let those people disagree.

[97:25]

They didn't like say, you have to agree with me, you know, you're going to get in trouble. You're going to go to hell if you don't agree with me. They kind of let I said, yeah. And sometimes the guy leaves and somebody says, that guy really was rude and sometimes the teacher says, he's good, he'll be back. He's fine, don't worry about that guy. In some other cases, the guy comes and he acts like he is disrespectful. Actually, I told this story at Sunday about Dushan. the guy who was expert in the Diamond Sutra and the lady at the tea cake. Did you hear that story about the tea cake lady? No. Anyway, that story about Dushan, later in Dushan's career, he went to see Guishan and he stormed into Guishan's place and acted like he thought he was hot stuff and put down Guishan and stormed out. But Guishan said, he's good. So sometimes the person who appears to be rude is really exercising his deep face-to-face transmission with the teacher.

[98:34]

So that apparent disagreement or disrespect can sometimes really just be a way to emphasize the deep meeting between teacher and student. And oftentimes the teachers are the ones who say, yeah, that was a great meeting we had. I know it didn't look like it, but And then later, after the teacher dies, the person says, meeting him was a great moment in my life. And I know I acted very rudely, but that was really great. Yes. So why is it that... No, excuse me. Yes. Have you met the Buddha in your thought and what's your experience? Have I met the Buddha? No. You mean have I had divine inspiration? If I say that I have, I think I would perhaps be bragging and going against the precept to claim that I've had such a meeting.

[99:44]

And if I say that I didn't, I would be lying. Yes? Yes, Lane Arood. Lane. Just to piggyback on Antoine's query. Yes. So you said... That's better than him piggybacking on you. The people listening to the tape, they probably don't understand this. But if you were here, you would. Yes? So, if a seeker goes to see the Zen master, and decides the Zen master is ridiculous, and the Dharma is ridiculous, and leaves, and then that's the end of the story.

[100:46]

You said that's a tragedy. Is that different than saying, like, oh, he'll burn in hell? Could be one more? I think to say that somebody will burn in hell, well, actually, if the person rejects the Dharma and then leaves, and the teacher could see that the person was rejecting the Dharma, the teacher might say, if people ask the teacher, how's that guy doing, the teacher might say, this guy's going to burn in hell. I was talking about saying it to the person to threaten them. Usually Buddhas don't do that. I'm wondering what the difference is between, I guess, between accusing the seeker or just acknowledging to yourself.

[101:46]

Is that master acknowledging to himself or to another monk that this man is on a downward spiral or something? The difference between accusing the person? Yes. I would think we shouldn't accuse them unless it would be beneficial. And usually it's not beneficial to yell at people and tell them that they're going to get in trouble if they do that. So the Buddha didn't usually do that. As a matter of fact, he was careful not to give the teaching if he thought someone would think it was ridiculous. So I'm actually being a little... I'm taking a risk here to tell you about this story because there's a risk that you'll reject it long term. And I don't want that. But I hope that by telling you that it's a story and you don't have to believe it, but you can just listen to it and encourage you not to reject it and drop it at that. But just if you feel like, not for me today, that's fine.

[102:48]

But be careful not to reject it. But at the same time, I'm not really the Buddha saying that, so what I say is not so important if you reject it. It's not quite as bad as if you reject what the Buddha gives you. Rejecting what a bodhisattva gives you is much more harmful. And if a bodhisattva offered you something and you rejected it and then they walked away and people said, was that okay? you might be able to see, no, it wasn't okay, I'm really sorry. There's a number of stories of where the person has a really good meeting with the Buddha and then goes away and has some kind of unfortunate thing happen. There's a couple examples where the person had a really good meeting and the person wanted to become a monk and the Buddha said, go get robin bowls and come back and I'll ordain you. And in two cases, the person got killed by some kind of physical accident. And in both cases, the monk said, well, chief, that guy had this really good meeting with you and he was going to come back and get ordained.

[103:55]

Is he okay? And the Buddha said, yeah, he's fine. I know of some other examples where the Buddha pointed out that somebody was heading for some big trouble. But in Buddhism, burning in hell isn't a permanent thing. So in Buddhism, if you reject the Dharma, you go burn in hell, but then you can be brought out and reincorporated into the path. And if you again reject the teaching, you'll go burn in hell again. So burning hell means if you reject Buddha's compassion, you will go to hell. You will experience great suffering if you reject great love. It's very painful for us to reject the thing we want most. And if you do reject it, then it's a tragedy.

[104:56]

If you really want to be miserable and you reject love, then it's not a tragedy. But if the thing you want is happiness and peace and love among all beings and then it's offered to you and you slap it in the face, it's a tragedy because it's exactly what you don't want. And I just remember a story that Kadagiri Roshi told me one time about this monk he practiced with in a Zen monastery. You know, and Zen monks clean monasteries, right? They clean the halls every day, you know? And so they were cleaning, and after the cleaning was over, a teacher came to this guy, and he pointed to a piece of paper that he missed cleaning. And the teacher said, what's that? And the guy picked it up and said, what's this? And the teacher said, yeah. And he said, it's a piece of paper. He tossed it out the window and left the monastery. And, you know... And then the guy had a really very unhappy life after that, even though he was like doing okay, you know, practicing there, kind of like harmoniously getting along, having a nice life as a monk.

[106:14]

And then he kind of said, blank you, blank you Buddha, blank you Zen master. I'm not going to play this cleaning the temple thing anymore. I think a lot of people who are cleaning the temple are kind of saying, what's the point of this? And again, you can say to the teacher, I don't get the point of this. I don't see why we're doing this. But to say, you know, blank you, you know, and to spit on the tradition, that may do irreparable damage to your heart. Not irreparable, but I would say long-term damage to to your heart, to reject a practice which, you know, actually it may be right on the verge of coming to fruit for you. And it gets very difficult. And if you get impatient and disrespectful of the practice or the people you're practicing with, and forget that anybody could be a bodhisattva, and also be, you know, being a little cynical is okay, but if you get too cynical, you might

[107:27]

reject something that's really important to you. So it's dangerous. And in some ways, if you don't get into spiritual practice, in some ways it's not so tragic because you're so far from doing what's going to bring you happiness that you can't make certain mistakes, such tragic mistakes, that when you're really getting close to this meeting and it gets difficult, you kind of go... But you don't usually do that if you never even get close to it. From a distance you say, so what? But as you get closer it can get more difficult. So that's why we really need to be tranquil. You need to take your meditation sedative. So that we don't blow up. So we don't blow up and somebody touches us. What? I didn't understand sedative. Sedative is like a relaxing drug.

[108:30]

They give you sedative when you have operation. Do you understand now? Makes you sleep. Is your take meditation so sedative? Pardon? You want us to take meditation. Samatha. Samatha is a sedative. Samatha means sedative. Yeah. It relaxes you. It makes you relaxed. So people can come up to you and poke you and you don't, like, blow up. But you still feel the poke, right? You still feel the poke, yeah. Sedative don't mean you don't feel anything. It just means that you don't go... Like when I broke my leg. They wanted to move it to take an x-ray, and I said, I just can't let you do that. I just... You know, I had these two kind of swords in my thigh, you know, going like this, and they wanted to move those things.

[109:45]

I just can't let you do that. So they gave me a sedative, and they went... Then they can put him in line again. But there are certain times when the pain is too much. You're going to blow up. And sometimes that's not... People are having some difficulty with each other sometimes, right? It's normal. So we need to practice. Tranquility needs to be part of it. We need to have a lot of tranquility floating among us to absorb all these difficulties we're having. And then, but alert too. Doug? Yeah, well this is, Yeah, I think it's, you know, there's this cartoon that you've probably seen in New Yorker where they have this beautiful Zen temple and there's a lovely screen there.

[111:01]

And behind the screen is all these, you know, old TVs and computer screens and, you know, moldy boxes of books. So it is kind of silly that you have this pristine situation and then chaos below. Right? It's ridiculous, isn't it? What? It's just like, aren't the tools and the basement floor just as important as the zendo? Totally. And I think Zen is sort of known for emphasizing that. I know, but it doesn't... Anyway... No, it does seem like that. Zen is known for that. Right. But that's what it's known for. What it actually is, is what you see. Right?

[112:08]

You see the way it really is. But if it was known for that, no one would come. so you know so they make these brochures and they don't take pictures of the basement but maybe if you were in charge of the guest program here you'd take pictures of the basement and put them in there and people would say that was really enlightened they're really being honest there about what a sloppy place it is But really, that's what it really does. Of course, it touches our heart when we go into a nice clean Zen room. It's beautiful. But in a way, it touches our heart more when we go back into the closet and we find that somebody's gone in there and straightened it out. Going to the tools or put back with mindfulness.

[113:11]

That's where no one would see. That really touches our heart, right? Exactly. And sometimes that's really more the point, rather than putting up the big front, you know, of like... So I totally agree with you, but we're working towards this ideal. Zen's known for its ideals. Its ideal is that we would take care of the dirty part with the same... In some sense, we treat the dirty part like between the clean part. We say... We would take care of the small things as though they were heavy and take care of the heavy things as though they were small or light. To have a balanced attitude towards everyone and everything is a direct realization of this teaching we're talking about right now. That no matter what it is, it's not like there's this low thing and this high thing. It's all really mind. And therefore, everything is this Buddha mind.

[114:15]

And there's nothing we shouldn't take care of. I feel like I've been having this kind of increase. I feel like I've been having an increase in uncertainty. Or maybe not uncertainty, but kind of faith or doubt or something. Like this feeling of like, well, maybe it's this way, maybe it's not. And I feel like the only thing that's been keeping me going is just, I remember a long time ago just reading the Dalai Lama was saying, you know, religion is kindness. I feel like that's kind of what keeps me going. And it's so hard for me to integrate that feeling I have of kindness or love with a teaching that's so intellectual. And this has been the best way that you can help me with that.

[115:16]

Well, can you be kind towards a teaching that's intellectual? You can try. It's hard though, right? So if you find some things that are easy to be kind to, that's nice. Then that's the easy part of your practice. And there's other things. Certain people that are doing certain things, it's maybe harder for you to be kind. So if somebody's being intellectual, maybe it's hard for you to feel kind towards them. So that's the growing edge of your practice. So that's where you're having some challenge, is to be kind in situations where or to go someplace where people don't seem to be taking care of things very well and have a kind response to it. You know, like, if you see children not cleaning up after themselves, you could get angry at them or not. You know? And you could tell them to clean up, and maybe they do, and then ten seconds later it's a mess again. And then you can be kind towards that,

[116:17]

patient and generous and respectful and appreciative of these messy children. Or you could be not kind. But it's kind of hard sometimes. And where it's hard is where it's hard, but that's also where we grow in our kindness. And for some people it's very hard to be kind towards intellectual presentations. because they're very, you know, we're uncomfortable with them sometimes. And it's sometimes hard to be patient with our discomfort, and patience is a main ingredient of compassion. So, yeah. Well, so we got to sort of the main teaching here about the thing, and And so we can continue to go into it more deeply if you wish.

[117:27]

Is that enough for this morning? You can keep those or you can return them and we'll pass them out again. But you're welcome to keep them if you like. But we're not going to... make a new set of copies for each class. Well, the problem with that is if you want to bring your copy of the sutra book and bring your copy back to your place, but if we bring them all, collect them all, it's hard to get them back to the places and stuff. But if you want to bring yours and bring it back, I think that would be all right. But I don't want to bring all of them over here and bring all of them back for every class. But if you want to take responsibility for yours, OK. Yes? Can you say something small? Something small? Sure. As a person in a conceptual way responsible for the basement, I felt a very personal sense of distress at Doug's remark.

[118:38]

Even though I am in no way literally able to clean that basement up by myself, and I've been asking for a long time, but it felt really personal to me. And I know it wasn't aimed at me or anything, but I received this sense of distress at the basement. I just want to express that. Grace and I and a couple of others spent a good amount of time yesterday working on gathering with things in the basement, which it's hard to believe that we do that at least twice a year, sometimes three times a year. The kindness part has to come with the fact that so many people come in and out of here, and the treasures that we find, we'd love to have, are sort of amazing. I mean, they're really actually kind of, we had a wondrous time with what we found yesterday. Also, Shoko cleaned out the cage just, was it three months ago?

[119:40]

It was beautifully cleaned out, and already it's full of stuff. So we keep accumulating. I just got this image. I got this image of... It wasn't that important. It's like the collective... Don't ask about my tree. We're collecting unconsciously. The unconscious collected. It's okay. It's okay. I feel like, for me, it's not any one particular thing. It's this feeling of having a high and low. And it's not anyone's. I feel like it's a metaphor, and it's also a reality.

[120:42]

There are two elements to it. And it's not any particular person's life. You know, I don't know anyone who makes the decision that, like, you know, okay, we're going to take this tradition of, like, cleaning the altar three times a day or whatever. I don't know how often it's done, but, you know, and then we're not going to, you know, bother with something else that might also be equally important, you know. And I guess I just have trouble with this whole, yeah, that distinguishment. So you're having some trouble. Yeah. And I definitely do not mean it as a slight against anyone here. So you just express that you're having some trouble with this world. And I was just thinking, you know, it's not exactly that we put the zendo... I say the zendo is more important, but it is higher than the basement. And we have to deal with this thing of altitude. And also, people do not usually ask if they can store their bicycle in the zendo.

[121:48]

And if they did, we'd probably say, why don't you do it someplace else? And they said, well, where? And then we have a meeting. Where can people store their bicycles? They want to put them in the Zendo. We don't want them in the Zendo. Where can we put them? We say, well, in the basement. People want to store their old computers in the Zendo. Well, we don't want them in the Zendo. Where can they put them? Well, but the basement. So it's kind of like, it's kind of a problem. Where do we put the stuff? So I said, well, let's just kick all these people out of here. But then after they leave, we'll just destroy it all. Where are we going to put the stuff? Where are we going to put the ashes? So after we burn them, we can have a really nice place to put all the ashes. But there'll be no people here. We don't have any people here anymore. Well, at least we don't have any mess anymore.

[122:55]

But if we have people... Yes? I just want to say that... It looks like my life. I feel I have a shining area and a very, very messy area. And I wouldn't be able to show up here if it wasn't to look like this. That was something I was fairly aware of for that one reason. If it all looked shiny here, I don't think I'd dare cross the threshold. But because it's this way, it's enabled me to come here for 12 years. Sorry, Jeff, you won't hear that. Well, no matter what we hear, we still have difficulty. And if we don't, we can't grow.

[123:48]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_85.96