Yesterday the text from the Pali Canon, which I alluded to, is the 38th Discourse in the Middle Eight Discourses, the Mahatana Sankhya Sutta, or the Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving. There was a monk named Sati. a pernicious view had arisen in him.

[01:07]

Thus, I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One. It is, as I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the realms of rebirths, not another." And the other bhikkhus said, when they heard this, They said to him, is it true that you have such a view? And Sati, the monk singing Sati, said, yes, it is, friends. It's just like that. I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One is that the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the rounds of rebirth, not another. When the other monks heard this, they desired him to detach from that pernicious view, pressing him and questioning him and cross-questioning him.

[02:10]

And they said, friend Sati, don't say this. Do not misinterpret the Blessed One. It is not good. What are you doing? I was looking at the number of the discourse. Thirty-eight. The Blessed One would not speak thus. So the mother monks couldn't get him to detach from the pernicious view, so they went and told him to the Buddha. And then the Blessed One said to some monks, Come, monks, tell the bhikkhu Sati in my name that the teacher calls him. Yes, venerable sir.

[03:14]

The monk replied and went and got the monk Sati and told him, The teacher calls you, friend Sati. And Sati said, Yes, friend, and went to see the Blessed One. The Blessed One then asked him, Sati, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you? He stated the view and Sati said, exactly so, venerable sir. I have such a view and he stated the view. And then the Buddha said, what is that consciousness? And Sati said, the monk Sati said, venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the results of good and bad actions.

[04:17]

And then the Buddha said, misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dharma in that way? Misguided man, in many discourses I have not stated consciousness to be... No, excuse me. In many discourses have I not stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness. But you, misguided man, have misinterpreted us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stirred up much demerit, for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time." And the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus, Bhikkhu, what do you think? Has the bhikkhusati kindled even a spark of wisdom in this dharma and discipline?

[05:19]

And the monks answered, How could he venerable serve? No venerable serve. When this was said, the bhikkhus sat in silence, dismayed, shoulders drooped and head down, glum and without response. Then knowing this, the Blessed One told him, Misguided man, you will be recognized by your own pernicious view. I shall question you on this matter," and so on. So it's a little bit subtle to say that it's the same consciousness going through the various rounds of rebirth, so that actually even this consciousness at this moment, when its body dies, the consciousness goes on and habits another body.

[06:27]

There's a little bit subtle difference between that and saying that there's continuity in consciousnesses. So there is causal continuity in consciousnesses, and there's causal continuities in bodies from the time of bodily animation to the time of body disanimation. So when your body becomes alive, when the zygote becomes alive until a certain point, there's continuity in the body. But when your body, when we have death, it isn't that that body leads to another body and another life. And not too many people think that, right? But that mind does lead to a mind and another life. but it's never been the same mind and it's never been the same body. But there's a continuity in mind and there's not a continuity in body beyond what we call death.

[07:32]

And that's interpreted by some people as that the same mind is going on. So mental continuum is not the same as the mind. So... embellished that mind is not the same as mental continuity? Well, for example, your body is not the same as the continuity of your body. The similarity of the causal relationship from this body and the body you had when you were a kid, that continuity is not your body. Your continuity is just the relationship between your different bodies. That's not a body. It's actually a kind of... What? It's a causal relationship. but it's not the same causal relationship that is your body. And it's a slightly different causal relationship between your different minds, but the different causal relationship isn't your mind.

[08:36]

Yes? Some people have described this continuity of mind as kind of like a footprint, something that goes between this life and a new life. Footprint? The continuity is a footprint. I've heard it described that way and I wondered what you thought of that particular figure. Yeah, I could see that. Another way to put it is that there's a footprint in the universe such that light has appeared on this planet, for example. The universe is shaped in such a way that it has a causal conformation such that light has emerged. And then that light that's emerged has a shape or a conformation

[09:47]

such that consciousness has certain patterns of causation. And bodies also, the bodies of these living creatures, which have conformed by causes and conditions of the universe, the way the bodies are built has influenced the type of images that have arisen in the consciousnesses which have arisen with those bodies. So like I mentioned yesterday that certain concepts, you can see, have their origin in the way the body's constructed. So duality, you know, you can see that the way we experience things dualistically is sort of based in the way our experiences are built by our body. That the fact that sense consciousnesses arise, the thought and the knowledge The way knowledge arises of material phenomena to living beings is built on a kind of dialectic between the sensitive tissue of the organ and the object.

[10:56]

So that is conducive to the way we have images about our sensory experience. So these are all kind of like footprints. So a life, a conscious life, makes footprints all the time. It comes out of footprints and it makes footprints. And these footprints, you know, make possible, you know, contribute to other footprints. So that's one way I can understand footprints. And now I also want to mention that somebody gave me this book called Science of Mind at a retreat a while ago. And I was reading. I looked at some of the articles. And I also looked at this thing, this kind of directory. They have a directory in here.

[11:57]

And the Science of Mind Church has a church, called a church also. And like in California, there's like hundreds of churches of the Science of Mind. I was thinking maybe of having a field trip. During this practice period would be good. We could go. They have a place right near Zen Center. And 21st, do anybody know what the cross street of 21st and Hayes would be? Probably out by the park, huh? Huh? This is a very, this is a very impressive directory, but all these churches do not exist. So it's a Zen directory.

[13:00]

Anyway, it says 2118 Hay Street. 2118 Hay Street. Yeah. So anyway, but there's like, I don't know, maybe 100 of these churches in California. And in one sense, I got kind of a sick feeling when I saw this directory of all these churches all these churches, churches and study groups. And I thought, well, what is it that makes me sick? And I thought, I don't know, maybe it's that it makes me feel small, or maybe it makes me just see how much people are looking for spiritual guidance all over America, especially California. Yeah, California, of course, it's a big state, but anyway. Mostly California.

[14:05]

They have them in Idaho, and the second biggest one is, let's say, Georgia. Check Texas. Did I say Georgia? Florida. Florida and Texas are... Florida's mixed, and then Texas, but California's much, much bigger than Texas is. Anyway, there's a big section here on, it looks like maybe a month or so, of kind of like daily readings. So like he quotes Matthew, and the person who founded this church is named Holmes, and He wrote a book called Science of the Mind. Ernest Holmes is his name. And so the way this is structured is they have a quote from Christian scripture or some actually anonymous things.

[15:05]

And Elizabeth Barrett Browning, like God's gifts, put man's best dreams to shame. And then Ernest Holmes, there's a comment from his book. And then there's some reading here underneath, you know, like, Patience on the Path, Wealth of Consciousness, Gift of Giving, Spirit Expressing, Power of Believing, Living Our Spirituality. So these readings for each one of these days with a little epigram at the bottom, a kind of vow. Today, I take my responsibility for all my actions. I recognize the power and strength that resides within my being, and I use it to create life that is filled with blessings of the Spirit. So, I guess people who subscribe to this, they can read this, and then they can do this little meditation each day, a reading and a vow and so on. So... Why are you interested in that?

[16:11]

Well, first of all, someone gave it to me and said, you know, they liked it. Gave it to me in a retreat in Pittsburgh. Said that they liked it. And then I thought, well, I'll check it out. And just somebody says something. I sometimes check out things that people give me. And then I was also interested that I got this nauseating feeling when I read it. That was sort of interesting in both why I was kind of like sickened by it. And then I think another admixture of my sickenedness, part of it is I guess I feel a little sick that there's huge things going on that I don't know about. Like there would be a hundred churches of a little group like this in California, I would never even heard of the churches or of the movement. It just kind of makes me sick a little way. The limits of my knowledge make me kind of sick. But I find that rather interesting too, that I'm sickened by that and also I find the limits of my knowledge rather interesting, don't you?

[17:20]

And because without the limits of my knowledge, I wouldn't be here. So there's a dynamic there that's kind of nauseating. Another thing that's interesting about this is that I'd have another kind of sickening thing, is the dynamic between music and I don't know what. Music. Music, yeah. That thing about Muzak's kind of okay, but it's kind of nauseating, too, in a certain way. And there's different qualities of Muzak. There's a range of Muzak. And there's a range of teachings where people are sampling from various spots and putting together these little compositions that make inspiration or encouragement accessible to people. So it's kind of good. But, you know, I also feel sometimes like popular presentations let people go ahead and just continue on their track that they're on, that they don't challenge them.

[18:25]

They just kind of like find a tune that people can tune into, and it just sort of keeps them going on the same track, feeling a little bit better, which is kind of okay, but it doesn't challenge their misconceptions. When another station comes in they don't like, they sometimes freak out and do inappropriate things. So I have mixed feelings about these various, I don't know what, renditions. But really the main reason why I was interested in this was because of an ad which says, free report on tape reveal, how to meditate deeper than a Zen monk. If you'd like to meditate deeper than a Zen monk at Green Gulch Farm, literally at the touch of a button, This may, literally at the touch of a button, this may be one of the most important messages you will ever read.

[19:44]

Here's why. Based in part on Nobel, based in part on Nobel Prize winning research. And the marketing. on how complex systems, in quote, human beings, for example, evolve to higher levels of functioning, personal growth programs have been created utilizing a powerful audio technology called Holosync. With a little circle with an R in it. Does that mean registered trick? Yeah. A precise combination of audio signals give the brain very specific stimulus that creates states of deep meditation and cause the creation of new mind-enhancing neural connections between right and left brain hemispheres.

[20:49]

Now, a new report and tape reveal the scientific evidence proving that Holosync increases the production in the brain of many vital neurochemicals that can slow aging and create longevity. How much? I guess I don't have to go any further for you. Okay, get your pen and pencil out. Call now for your free report. Free? 24 hours a day. 1-800-710-1804 www.easymeditation.com So we can call now? We can call now. Now, I said at the bottom also, the complete education report on this amazing new technology and Holsink tape, worth $19.95, are free to Science of the Mind readers for a limited time.

[22:10]

So we may have gone beyond free period, but $19.95 maybe is all you've got to pay for the audio stimulation equipment so you will be able to meditate deeper than a Zen monk. Actually, I added that. You have to pay more if you do it like me. But it's also possible just to meditate as deep as a Zen monk, deeper than a Zen monk. That's another option. Maybe Zen monks are just at the right depth. And if you go deeper, that may be an extreme view. That may not be the middle way. So, anyway, there we are. And does anybody have a... like the compendium of translations of chapter six here in the room. Could I use it for a minute?

[23:16]

Ready for chapter six of the Sambhinirmacana Sutra? It's a patch in the shoe. Oh, it is, isn't it? Yeah, it is. Well, then that might be kind of messy, but anyway. So you've been chanting this sutra, some of you. Then the bodhisattva Gambhir Gunakara questioned the Bhagavan, Bhagavan, when you say that bodhisattvas are wise with respect to the character of phenomena, bodhisattvas are wise with respect to the character of phenomena, Bhagavan, just how are they wise with respect to the character of phenomena? And so on. Just a little pause here. How come Buddha spends his time talking about bodhisattvas being wise with respect to the character of phenomena? Why would he waste his breath on mentioning anything about bodhisattvas being wise with respect to the character of phenomena?

[24:21]

Okay, thank you. Anything else? What's the intention of bodhisattva? Huh? The intention of bodhisattva. What's the intention of bodhisattva? To do good. To do good. And what's that got to do with being wise? Something. Yeah. Well, what? What has being wise got to do with doing good? What? Not being wise to the nature of phenomenon causes a lot of... Not being wise... What does it have to do with doing good, though? Before you get to the suffering part, what does being wise have to do with doing good? Pardon? Knowing what is good or what is helpful. Knowing what is good is what is helpful, yeah. Even in the court of reality. Anything else? It's easier to do good if you see something. It's easier to do good if you see selflessness.

[25:29]

It adopts them in a way. Being wise benefits many beings. Doing good is an expression of one's compassion and love. Right, but what has wisdom got to do with doing good? That's the understanding of living with compassion and with love. Yes? Understanding the ways spontaneously generates compassion. This is essentially the only way... I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at that I called on Emanuel. Emanuel's voice on it is so different. That's a cool trick, Emanuel. Okay. Okay. I was thinking that wisdom is really the only way to eradicate suffering or to come to the end of suffering.

[26:41]

probably for the person who's wise and also that person being able to teach others. Emmanuel? Can I do what I was? Liz? Liz? That's not Emmanuel. Liz? With the response to the subversivity of people, they still for me respond in a lot of different ways. Before we go further on these excellent answers, I think I asked, I don't know if I did, how come he brought this up? Now we're seeing the virtues of wisdom, how come he talks about wisdom?

[28:00]

And why do we need help? Because we're not wise. He doesn't teach this stuff because people already know it. He doesn't say it right now, but in the next chapter he says, I don't teach this stuff to people who already understand it. He doesn't say, I teach to people who do not understand it. And then, so, because people are not spontaneously, well, I shouldn't say not spontaneously, but because people are not inherently wise, the Buddha teaches about wisdom. And people do not naturally innately understand the character of phenomena according to the Dharma. So the Buddha gives Dharma teachings to those who are ready so that they can learn the nature of phenomena and be wise with respect to the nature of phenomena.

[29:06]

Any other, what do you call it, endorsements of wisdom that you'd like to make at this time? Yes. I would just add that if you have wisdom, then you can also see if you're acting out of your own needs or if you're really acting out of compassion. In other words, you can kind of see that, and so that also helps you really act in the correct way. Okay, so the Bodhisattva Gunakara asks the Bhagavan, the Buddha, how are Bodhisattvas wise with respect to the character phenomena? And the Buddha replies that you are involved in asking, in order to benefit many beings, to bring happiness to many beings out of sympathy for the world, for the sake of the welfare, benefit and happiness of many beings, including gods and humans."

[30:15]

I might pause there for a second, too. He said, including gods and humans. Yes, Grace? Well, it just struck me that Chapter 5, he starts with, bodhisattvas are wise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought and consciousness. going inward. This chapter begins with what would look to be outward. It's a parallel. It's looking at the other half of the coin. They're like two bookends. I don't think so. I mean, I don't think so. I think that the character phenomenon applies to these things that you said were inward. It definitely does, but in conventional thinking, at least where I get caught in my conventional thinking, I get caught in thinking of an object.

[31:20]

I don't necessarily then look at that object as my mind consciousness. Right. But as soon as I have to look at it as an object and tease it apart, then I begin to see that it's actually all in here. Right, but I don't agree that the Buddha's talking about inward here and outward there. I think the Buddha's talking here, not about inward. Because the point of this, part of the sutra's telling you is that there's not really inward and outward. That's an imputational thing, that inward and outward. This is more like psychological, and this next chapter is more epistemological. That's what I would say. I don't think this chapter is outward. However, if you see things as inward and outward, you might see this chapter as outward and that chapter as inward. In other words, people quite frequently think that consciousness, that mind is inward and it's separate.

[32:29]

There's actually an out there of the objects of mind. So, you may think that. and then you can project that onto the sutra, but I don't think the sutra's really built that way. I think the difference between the chapters is twofold. I think it's basically that one's looking at this... They're both looking at phenomena, one in a more psychological way and one in a more epistemological way. But I also just want to stop here and say, including gods and humans, didn't say that he's giving this teaching here. It didn't say that the bodhisattvas, that the bodhisattva gunakara is asking this question out of concern for the happiness of people beyond gods and humans. Of course, bodhisattvas are concerned for the happiness of beings in all realms, but they don't necessarily ask questions

[33:32]

for the sake of beings in all realms. These questions, it looks like, maybe are for gods and humans. And we ask other questions for beings in other realms, perhaps. Like, for example, may I put some salve on that burn? That may be the question that you would ask. Or you might ask the Buddha, how do you administer it if You know, how are Bodhisattvas wise with respect to certain destinies and how to care for people in these destinies? You know, you said, you asked a lot of concern for the welfare of people in those destinies. But you didn't, Gunakara didn't speak of gods and humans, but Buddha's interpreting it sounds like that he's concerned with asking a question for the sake of gods and humans. So this teaching may actually be for gods and humans. and not necessarily appropriate for beings in other realms.

[34:36]

Pardon? Pardon? Right, it doesn't exclude them, but I'm just saying that maybe, why didn't you mention including the other ones? I don't usually understand gods and humans as the two sort of poles that include everything in between. There's lower realms where people are not necessarily ready to hear certain kinds of Dharma teachings. For example, people in hell, we don't necessarily go and tell them that they're suffering. because they may not want to hear anybody mention that. We more like try to think of how to make them more comfortable with their suffering without even mentioning it, maybe. So, I'm not making a strong case for this, but in a way I am suggesting that maybe this teaching is a teaching that's not appropriate for everybody, which is part of the reason maybe why this teaching is not very popular.

[35:42]

And I would even suggest You know, just throw out an idea very softly that this book, Science of Mind, may be for beings in other realms. You know? Pardon? It didn't come from Pittsburgh. Somebody in Pittsburgh gave it. There is some churches in Pittsburgh. Most of them aren't California. California is the center. of religion of certain types. Yes? Wait a second, how did you get in there? Yes? I thought maybe, going back to what you were saying, for these teachings, because we're not wise, that maybe the implication is that we might think that gods and females are wise, but especially if they're not wise. We don't think animals are wise.

[36:45]

Well, we're not wise in a certain way. For example, We are not wise very closely related to language. It's our way of not being wise. Whereas other beings, their lack of wisdom is maybe somewhat a different variety. And I just thought I'd say that at that point. Your intention in asking the tathagata about this subject is good. It is good. Therefore, Gunakara, listen well and I will describe to you how bodhisattvas are wise with respect to the character of phenomena. Gunakara, there are three characteristics of phenomena. What are these three? They are the imputational character, the other dependent character, and the thoroughly established character. Now I'm going to read some other translations. This translation is from a Tibetan translation that I just read.

[37:48]

So the original text was in Sanskrit, and it was translated into Tibetan, and it was translated into Chinese. I don't know how many Tibetan translations there are. Does anybody know? There are four Chinese translations that we still have. And I believe... Does anybody know if the two translations are from the same Chinese? They might be from different Chinese translations. But anyway, now I'm going to read two translations from Sanskrit to Chinese to English. In sum, the marks, instead of characteristics, the marks of all things are threefold. First is the characteristic pattern of clinging to what is entirely imagined. First is the characteristic pattern of clinging to what is entirely imagined.

[38:58]

The second is the characteristic pattern of other dependency. The third is the characteristic pattern of full perfection. Phenomena have three kinds of characteristics. First is the characteristic of mere conceptual grasping. Second is the characteristic of dependent origination. Third is the perfect characteristic of reality. First is the characteristic of mere conceptual grasping. Second is the characteristic of dependent origination. And third is the characteristic of... It is the perfect characteristic of reality.

[40:07]

So in Sanskrit, it's ari-kalpita. Hara Tantra. And Fari Nishana. How do you spell it? One S or two S's? So those are the three characteristics. of all phenomena. Now this can be understood both as three characteristics of all phenomena, and also they can be understood as three types of things. So there's three types of things in the world, three types of phenomena, or three categories of phenomena, and all phenomena have these three characteristics.

[41:10]

Seems like both is the case. So that... Okay. Now, hands are starting to raise. We can just do it that way from the beginning, or we can go on for a while. What do you want to do? You want questions now? Go on for a while? Okay. So... Pardon? The first Chinese translation of the three... You want me to read the first Chinese translations? The first is the characteristic pattern of clinging to what is entirely imagined. The second is the characteristic pattern of other dependency, and the third is the characteristic pattern of full perfection. These different ways of translating, I think to me the most difference occurs in the translation of the third characteristic of phenomena.

[42:33]

Because the first translation is the thoroughly established character, and the other two have to do with one with full perfection or the perfect character of reality. But you know there's another important translation which is the consummate, the consummate character. One, the first translation of saying thoroughly established character is like it's the way things are thoroughly established. It's the way things are really established. It's the way they ultimately are. The other translations have a little bit of a tone of it's a way that things are all the time.

[43:39]

that can be accomplished, that can be attained. It's the way that they are and it's the way that they can be attained. In other words, this way that they are, this final way they are, is a consummation of meditation. And that relates to the third character, the thoroughly established character, being something that is the result of, kind of a result of, or dependently co-arises from meditation. So it actually makes that a dependent co-arising too, and makes it a dependent co-arising that's based on actually thought construction. It also has, it's a dependent co-arising, but it also has this thought-constructed aspect. But it is a constructed thing, or it is an established thing that has been established somehow, which when meditated on, purifies the mind of obstructions to perfect wisdom.

[44:57]

Is that more like a thought deconstruction in this book? Is it a thought deconstruction? There may be some thought deconstruction going on, but another way to say it is that you actually just are able, maybe by deconstruction, but anyway, by meditating on the nature of construction, to understand the nature of construction such that you can actually, without doing any deconstruction, find that the constructions of our mind actually are not applying anything, that they're just merely constructions. Not all constructions, but the construction that is being referred to here. So I don't know if you actually have to deconstruct, but maybe you have to understand the construction and see if you can find it anywhere. Gunakara, what is the dependent, what is the other dependent character phenomena?

[46:06]

It is simply the dependent origination of phenomena. It is like this. Oh, I see one over here. It is like this. Because this exists, that arises. Because this is produced, that is produced. It ranges from due to the conditions of ignorance compositional factors arise up to in this way the whole assemblage of suffering arises. Okay, so the basic teaching of the Buddha is because this arises or because this exists, that arises. In other words, dependent for arising. That's the other dependent character. What is the imputational character of phenomena?

[47:09]

It is that which is imputed as a name or symbol in terms of the own being or attributes of phenomena in order to subsequently designate any convention whatsoever. So the mind can imagine something and impute it to something, to phenomena. And what's What's imagined here is an image of an own being or attributes of things. It's imputed to things in terms of names, and then because of this imputation, the names we used, we can make a conventional designation of phenomena.

[48:12]

That's the imputational character first defined. Okay? Yes? There's something about that definition. I don't know if it's a misprint or something, but later in chapter 7, it is almost the same definition, but it switches in terms of and as. And so it says imputational character is that which is imputed in terms of names and symbols as the essence of the attributes. For they switch the as and the in terms of? It seems more clear to say in terms because names and symbols are terms. In terms of names and symbols as. I mean, maybe you could say... I thought the other way was clearer. that the as is more like what it is. It's imputing it as essences and attributes.

[49:17]

Yeah, right. Doesn't it say it the other way? Yeah. Here's another translation here. The pattern of clinging to what is entirely imagined refers to the establishing of names and symbols for things and the distinguishing of their essences, whereby they come to be expressed in language." So we're clinging to something that is entirely imagined. Now, not all imputational characters are like this. I'm suggesting to you, the sutra is not talking about all imputational characters at this point. It's talking about the imputational character which is a character of all phenomena. So, it's also an imputational character to put other kinds of images on things.

[50:24]

Those are also imputational characters. Those are also imputed. You can impute other images to things, too. that this is a particular imputational character of imputing essences and attributes to things. We don't always impute, for example, meg on phenomena. Right? We sometimes do and sometimes don't. But it's saying we always impute, in a sense, always impute essences and attributes to phenomena. So, I'm just pointing out to you that there's not just one type of imputational character So there can be conceptual imputation of things that aren't the imputation of things that don't exist at all. So selves don't exist at all, but you can impute, for example, something that dependently co-arises that does exist, but you don't do that to everything.

[51:28]

You impute this essence to everything and attributes to everything. and doing it in terms of names and symbols so that you can make conventional designations. And another translation is, merely conceptual characteristic of phenomena as grasped refers to the differences in entities or identities of things as provisionally defined by names in order to talk about them. And then it says, what is the thoroughly established character of phenomena? It is the suchness of phenomena. The pattern of full perfection refers to the universally equal suchness of things.

[52:30]

The pattern of characteristic reality of phenomena is true suchness, which is equal in all things. and I just thought I might mention, which I often do, not just to shock people, but in that there's just as much suchness in evil as there is in good. And when we understand the suchness of good, good thrives, and when we understand the suchness of evil, evil is neutralized. When we understand the suchness of good, Good is still an impermanent thing, but it can live more and more fully. When we understand the suchness of evil or harm, it's still an impermanent thing. But even though it's an impermanent thing, there'll be more opportunities to practice meditating on its suchness.

[53:34]

There'll be more opportunities to neutralize it by understanding it. So good is not neutralized by understanding. It thrives. But harm, unskillfulness is neutralized by understanding. And there's just as much suchness to see in harmful situations as there is in beneficial situations, because suchness is universally pervading all things. And then it says, Through diligence and through proper mental application bodhisattvas establish realization and cultivate realization of the thoroughly established character. Thus it is what establishes all the stages up to unsurpassed complete perfect enlightenment. Thus it is what establishes up to unsurpassed complete perfect enlightenment." So this is proposing that if you can see this early established character phenomenon, every phenomenon that you ever experience has this character.

[54:51]

If you can open your eyes to this character of everything you experience, and that's a kind of sudden thing, you know, in a moment of experience, suddenly you see this suddenness. And once you see this suchness, if you can see this suchness in other moments and consistently and thoroughly cultivate the meditation on this suchness in all things, you develop on the bodhisattva path in this way. Is suchness like essence? Suchness is like the absence of the idea or the image of essence. Is this emptiness? Is such a thing as emptiness? It's very similar, but it's a different word. It's a different word. The word emptiness also appears quite a few times in Chapter Eight.

[55:52]

In Chapter Eight. So, emptinesses are innumerable because emptinesses are specific to phenomena, in what way are emptiness specific to phenomena? Go ahead, you can tell us. I don't know. Really? How are the emptinesses specific to phenomena? It's their ultimate nature. Huh? Is it their ultimate nature? How is it specific to phenomena? It's the emptiness of the particular phenomena. It's the emptiness of that phenomena, of that phenomena's essence. It's the emptiness... It's not so much... We don't say the emptiness of Alan is the lack of gene.

[56:59]

The emptiness of Alan is emptiness of Alan-ness in Alan. Emptiness of Alan is the fact that he's not established by way of his own character as being the referent of the word Alan. What is the suchness of Alan? Suchness of Alan is the absence of the imagination of essence. So in a way, suchness is a little bit more of a general term. So is emptiness the absence of the imputation? It's the absence of the imputation also, yes. So what this sutra is partly trying to help us do is actually to get a vision, a sight of suchness, and then try to continually discover it in phenomena and orient towards it and meditate on it, because as we look at suchness, as we look at what is the ultimate, it purifies our mind of obstructions to perfect wisdom.

[58:19]

So it's the object of perfect wisdom, but perfect wisdom actually can be developed by steady meditation on the object of perfect wisdom, which is the thoroughly established character. And also, although this is a characteristic of all phenomena, or a mark of all phenomena, this thoroughly established character, this consummate character, it's quite an achievement to be able to see it. And the prajnaparamita is called the deep prajnaparamita because it's difficult to actually realize the vision of this suchness because of the very strong tendency to adhere to the imputational character as being the other dependent character. which you know is said a little bit later in this chapter.

[59:28]

Shall I go on a little bit more, or do you want to have questions? Go on a little bit more. So here it doesn't actually say, it doesn't tell you structurally what the thoroughly established character is, it just tells you its suchness, and it just tells you that by meditating on this thoroughly established character, you go up. That's kind of a hierarchical thing, up to enlightenment, up to Buddhahood. And then we have the examples here, and this first example, maybe we'll deal with the first example today. For example, the imputational character should be viewed as being like the defects of vision in the eyes of a person with clouded vision. The other dependent character should be viewed as being like the appearance of the manifestations of clouded vision in that very person.

[60:40]

manifestations which appear as a net of hairs, or as insects, or as sesame seeds, or as blue manifestation, yellow manifestation, red manifestation, or white manifestation. The thoroughly established character should be viewed as being like the unerring objective reference, the vision of one with sound eyes and no cataracts. So the computational character is like a defect in the eye. It's something that makes our vision pretty persistently distorted or inaccurate. The other dependent character is the manifestation of looking at something through this distorted vision.

[61:51]

It's the way it appears when you look at something through this distortion. That's what it seems to be saying. And then it says that the... is the unerring objective referent of an eye that doesn't have this vision problem. So another way to think that you might imagine this would be that, or actually another way this is talked about later, but I'll just mention to you now, is that the other dependent character is the basis of the conceptual activity. And it's the basis of the imputation.

[62:53]

So the imputation is on top of the other dependent character. It's not that we're imputing essences onto nothing. We're actually imputing essences onto something called the other dependent character. So there are these fleeting empirical, there's this fleeting empirical flow of experience in our life, and we project images on it of essences by which we can grasp it and name it. So we can grasp the process of life, the flow of life, and name it. So you might think, why don't they just say that the imputational character is this imputation which clouds the vision of this flowing process, and why don't they just say the flowing process is this thing that's going on, you know, underneath this imputation. But what seems to be emphasized here is that the other dependent character is the way that this other dependent phenomena comes to be seen when it's projected upon, when it's seen through the distorted vision.

[64:13]

And then it says, instead of saying that it's talking about this sort of flow unaffected by the thing, it tells us that the other dependent character is the way things appear through this distortion. And later in the chapter it tells you that the other dependent character is known through strongly adhering to it as being imputational. That's the way we know it. We know it through adhering to it as being something it isn't. That's the way we know it. So, in one sense, it isn't really touched by the superimposition, but when it isn't touched by the superimposition, we don't know it. It's unknown to us. Can you give an example? I can't.

[65:17]

I don't know of any examples. I'm just telling you that the sutra is saying that when phenomena are not... When phenomena, and all phenomena are dependent co-arisings, so all phenomena have the characteristic of dependent co-arising, when the dependently co-arising phenomena are not known, For us, they don't exist, and in that sense they're not phenomena. So the pattern of dependent core arising isn't really a phenomena until it's known. But when it's known, it's known by mixing it with this misconception. And then we can talk about it. And again, it's a tricky thing between saying, well, what's the thoroughly established character?

[66:29]

Now, in one sense, what we just heard, we haven't heard yet, but the thoroughly established character is said to be a little later in the chapter, to be the absence of this imputation in the other dependent. So the imputation of essence doesn't actually reach the other dependent. just like if I put on rosy-colored sunglasses, it doesn't actually make your cheeks rosy-colored. But if I take these rosy-colored sunglasses off, it isn't like I see you with white cheeks. Or I'd rather just say, when I take these rosy-colored sunglasses off, I don't see any white cheeks, I don't see any rosy cheeks, I don't see any rosy cheeks anymore. When I put the thing of human faces, the concept of human faces on you, then I see a face. When I take away the concept of human face, I don't see your face anymore. Your face is still there, actually, but not my concept of your face.

[67:33]

Your face is actually, your face is really there. It's not that it's not there. You do have a face, but my concept of your face never reaches your face. But without using my concept of your face, I can't see your face, and your face doesn't exist for me. It's not a phenomenon. But you have a dependently co-arising face, which is the basis for me to project the image of the face upon you, and then I see and know your face, but I know your face as my idea of your face. However, The way your face really is, is that it never is reached by my idea of your face. So if I think you're beautiful or not beautiful, that's the way I know your face. But my idea of beauty and not beauty never reaches your face, and your face is always absent of my ideas of your face being this graspable way.

[68:34]

And the absence... of my imagination of your face, in your face, is the thoroughly established character, the actual way your face, the objective, the unerring objective reference of your face. That's the way your face really is. But when your face becomes an object of my awareness, it becomes mixed with my distortion, my mind imputes. But although you're distorted into beautiful and not beautiful, then I can say beautiful and not beautiful and talk to you. So for the sake of being humans and having talked, we make this deal. Like Dr. Faustus. Okay, so maybe that's enough for starters. Now let's open up the floodgates. I don't know who's first, but I'll just say a bunch of... I'll go from the weak side of the room. So we have...

[69:35]

Nancy, we have Danny, and we have Fu, and then we have Pam, and then we have... Did you withdraw your thing? Or then raise your hand. David, and we have Bernard, and we have Elena, and we have... Is that it for now? Okay. Nancy? It was what we enter into as human beings that we have to see conventionally. Yeah. And again, that relates back to chapter 5. We have a consciousness called Adana-vijnana, which apprehends a body. and the body comes with equipment which is inclined towards conventional designations, and in order to do our conventional designation thing, which we're yearning to do, we have to put essences on things so we can make conventional designations.

[70:37]

We can't make conventional designations if we don't project essences on things. It just doesn't make any sense to just randomly put names on things for us. We do that, actually, but it doesn't make sense unless we say... This thing justifies this name, Nancy. Yes. So the only hope that I kind of get from that is that this is a wisdom teaching. Yeah. And so there is this underlying untouchable that we can't reach, even though we're imputing. Although we're imputing, there is this untouchable that we can't talk about. No, you can talk about it. It's just that your words don't reach it. But you can talk about it as much as you want. And that's what liberation is, in knowing that we can't talk about it.

[71:41]

You have to know more than you can't talk about it. You have to know it and then see that the words don't reach there. Just hearing that you can't talk about it isn't sufficient. You have to go there and be there and see that the words don't get here. Hey, here I am, and no words reach this here I am that I'm talking about. No words reach here. You see the absence of any kind of... You see the petering out of the imputational character. It's like, coming, coming, coming. And also, in that space, of course, you don't get to perceive this place where you are, where words don't reach. But it's okay. No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, and none of that, but I don't even take it literally. So I don't say that just because there's no eyes, no ears, no... This is like a full-fledged mystical experience. It's not nothing. It's just that no words reach it. So, are skillful means acknowledging that no words reach it?

[72:41]

Are skillful means acknowledging... skillful means basically emerge from the realization that words don't reach it. And those skillful means are skillful in the sense that they help people go to the place that words don't reach. And then they realize the Dharma. And then realizing the Dharma, that illuminates their consciousness such that they can speak in such a way as to guide themselves and others back to the Dharma that words don't reach. But And they can talk about that place, and one of the ways they talk about it is saying, words don't reach it. But they can prove that they've been there. Words help. It's not your turn. I'm sorry. Yes? But you're right, even though it's not your turn. Danny, yes. Can you just explain why the other dependent characters call other dependent? Because all phenomena...

[73:44]

exist in dependence... Their existence depends on things other than themselves. That's why it's called other-dependent. All phenomena have this characteristic. And the Buddha taught that all the way through. In this sutra, the Buddha is mentioning something... And also then the Buddha taught that all phenomena are selfless. They don't have, like, inherent existence. And one of the main reasons is because they depend on things other than themselves. And it's not like they depend on things other than themselves and there's something in addition to what they depend on. Like, I'm here depending on you and I'm also something that's here when you go away. No. I'm here but I don't have a core. I'm just the sum total of all the things I depend on. So I don't have a self or an independent existence. but I do have an existence of a dependent kind. That was the early teaching, which continues and never is overthrown, of dependable arising and selflessness.

[74:51]

And also because of dependable arising, we have the middle way that things are. Things are a middle way. Things don't go on. Consciousnesses don't last, but they're not destroyed. They have continuity. They have causal continuity. Consciousnesses are conditions for other consciousnesses. People are conditions for people. So there's causal continuity, but things don't last. But things aren't destroyed either, because they're conditions for other things. So they're never really like totally annihilated. But now we have the new teaching, is that everything has this imaginary quality. So this philosophy of language now starts to be unfolded in Buddhism. In early Buddhism, Buddha didn't get into telling people about the linguistic complexities of human life, or at least people didn't hear it and write it down. Now we have this new sophistication coming out in the sutra. Yes, sir? When you were talking about not knowing the faces except through concepts, imputation, there's no imputation, and you said, then I don't know the faces.

[76:02]

It's not so much when there's no imputation, but when you see the absence of the imputation. Okay. Then, however, are you still receiving this direct perception that electromagnetic signals are still coming at you? Mm-hmm. Okay. Well, unless the universe decided to turn off electromagnetic radiation for a little while. But that doesn't seem to be happening. So all this energy is flying all over the universe all the time and sometimes it touches a body and then the body registers this thing and out of this registering of this reflected light onto our tissue the body conjures up this thing called light. Light is not out there, separate from the person. Especially, by the way, we have the word in the... It's, again, very sophisticated, that the Chinese character that's used, and the Sanskrit word that's used, is not light, but form, in Sanskrit, rupa.

[77:05]

And in Chinese they use the character, which could be translated as form, but also means color. And color is definitely not out there. Color is not outside humans. Color is a human creation. It's a thing that our brain does when stimulated in certain ways. So it's very sophisticated for them. They didn't say light. They said color. So it emphasizes that this is a mind-constructed thing that happens when human beings are stimulated. And that keeps happening. Now, when that happens to you, Something like that has to happen as the basis for the imputational character. We don't have the thoroughly established character about nothing. We have it for dependent core horizons. And when you see the thoroughly established character, you do not see anymore, you do not perceive the color, the eye or the eye consciousness.

[78:05]

You do not perceive the color, the eye, or the eye consciousness. But we wouldn't be talking about the emptiness or the not seeing them if they weren't happening. They are happening, but we're not perceiving them. No, not even directly. Not even directly. Not even direct perception without... without imputation. You're looking at the absence of the imputation in the direct perception. At that time, you are not perceiving. You are now perceiving the absence of the imputational in the perception, but if there wasn't a perception, there would be no basis for seeing the absence of the imputational in the perception. But at that time, you're perceiving the suchness. That's what you're perceiving. But the suchness is based on the perception. And also the suchness is based on the projection upon the dependently coalescent perception of the image.

[79:13]

But in particular it's based on the projection of the merely imagined and clinging to that. It's based on all that in the sense that it's based on the absence of that. You actually have been working hard to understand The way things happen and how you distort them, and now you're looking at the absence of the distortion. How would you ever know that it would happen? How would you ever know? Let's see. You'd know because...

[79:45]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_87.18