the deep intention. Another transgression is revealing the deep thought. Another transgression could be releasing or untying or unraveling the deep mystery, or even the deep secret, but I think it's a non-mystery, or maybe a secret. One doesn't say that the intention, the meaning, the secret, the mystery of Buddha's of the Buddha's mind, the Buddha's teachings.

[01:04]

So in chapter 6, the translation from Tibetan says, in the same way, you should see, I want you to see something. In the same way you should see that since the other dependent character is not thoroughly established in permanent, permanent time, on everlasting, everlasting time, as being the imputational character, and without its nature, it is the thoroughly established character. This paragraph, I think, could be read as suggesting that in the way that the other dependent character is not established, is not thoroughly established,

[02:25]

as being an imputational character, it, the other dependent character, is the thoroughly established character. In the way that the other dependent character is not thoroughly established as being the imputational character, and is without its nature, is a thoroughly established character. And the way that the other dependent character is not established, is not thoroughly established, as being the thoroughly established character, and is without the thoroughly established, excuse me, is not established as being the impotential character, and is without the impotential character, without the nature of the imputational character.

[03:30]

It is the thoroughly established. So this translation could support people thinking that the way the other dependent is, which is that it's not established as being imputational, that the way it is, is the thoroughly established character. Now, it actually isn't established as being the imputational character. So the way it actually is, is a thoroughly established character. That's how you might read this, right? But the other way you might read it is the way it is of not being thoroughly established. That way it is of not being thoroughly established, but that way is the thoroughly established character. It's not being. The way the other dependent is not established as the imputational character, that way of not being established, that way of not being the imputational character is the thoroughly established character.

[04:44]

And the imputation establishes it. The imputation establishes it. The institutional established is what? The thoroughly established. Even if you stick it on. The thoroughly established, in some sense, the thoroughly established, you might say, depends on the imputational character because it's the absence of the imputational character. But in some sense, the thoroughly established does not depend on an absence. But I appreciate you saying that. It doesn't depend on an absence. It is an absence. and things don't depend on themselves. It does depend on the other dependent, though, because it is the other dependent's nature of being absent of communication. So it's based on the thoroughly established character, in a sense it's a thoroughly established character of other dependent phenomena. It's the way other dependent phenomena really are. But this particular

[05:47]

could be a basis for someone saying that when the thoroughly established, when the other dependent character, when a dependently co-arisen phenomena, when a transient event is absent, and when is it absent of the imputational character? When it's absent, of an imputational character, then it's thoroughly established. And when is it absent of an imputational character? All the time. It's always absent, really. It's just that it appears to be mixed up with the imputational character. It appears to be mixed up with the imputational character. So that translates, and there are some wonderful scholars in America, in Europe, and in Japan, some scholars who, virtually great scholars, who think so, who understand it to be that when you see, if you could see the other dependent character in the absence,

[07:16]

of the imputational. That would be the thoroughly established. Does anybody have a copy of the Thirty Verses? So, the way Bhakti Bandhu puts it in Thirty Verses is, is it Karaka 22? 21.

[08:38]

Yeah, there it is. 21. However, the absence of the one prior is always the accomplice. The dependent self-nature is a thought that has arisen depending on conditions. In the absence of the fabricated is the accomplished or the furthest out of it. It doesn't say that the dependent in the absence of the imputation is the accomplished. So, Bhaktivedanta seems to understand it as just the absence. Okay, other translations of the same paragraph is, so when the pattern of, this sounds the same, so when the pattern of other dependency no longer has imagined images in it, it is also, in fact, without their reality or essence, and is then the pattern of pulpitā.

[09:51]

Again, that translation sounds like when the other dependent is devoid of the imputational, it is the fairly established. The next one is, the characteristics imposed on dependent existence by conceptual clinging never have any reality or intrinsic being. you should know the perfect characteristic of reality to be like this. That sounds more like the absence, not talking about the other dependent as being cleaned up other dependent as being so established. So I'm just telling you that you live in a world where many well-educated scholars and meditators what they're looking for is the other dependent cleaned up as being the ultimate nature of reality, and others are looking for the absence of the invitation and the other dependent as the ultimate nature of phenomena.

[11:08]

So it says you should see, but what should you see? I think all the translations want you to see the thoroughly established character. But is it the person without a hat, or is it the lack of hat on the person? I guess I'm of the school that it's the lack of hat on the person rather than the person who lacks a hat. some people are raising their hands, should I start taking the questions now? Or should I wait? Does the person who has his hand raised, can you remember his question? And then comes three little sentences, I guess they're sentences. Independence upon names... that are connected with signs, the imputational character is known.

[12:19]

In dependence upon strongly adhering to the other dependent character as being the imputational character, the other dependent character is known. In dependence upon strong adherence In the dependence upon absence of strong adherence to the other dependent character as being the imputational character, the fairly established character is known. So this is epistemology. It's telling you how the character of all phenomena are known. It's telling you the basis of knowing the actual character phenomena. This is telling you the basis of valid understanding of reality. So let's go back to the first one, at least a little bit.

[13:38]

In dependence upon names that are connected with signs, the imputational character is known. The imagined pattern can be understood as caused by the interplay between images and words. The characteristic of conceptual grasping can be known through association with names and characterizations. These translations are a little different. One, the first one is just saying that you can know that The meditator can know the imputational character in dependence upon a connection with names that are connected to signs.

[14:57]

The next one says that the imagined character can be understood as cause. an interplay between images and words. Second translation is saying, sounds like it's saying that the imagined pattern of consciousness is caused by some things. So that you can understand that it's saying that there's a pattern of consciousness which we call the imagined pattern And the imagined pattern is a pattern of consciousness which is imagined but also it's a pattern of consciousness which imagines. Or it's a pattern of consciousness or it's the image that arises from a certain pattern of consciousness. So there is a pattern of consciousness which imagines an image which thinks of something

[16:04]

And the thing that's thought of, I would say, is the imputational. But this also is saying the thing that's thought of is imputational, but a thing thought of is a pattern of consciousness. So the mind actually gets shaped in such a way that it becomes an image. And the image is an image And it's an image associated with words. Does image mean visual image or like thought? It can be a visual image. It can be an auditory image. It can be a smell image, a taste image, a touch image, and a purely mental image.

[17:09]

Blue, for example, is a visual image. Sour is a taste image. Loud is a sound, auditory image. Rough is a tactile image. Whatever metaphors or self and elements that arise do so within the transformations of consciousness. So there's a pattern of consciousness that imagines a color, that imagines a texture. And that pattern, that's the monastery and that imagining in a way. The resources for that image are coming from alaya and the cognition of that imagined Blue, or whatever, is the vijnana. So that pattern of consciousness. And those are imputational characters.

[18:17]

And I'll mention now that there's different types of imputational characters. Some imputational characters exist and some do not. For example, basically the imputational character, the big one, the imputational character of a self, of an independently existing self, of something that exists on its own, independent of conditions, that's a pattern of consciousness, an image, an idea, that does not exist. The words that you use to talk about it are dependent co-arising, and they do exist.

[19:31]

But the imputational characters like words, which also can be imposed upon things, those words do exist, those are the dependent things. The image of the word imposed upon the thing does exist, and it's about something that does exist. So studying words, studying signs is part of studying and knowing about the imputational character. And so that's sitting there for our ongoing work is to study the... dependency and interconnection of something, of a character that exists in dependence on names connected with signs.

[20:55]

The next one is independence on strongly adhering to the other dependent character as being the imputational character of the other dependent character is known. So it's saying that the way we know the other dependent character, that knowledge of the other dependent character, the knowledge of dependent co-arisings, and all phenomena are dependent co-arisings, So the knowledge of all phenomena depends on strongly adhering to the other dependent as being the imputational. And again, we just got told how to know the imputational, but the definition of the imputational was What was it?

[21:59]

What's the definition of the imputation? What? I couldn't hear you. A pattern of consciousness that's associated with names? Yes. Well, there's a real important part that you left out, and that is the imputational character of phenomena is that which is imputed as name or symbol in terms of own being or attributes. The pattern of clinging to what is entirely imagined refers to the establishment of names and symbols for all things and distinguishing of essences whereby they can be expressed in language, whereby we can make

[23:18]

any conventional designation whatsoever. So it sounds like without adhering to what's happening, to the production of events, as being the character of the invitation, or we don't know them. They're happening, but we don't know them. Now, I said that, but in some sense to say, well, it's not really so, because When things arise, when there's cognitive activity, and things arise, you know, when the potential for imaginations occur, then there is the cognition of that activity.

[24:32]

So we do know things. But if we somehow didn't see that imagination going on, We wouldn't know things. We wouldn't know things. Because they're known by taking them to be our imagination of them in terms of essences and attributes in connection with names and symbols. Pardon? When you say adherence to, do you mean like awareness of? awareness of? No, it's more like it's more like superimposed. You adhere to the other dependent as being the imputation or you adhere to the imputation.

[25:37]

The first translation says adhere to the other dependent as being the imputation. The other one says more like adhere to the imputation on top of or see the imputation on top of the other dependent, or superimposed on the other dependent. Awareness that you are? You can be aware that you're superimposing the other dependent on the imputation on the other dependent, or that you're mixing the other dependent with the imputation. You can be aware of that. Well, the awareness of it is different than the strong adherence. You can be aware that you're strongly adhering to your idea of things as being the things, or you can be aware that you're strongly adhering to what's happening as being your idea. You can be aware of that. That's normal life.

[26:38]

That's the way you know what's happening, by adhering to what's happening and seeing the projection of essences and aptitudes on what's happening in terms of names and symbols. You can be aware of that. What's difficult to be aware of is what's happening not mixed with the imputation. Because once there's imputation by which we know things and can talk about them, the mind that cognizes, the cognition of that imputation can't separate the two very easily. But with training, the separation can be seen and then you can look at one side of the separation. If you look at the other side of the separation, you don't see anything. If you look at the other side of the separation, you don't see anything.

[27:42]

Putting together, you see something. So that's the next paragraph, the next sentence. In dependence upon the absence of strongly adhering to the other dependent as being the imputation, you know the thoroughly established character of phenomena. So this, that one sentence there, in some sense, is the most practice-oriented sentence of the chapter. And that's sort of the focus of many, many Zen teachings and the activity, that's the goal of the activity of many Zen teachers, not just Zen teachers, but other Buddhist teachers, is to facilitate and promote somehow the dependent co-arising of the absence of strong adhering to the other dependent as being the impotential.

[28:46]

In that absence, the ultimate nature of phenomena is revealed. Or that absence is the ultimate nature, the fairly established character of all phenomena. Okay, so let's see, we've been meeting now for about half an hour, so should we open up the questions? Want a little bit more of something? Well, there's the rest of the chapter, which is basically pretty easy to read. So now, you just heard that... how the other dependent... how the reputational character is known. It's known in association or it's known in dependence upon... it's known in dependence upon names that are connected with sign.

[29:54]

Names that are connected with sattva is known. So then, when bodhisattvas know the character as it really is with respect to the other dependent character phenomena, They know characterless phenomena as they really are. So, you just heard how you know the imputational character, you know it, the dependence upon names that are connected to signs, that's how you know it. Then when you know it, the imputational character, as it is with respect to every dependent character, then you know characterless phenomena as they really are. That's the next phase of the study. This phase of study promotes the place where I just said was the practice point, the ultimate practice point of not strongly adhering

[30:59]

to mirror to not strongly adhering to things that are merely imagined as being the other dependent character. But the study of the dotational character and realizing how it is actually related to the other dependent character helps you realize the characterlessness of phenomena. And that's also part of the study. study the imputational character and study how the imputational character relates to the other dependent character and then that helps you understand characterless phenomena which is part of what helps you understand the absence of the imputational and the other dependent and the next one when bodhisattvas know the other dependent character as it really is then they know the afflictive character can then they know the afflicted character as they really are.

[32:01]

And then, when bodhisattvas know the thoroughly established character as it really is, they know phenomena, purified characters as they really are. And I made a mistake the other day, I think I said something about how we know the thoroughly established character as it really is, then you know the other dependent character as it really is. I think that's true, but the sutra actually says that when you know characterless phenomena as they really are with respect to the other dependent character, then you completely... Oh, no, I said when you know the thoroughly established character, you abandon the afflicted character. But it's actually when you know characterless phenomena, you abandon the afflicted character phenomena. But it's by understanding the thoroughly established that you really understand the other dependent. But it's by understanding the characterless phenomena that you abandon the afflictive phenomena.

[33:09]

And the afflictive phenomena is part of the way the other dependent is, because the other dependent is known through the superimposition, which is the source of the afflictions. They want me to keep going. They want me to keep going. These guys can revolt. And then when you abandon the afflictive character, then you realize the purified character. So that just might become familiar with those dynamics. what you need to know in order to know the characters, then by knowing, by studying the invitational character and realizing the characterlessness of phenomena through the study of that character, you realize, because actually when you understand the invitational character, you understand characterless phenomena. Or you could say you understand how phenomena are characterless, the way that they're characterless.

[34:13]

There's a way that they're characterless, and the way they're characterless is the imputational character is the way they're characterless. Understanding that. When you understand that, then... Oh, and then when you understand that, you can abandon the afflictive character. And the afflictive character you come to understand when you understand the other dependent character, Does it say afflicted or afflictive? Afflictive. So when you know the other dependent character, you know, as it really is, you know afflicted character. When you understand the characterless phenomena, you abandon... the afflicted character. And when you abandon the afflicted character, you realize the purified character. Maybe that's enough, because there's a lot of questions now, already.

[35:24]

Jane, Tino. Frederick was first, so Frederick, Jane, Tino, Rob, Stephen. Powell and Susan. So at this moment, in this room, there are myriad countless phenomena that I'm not identifying. And then as I place a word onto a person that I see, that becomes the empty page and upon that person which is the other dependent. But all of the people that are in this room are existing as... Excuse me. Do you want me to let you say stuff that's not quite right? Should I stop you as you're going along? Thank you, but let me play this out first.

[36:28]

Do you want to play it out? I might forget your error. It might be confusing. You want to do it that way? I think so. Okay, go ahead. So that all of the phenomena are existent, or are, they're not existent, but they exist as I place a name on someone that I see. And then the imputation, apparently, I keep going like this. You're just, you know, you're getting banged up. That's not, that's not correct. So I'll just say that's not correct. Great time. I don't want to go back over and find out where you weren't correct or guess where you weren't correct when you do that. But if you just say the whole thing, you know, you're colluding with people's minds. Well, he said that and Reb just stood there and let him do it. Maybe that was true. Try again. If you just say short things, I'll let you say the whole short thing. And then I'll tell you that's wrong.

[37:34]

You say one wrong thing after another. It's kind of hard. I don't think that's good. Is that all right? You want to say some little tiny, short things? You can get the whole thing out without me correcting you. Okay, that's all right. There are myriad things in the room, okay? That's okay, there's myriad things in the room. Myriad being. Fine. Okay. Anything else? And every moment is myriad things in my existence, is comprised of myriad things. That's okay. Is comprised of myriad things. Okay. With the thought comes the invitation. With the thought comes the... With what thought comes the invitation? Let's say, rev, or... With the thought rev comes the invitation. In dependence on the word rev, you know the invitation. In dependence on the epithetium, you can make the conventional designation Rev, upon its being.

[38:39]

Now, knowing that that is a conventional designation, that's only in my language, this phenomena Rev, that's in my language in Rev, if I know that, am I seeing then thoroughly established? No, not necessarily. Because you just said that. But what you just said isn't knowing the term established. Good that you know that. I'm knowing the other dependent character if I see that I'm placing the name Rev upon... No, no, you just know... First of all, you know the other dependent character by imposing something upon them so that you can make the designation. So, we don't make... See, this shows you exactly. We don't make the national designation on other dependent characters that we don't know. And how do you know them?

[39:42]

By imputing an essence and an attribute to them. So, first of all, the mind makes an image of an essence and attribute, and it imposes it upon you, which I also have another image of, which is not an essence and attribute, and then we get the picture. And I impose this essence and attitude on you, so then I know you. You're not my idea of you. You're other dependent character, but I project this essence and attitude on you. Then I can make the conventional designation perfect. That's how I know you. And by knowing you in this way, by imputationalizing you, you're all set for the conventional designation. apparently established is more than just knowing what I just said there, and more than just knowing that the other dependent is not the imputational, which we kind of know by what we just said, right? Knowing the other dependent means that we somehow, we just strongly adhered to the other dependent as being the imputational in order to make the conventional designation right.

[40:54]

We just did that. Now we are, able to make the conventional designation because we are strongly adhering. But while you're strongly adhering to talk about the other, the thoroughly established, while you're still strongly adhering, you can talk about the thoroughly established, but you can't know it unless you dislodge the strong adherence. But when you dislodge the strong adherence, you lose the basis for conventional designation. So then you don't know the other pendants, so that's not so easy for us, to dislodge the basis for knowing transient phenomena like people and ourselves and women. In order to know the further status, you have to do this amazing thing called finding not just a reduction of strong adherence, but the absence of it. No strong adherence. which leaves open possibility of a little bit of adherence.

[41:54]

What is the little adherence? What is the little adherence? Well, a little bit of adherence is a little bit of vision of the fairly established. A little bit of adherence means a little bit of adherence, if that equals the absence of strong adherence, and it's a little bit of vision of a fairly established. There are layers of grossness and subtlety of blocking the clear vision of ultimate nature and reality. For example, when we first see, this is a big example, when we first learn to see this thing we're talking about called the ultimate nature of phenomena, we still see it We still know it, even though the vision of it is other dependent phenomena. Even though that's not the other dependent pattern, we still see this phenomenon of the dependence on a sign. So there's a little bit of grossness there still in our vision, even though we are now seeing truth, there's still dependence on a sign.

[43:07]

So there's not strong adherence because we now are knowing the early established character. There's a little bit of adherence because we're not using the sign of the thing we're looking at, but we're using the sign of the absence. An image of absence? Yeah, okay. Image of absence. And that depends on the sign. So chapter 8, the part of chapter 8 that we backed, the steep slope of chapter 8 that the priesthood backed off of a few years ago, because we got into removing the signs around the vision of the ultimate. Couldn't figure out how to do that. Now we're getting ready for that, see? So, was there more to your question? Okay. And then maybe Jane? When bodhisattvas know the other dependent character as it really is, then they know the phenomena of afflicted characters as they really are.

[44:12]

So my understanding is mistaking the other, mistaking the imputational as being the other dependent creates the afflicted character. Is that correct? Did you say creates the other dependent, the afflicted character? Yeah, so the mistaken thing of that the image is the thing, and in particular that the image of the thing itself is actually in the thing, that mistake is the source of affliction. And when you can kind of get a feeling for how that works, You're seeing how, in fact, good old dependable horizons in our experience are afflicted because of the nature of our way of knowing them. So the way of perception, as I said before, gives us a way of getting things, but also distances us from their reality.

[45:16]

So perception is faulty. The basis by which we get at reality has problems. Consciousness is the way we are going to become free, but consciousness is problematic. And if the basic affliction is perceiving separateness, it has to do with... There's two basic afflictions, two renditions of basic affliction. No, there's two renditions of the source of basic afflictions. The source of basic afflictions are the mistaken belief in self. There's two kinds of self of things. One kind of self of thing is that subject and object are separate entities. The other kind of self is that things are established as reference to because you become hysterical.

[46:20]

You know, because you think things are permanent. You think people are permanently good or permanently not good. You think that, you know, if you were questioned on that, you know, on your voice, do you say, I don't think this person is permanently my enemy. But you kind of deep down do think they're permanently your enemy. You think this person right now is permanently the way they are. Now, people in the spirit are willing to admit that. They think that somebody's permanently a bad guy. Like, somebody who thinks permanently a bad guy. He's not going to be like, we're not going to get into him like being a nice guy. Some people are not going to get into that. Like, well, Down there in the hole, I kind of had a conversion experience. I'm really, really happy that you guys have helped me. And I'm here to help you make Iraq into a new place.

[47:25]

And I'm a new person. I've made some mistakes. But we're not going to get into recognizing that too much. Some of us is permanently bad. And even if you did switch, you're still going to get consequences. But even if you did switch, you're still going to get consequences. It's getting closer to enlightenment. In other words, he has become a different person, but consequences come to different persons from past actions. But now we have a really nice person here. And we love this person. But there are consequences for this person. So that gets you more into virtue rather than wrongdoing. See the picture? Now, if you then move beyond wrongdoing and see the profound aspects of what's already established, then your virtue becomes completely perfected. But the wisdom teachings transform you quite soon. But then when you get to the deep aspects of the wisdom teachings and realizations, then you really, really can do these virtue practices perfectly.

[48:28]

Because you're accepting all the Buddha's help, guiding you in this new kind of life. which makes possible this lazy, perfect practice of the Buddha. Mikael? What is for me very interesting in this setup like this, I feel how challenging it for me is. to participate in this intellectual approach. So often it happens to me that it's challenging for me. For example, even the word integration, I never looked up in the dictionary. What so often happens to me, if I do understand intellectually something, I still would have, somehow I have to do it, I have to verify it with my feeling.

[49:31]

Does it feel right? So that let me wonder, that kind of like a very, always upcoming question. So it seems like feeling has, it's very powerful for me. And I just wonder how feeling can be like, the intellect be a vehicle to understand it. That makes sense, don't you think? And, um, yeah, I feel a little bit, I'm helpless. I'm helpless because I don't know I know how I can completely trust feeling, not always, because there are so many afflicted feelings and patches and everything, but I know there's a certain kind of protocol feeling which is always so close to understanding, and I was wondering what you think.

[50:35]

Well, part of what I would say is that Jung made the suggestion that there's two types of rational process. One is thinking and the other is feeling. And the irrational processes are intuition and sensation. But the feeling is a rational process. Feeling? Feeling is a rational process and thinking is a rational process. but the teaching of this sutra is not emphasizing how the feeling is the source of the problem it's more talking about how in a sense a way of thinking is the source of the problem but if you could somehow identify a feeling Some aspect of the feeling such that it was missed feeling what was going on and how that missed feeling about what's going on is getting confused with what's going on.

[51:51]

And then if you could translate some way to, in a feeling way, to realize some freedom from feeling inappropriately about something, then that would be a parallel process. So there is some suggestion But it's harder to translate this suggestion into words and paper. There is some suggestion that, right along with this process that I'm describing, that there's an emotional side to it, there's a feeling side to it that's harder to describe, and that that feeling side may be handled more maybe I could say anecdotally, or more in terms of oral tradition, where if you wrote down the conversation, it wouldn't necessarily be rational in terms of thinking, but it might be rational in terms of feeling.

[52:57]

And in fact, that... dimension of the practice may not be possible to put into the sutras. So, just in one page they describe this thing about when you understand this, then you will abandon that. When you abandon that, you will realize this. just a few words describe this process. But when you actually go through this process, you know that just one little tiny snippet of one part of that description is an immense, is a huge undertaking. And as you get into the undertaking, you run into all this stuff which is a condition for me mentioning that you have to keep resting all the time and calming down all the time in this process because, you know, your life is actually going on. And you have to keep... And if you're not fairly calm, you won't be able to take this teaching in. But in fact, so how you deal with your feelings in this process is something that's, I think, kind of difficult for the sutra to say.

[54:06]

The sutra is not saying about any... The sutra is telling you about where life's sufferings come from in a very straightforward way, but it's not telling you about the difficulties of studying this material and following this path. And in the chapter 8, when it goes through the path, it's pretty, you know, in some sense it's very clear, in other sense it's very complicated and difficult just to read that. And as you start to read it and try to practice it, it would be difficult. You'd have a hard time, and you'd get into feelings that would arise in that process that could be the source, which might not be helpful feelings. It could be the condition for emotions arising which will derail you from the practice. And dealing with them would be part of what you would actually have to deal with with your teacher. So you actually wouldn't be dealing with these feelings in the actual practice. But it's hard to describe the feelings, I think, in the mode of the Buddha's discourse. So part of the way the Buddha does this is by showing you the Buddha's body.

[55:08]

So all you're hearing are words, you're also seeing the body, and resonating with the, you know, the sensations of the way the Buddha smells, the way the Buddha sounds, the way the Buddha looks, the way the Buddha moves. This information is coming along with the words. And if you read the material and start to practice it and run into emotional challenges that arise from feelings that are part of this process, working with, by working together, and particularly with your teacher, is part of like a tuning to a way of being and adjusting your feelings so that you can think and emote in other ways. So it is part of the thing, but it's hard for it to be written down. But in fact, this sutra is not very long. We've been studying it for years. And none of us, almost none of us, were able to study this sutra on our own without the support of this group.

[56:11]

And even with the group, it's hard. And I was able to study without the group somewhat, but that was because I was supported so much to study. So it takes a lot of support to be able to study a career because this material is so hard. And being so hard, when we study things that are hard, we have a hard time, and we have hard feelings, and we feel pain in the process of studying difficult material. And then we have emotional reactions, so we need help. which isn't necessarily offered in the Sutra. We need help for a particular little thing we're into while we're studying this material, so we can go back and study it. And a lot of our difficulties arise from painful feelings that are arising while, not so much painful thoughts, Well, actually, we have thoughts that aren't necessarily in themselves painful. We have painful feelings when we think certain things. Like some people think, I can never understand this material. This is like totally beyond me. I don't see any point of this. Why are we studying this? Such thoughts arise and you feel pain with that.

[57:14]

What do you do with that pain, with that feeling? The feeling may be that, you know, it could be turned around as someone saying, well, this wouldn't bother you if you didn't want to learn it. The reason why you feel pain is because, number one, you want to learn this material. You have some sense that this is going to be helpful. Or, and or, you have a sense that you're getting in touch with the source of your pain. So this, I could go on, but I think feeling is part of it. It's part of our life, and how to use it is part of the skill that comes in the process of studying. Any other hotline, folks? Scott? Can I kind of slide? Pardon? But then it kind of implications, you know, discussions that we practitioners can somehow maneuver ourselves, the kind of colloidal mechanisms, even some kind of insects, even in kind of platforms, biological ways to the realization

[58:27]

have been unconditioned, ultimate deductions. And it seems to be a mysterious place, that gap there, where that practice makes a leap. And I wonder whether it suggests that maybe that non-conditioned realm, Buddha realm, is actually making that gap close, you know, helping us and doing our part to try to do our practice. But you can't... I believe we can... that we can constantly manipulate ourselves to a conditioned realization. So can you... Well, I don't know if this addresses your question, but at Tassajara, I started... Before getting into this teaching, one of the first classes that I mentioned was just to, one of the first classes I mentioned that we, there is a teaching that's very much part of the Soto Zen tradition, and it's very much part of it, partly because this teaching is very much part of the, what we call, Tendai tradition.

[59:50]

Dogen grew up in the Tendai tradition. And the founder of the Tendai tradition and his teacher, the founder is Jiri, and his teacher is Huesa. These meditation masters who formed this great Chinese school, the Tendai school, the Tiantai school, one of the very important principles of practice that they pointed out is what's called, you could say, spiritual communion between Buddhas and sentient beings, and how the the sentient beings do their practice in their conventional world, and Buddhas respond to beings who are living in the confines of the conventional world, trying to practice the Buddha way. Buddhas respond. And in that interaction, it's literally called the cross, the crossing of the paths,

[60:54]

of the Buddha and the sentient being, the crossing of the art practice, in a sense, it's like saying, hey, take over, you know, become me, or let me become you. And the Buddhas are saying, yes, fine. That's going on all the time. And if you say, if you say, I don't want to be a Buddha, Bill, there's a communion there. Buddha says, well, I hear you, I'll listen to that. So the actual practice happens in this in this inner action. It doesn't happen on one side or the other. And so Dogen says in the chapter, only a Buddha and together with a Buddha. And again, the Lotus Sutra is the main sutra of the Tendai school. And the Lotus Sutra is the main sutra for Dogen in a way. Of course, the Heart Sutra is very important. But the Heart Sutra is really part of the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus Sutra is an expression of the Heart Sutra. and in the Lotus Sutra it says, only a Buddha together with a Buddha.

[62:00]

Not one Buddha realizes the Dharma, but a Buddha together with a Buddha. And in that, in Dogen, in that fascicle, talking about that, the way the Buddha works together with Buddhas, the way Buddhas together realize the depth of Dharma, he says, you know, that All Buddhas practice together with all sentient beings. All Buddhas are practicing together with each sentient being. That's the way Buddhas are. All Buddhas are concerned with each of us. It isn't that they have a division of labor where some Buddhas are taking care of you and other Buddhas are taking care of me. All the Buddhas are taking care of me and all the Buddhas are taking care of you. All the Buddhas are taking care of everybody. So all the Buddhas are practicing together with you. So what is the practice of a Buddha? It's exactly the practice of all of us. So that perspective is just an ongoing understanding of sort of conceptual understanding of how actually the practice is supposed to actually really be going on and as our understanding develops we enter into an awareness of this process and this is called what I've been talking about as

[63:18]

pay attention, turn the light around and shine it back also to the place where you see how you're being helped in the moment. Excuse me. Where you see how you're receiving help. In other words, what you are is receiving help. You are receiving help. What you are is the help you're receiving. Pay attention to that. That's another way to let go of your story. Because you have stories about how you're being helped and how you're not being helped. But in the samadhi of the Buddhas, the Buddhas don't think, well, now I'm being helped, and now I'm not, now I am. It's been like two minutes since I've been helped. No. Buddhas don't complain. They see how they're receiving help, moment by moment. They see how people help them help people.

[64:21]

I don't know if that addressed your question. Did I finish the first group? Oh, Liz, yes? Is it really that the bond of emptiness arises? I don't remember saying that, but that's an interesting expression, the bond of emptiness. Maybe you didn't say that. Maybe that's just what I heard. Yeah, but it's kind of an interesting idea, the bond of emptiness. I think we are kind of bound to emptiness, actually. We're in bondage to reality. That's why, until you realize it, emptiness is kind of like saying to you, come on, realize, realize, realize, realize. So we are kind of bound to our ultimate nature. But, you know, I don't remember saying it. Well, it seems like right now we are apparently more attracted to duality, like a magnet, you know. It seems like it's part of us. And over time, through training and meditation and transformation, then you could release some of the attraction and become more balanced.

[65:29]

Yeah. Okay. you could maybe, again, you might be able to be released from the predisposition towards duality. So duality is available if you ever need it, but you're not compulsively driven towards it all the time. Mm-hmm. But I appreciated that everything was attracting us, was drawing us to it in some way. Or maybe I'm making that up. Yeah, I'll think about whether emptiness is drawing us to it.

[66:29]

Drawing us to it, again, the problem with that is that then it's like it's not, it's at a distance. I don't see it as a distance. I see it more like, rather than drawing it, it's just like waiting for us, maybe, just sitting there all the time, waiting for us to wake up to it. I mean, new, new, new stuff. Okay, Alan or Timo, you're an old one, but yes, Timo. I don't know if it's at that point, but it's true. Your answer to my question before talking is that you said that you believe that knowing the thoroughly established character is or is not separate from such events. The thoroughly established character is such events. Right, it is such events. So I wonder then, I mean, how could not knowing the thoroughly established character happen or evolve at all?

[67:32]

How could it evolve? How could not knowing the thoroughly established character evolve at all? Well, people are leaving the room, so too bad they missed this answer. But anyway, not knowing the other thoroughly established character is called ignorance. Right, but ignorance or all the imputational, I mean, is other dependent and necessarily established. I don't think you really just heard what I said. I didn't see that you heard what I said. You turned away from what I said. You're ignoring what I said. I just told you that you said, where did it come from? It is ignorance to not know the thoroughly established. That is ignorance. We ignore it. There's something about human beings that they ignore it. They actually turn away from it. That's how it happens. It's a living thing we do. And that relates to what Liz said, is that we are beings that are allowed that are allowed to dependently co-arise in such a way that we ignore reality.

[68:36]

Emptiness allows us to ignore it. But ignorance itself has an other dependent character, right? And is therefore emptiness itself? Yeah, you could say it is emptiness itself, but it's also a little bit different from emptiness. You can say that form is emptiness. We can get into that dialectic. But this would be a big difficult thing which probably if I say this to you, you won't necessarily get it right now. But it says in the Heart Sutra, form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself is form. You could also say ignorance itself is emptiness, emptiness is ignorance. But that shouldn't be taken literally, that ignorance is emptiness. or that form is emptiness. What it means is that the nature of ignorance is emptiness. So if we say form is emptiness, we mean the nature of form

[69:41]

The ultimate nature of form is emptiness. If you say ignorance is emptiness, what we mean is the nature of ignorance is emptiness, not that ignorance is emptiness. And then when we say emptiness is form, we don't mean that emptiness is form. And if we say emptiness is ignorance, we don't mean that emptiness is ignorance. We mean that you never have ignorance separate from emptiness. But that is true for all phenomena. That's what I just said. Aren't you listening? I just said form, and then I did ignorance. That's all phenomena. Okay? Don't you get that? I just said that? How could you say, after I just said all phenomena, that it's true of all phenomena? I just gave you all phenomena. Didn't you see that? Didn't you see that? I said form. That means all phenomena. Okay? Form, and then I gave another one. And ignorance. How come you didn't see that? Answer, please. He's ignoring it.

[70:45]

I would ignore it. That's your answer? I don't know. It looks like it. No, I don't think it looks, yeah. The point is, I mean, I heard it and I still, my question is still not answered. Okay. But don't let your question not be answered to stop you from hearing the answer to your question. Did you understand that part? You see, you keep looking for the answer to your question and miss the answers. You're going someplace else when I'm answering your questions. So you didn't notice that I told you... I didn't just say form... is emptiness, emptiness is form, as I said. Form is, as I said, ignorance is. In other words, all phenomena are emptiness. Emptiness is all phenomena, but that doesn't mean that all phenomena are emptiness or that emptiness is all phenomena. Okay? So it's not true that ignorance is emptiness. It's true that ignorance is empty of ignorance.

[71:49]

What's also true is that you never have emptiness separate from ignorance. or ignorance separate from emptiness. That's also Heart Sutra's saying. You have any question about that? Yeah, well, it's kind of a big thing there that's kind of like a core teaching on the Heart Sutra. But that's what I'm saying is the meaning of that. I'm saying it's not true. I don't think it's true that literally form is emptiness and literally emptiness is form. I think what's true is that the ultimate nature of things is emptiness. The ultimate nature is thoroughly established character. And the thoroughly established character is never separate from things, including ignorance. Ignorance is as empty as enlightenment. And enlightenment is as empty as ignorance.

[72:54]

But you already knew that, right? Okay, a new set of questions we have. Alan and Alan. Let's start with Alan and Alan, and then Diego. I think this Alan was first, and that Alan was second. I just want to say something about what Mikael said a while ago about feeling. It seems to me, from reading and practicing this material, We don't completely understand, but we do see little openings or inklings. And that does produce a powerful emotion called conviction. It's not knowledge, but it's conviction. That it's leading us to a more powerful understanding. And I think that that's what I'm up with. And I think it's the long road, but I think it's a powerful long road. at least to understand.

[73:58]

Alan, second element? I'm still having difficulty understanding how the aware consciousness establishes continuity between what happens and what happens. What it does, where it goes, how it continues. I don't know if It's not just the... Well, it's like this. In this moment right now that you're in, there's certain material you have available to you to deal with this life. This material that you have available to you comes with the moment and is dependent on past moments. For example, you can speak English. You arrive here in the moment speaking English. That provides continuity with your education in previous years in English.

[75:04]

The way that your mind functions, such that this is available to you, that these images and words are available to you now, that dimension and that capacity of your mind right now is called alaya. That's its storehouse aspect. So that's how you have continuity with English language, is that you're present when you're born with English. Whereas when you were a little boy, you didn't have continuity with English, so you couldn't access English words, so the lie you had had put you in continuity with a person who was a little younger who couldn't speak English. But when you interacted with English-speaking people and your voice started to try to make sounds, trying to make those sounds changed you into a person that was trying to make those sounds, and that person who was trying to make a sound disappeared, but that person became the condition for the next person you became, who had that background of trying to make those sounds in English.

[76:05]

So those became a resource for you. Those past experiences became resources for you to take another step towards learning English. This is the continuity of alaya. And then that's in this light that you can observe this, you can see this functioning. And in early Buddhism they didn't talk about it that way, only they said the word alaya here and there. In this sutra they introduced this capacity of mind, and they call it this storehouse consciousness. And then the other aspect of it, which is basically the same thing, is that this consciousness is a way of hooking into bodies, and bodies then offer resources through the senses to the functioning of consciousness. So through consciousness we get access to sense organs, and then we can have the arising of sense consciousnesses, and through consciousness we get access to bodies which have certain memories.

[77:12]

So human beings have bodies, that in a sense have memories or resources for language. So children try to start talking before they have words. You can see them trying to... The sounds they make sound like speech. They're making little strange sentences, even though they don't know how to put the words or which... And then they make all kinds of grammar. You can even see grammar in their babbling. And they have grammars from different languages that are going on. Wean them from, you know, when they learn words, they start speaking the grammars from Spanish, and you say, no, no, no. And they force them over to English or German. Have you seen that? They've got all the grammars for all the languages. They don't have the words activated yet. So you start feeding the words into the thing and then cutting out inappropriate grammar systems or teaching simultaneously several grammar systems so those children learn a little slower. You're reinforcing several rather than just crossing up innumerable ones and emphasizing one.

[78:13]

This comes with the body. Consciousness hooks into that. Okay? See, Diego? So what you were just saying kind of leads into my question, which in the beginning I kind of saw the imputational as... Verbal. This is about the imputational character. I'm not sure if I'm going to be clear about this. It's not verbal. Imputational is not verbal. Right. It's both. But it depends on words. It's not both. It depends on words. It needs words. And it's the basis for using words. to make conventional designation. It's not the basis for using words just like Joe. I said Joe, but I didn't need to use a conventional designation. That's not a conventional designation unless I put it on something. It's not a designation just to say Joe. You can say, you made a conventional designation. I say, no, I didn't. I just said Joe. I didn't designate anything.

[79:14]

I didn't put the sign on something. But when I put the sign on something, I needed to have used the epitation. The epitation is not the words. The words are dependent co-horizons. The way I was, the way I'm seeing it now, and there's some terminology that might be a little confusing, but I'm thinking the word is put on a sign. I'm thinking of the sign as being something actually non-verbal that we Even before we have language, even children before they have language... Excuse me. It says words or terms. It says words and symbols. So there's two kinds of things you can use. One is like... experiential images and the other's words. So those are two types you use. So children are making experiential images, like they do their mother's face before they have the word mother or Betty or whatever.

[80:22]

They have image of their mother. They can do that before they have the word. So we can do images of things that are just symbols or images, experiential images, and we can do words. And we can do both at the same time sometimes. But neither of those are the imputational. The imputational uses them. So in being able to see the absence of the imputational in the other dependent, you have to... It's not just... going beyond language, you're not just not putting words on things, but you're not even attaching to images.

[81:25]

Even... Does that make sense? Yeah. Except that you said, in seeing the absence of the strong adherence... I shouldn't say in seeing the absence. In seeing the absence... of the imputational in the other dependent, you said, you not only have to go beyond words, you have to go beyond, did you say symbols? You have to go beyond images. It isn't that you have to go beyond them exactly, it's more like you have to give up, you have to let them go rather than go beyond them. You don't have to try to stop them, just let go of them, try to let go of the adherence to them as being the other dependent. In that letting go, the space starts to emerge where you have a chance to see something different, namely their absence. You're still looking, you know. I can't figure out how it turns around. We have this song, you know. I'll be looking at the moon, but I'll be seeing you. But it's more like, I'll be looking at you, but I'll be seeing the moon.

[82:34]

So I can look at you, but what I see is the moon. In this case, the moon being the absence of the image that I usually superimpose on you. So I'm looking at you, usually I'm seeing you as my image of you, either Diego or this handsome man who can't do tango, Anyway, I can see the image and the name, or bull, but then maybe I suddenly can see the absence of the imputation of essence, and then there's no support for the name or the image. I can see that. Then I'm seeing it's all established. But I have to sort of be willing to let go a little bit of that strong adherence of the stories I have about you, which are built on names and images in order to open to that vision.

[83:49]

And, again, as you'll see in the next chapter a little bit, You have to first of all practice meditating on dependent co-arising to have enough virtue to be able to virtuously let go of your stories without really, instead of just dreaming about it and becoming nihilistic or something. So we need to meditate on all three of these in order to realize the ultimate nature. Or rather, you need to meditate on the thoroughly on the other dependent and the imputational in order to really meditate in a direct way on the thoroughly established. Yes, Elena? Any other hands? Pam? Yes? There's a story that people can do extraordinary things. Yes, there's stories about them. We've seen these men...

[84:52]

to handle the reality and shape of... Yes. ...pure people thereby or... Yeah, or win national basketball championships. Are these people... What about these people? Do you want me to tell a story about those people? No, yes. The knowledge of your being about darkness. Or to what extent for, I don't know, it depends on the... I think so. I think they do. I think Michael Jordan has a clear knowledge of their own bidding for the Dharma. Michael Jordan, not Michael Jackson. And I think, you know, I think Joe Montana does, and I think Yo-Yo Ma does.

[85:59]

I think the people train themselves in such a way of meditating on the relationship between the imputational and the other dependent But they have visions of the thoroughly established. And with that vision of the thoroughly established, they understand creativity. They understand the other dependent. And they just go in that understanding and they just like... I mean, you know, they're usually pretty compassionate about it, but sometimes their team wins just because they decided to do it that way. But they could also have it be what the other team wins and still be in the same place and just see, oh, this time they're going to win. So some people do that. And the Buddha was one of those people that did these extraordinary things because the Buddha was actually, like, understood the pinnacle of rising. And when you understand the pinnacle of rising, you've participated in a way that's called, you know, magical, amazing, astounding.

[87:04]

But most important is that it's liberating. Are they fully realized? It doesn't appear to be, but I can't judge. But it looks like they're a little bit pretty realized. It looks like they actually are entering into a deep understanding of the other dependent character phenomena. And I think in order to do that, you have to have some understanding of thoroughly established. Everybody has some understanding of thoroughly established, but most people's understanding of thoroughly established is highly limited by their ideas about it. I should say thoroughly established, I mean other dependent. Everybody understands something about the other dependent, and everybody has the thoroughly established glimmering all around them all day long, but most people are so strongly adhering to the imputational character that they don't let much of the thoroughly established character in, and therefore they have very limited understanding of the other dependent. When you see someone who's really creative, at that point, I think at the point when they're being creative, when the artist is actually working in that media that they've really focused on, when the athlete or the musician or the doctor or the mother, whenever anybody's doing something really amazing, you know, and you see them, like, happy and beneficently,

[88:25]

you know, they probably have had some vision of the third establish so they can participate with the other dependent in such an easy, beautiful way. And I just, you know, I don't really, I just don't imagine that Michael Jack and Michael Jordan, when he's playing at his certain moments, I don't imagine that he was like thinking anything negative about the other players on the other team or his own team. I don't think he was into that. I think he was into the magic of these huge bodies moving in space and time. Other people are too. I mean, they wouldn't be on the floor if they weren't. But not as much as him. So I think he had more understanding, more realization of this teaching. And the same in other realms, where people are just doing these amazing things. I think they're in the Buddhist samadhi, but I don't think necessarily they're fully realized Buddhas. But it's not for me to judge. But sometimes I can see the Dharma working, and that's a wonderful thing.

[89:32]

But to judge that this is a fully realized Buddha, I'm sorry to tell you I can't tell who the fully realized Buddhas in the room are. I don't seem, as far as I can tell, to be one of those. And I can't even tell who the bodhisattvas are, who the ones who are going to be Buddha. I can't even tell when each of you is going to be a Buddha and which one of you is going to be which Buddha. I can't see that yet. Sorry. But I'm not so bad about it because it's quite a feat to be able to tell such things. To see who is going to be the Buddha's when and how is a vision that's available to Buddhas, but not to most people. but I still can see a little Buddha working here and there, which is very encouraging to me. And by the way, I want to say something to Mikael, even though he left, and that is, if you knew that someone you loved, that their welfare depended on you learning this sutra and understanding it, intellectually, you would probably want to do that

[90:50]

And in the process of trying to learn the intellectual meaning of this sutra, you would have some emotional difficulties. And you would know that you need help with your emotional difficulties and the feelings that are coming up in order to master this intellectually. So intellectual mastery is necessary for people who have a strong feeling side. And feeling mastery is necessary for those who have a strong intellectual side. Any other? What did you say? You got both really strong. Pardon? Yeah, the same. If you got both really strong, it would be the same. Pam? So, for me, entering the difficulty of... engaging in an effort toward inwardly mastery of this material... Yes.

[91:53]

...evoked by some things you say, like, when I hear you describe, it sounds to me like reorientation in some migratory way, moving through the world of, I'm trying to get something or giving something to... seeing that I'm already receiving life. Yes. I, something, there's a strong feeling that arises that says, yes. Uh-huh. Great. That's nice. So... Yes. When I speak from delusion to enlightenment, yes. Yes. I'm over here saying, and the yes is over there, rather than the yes arrives, and then there's me.

[92:58]

So first there's like hearing about things coming forth and realizing me and saying yes, and then seeing, oh, and the yes came forth and realized me, the yeser. Rather than, you came by and realized me, and now I'm here, and I'm going to say yes. Then you flip back to the other side. So then, of course, you didn't exactly pollute it, you just simply flipped back to delusion. And you can flip back and forth on this point quite a bit. Some people have flipped already quite a few times, from delusion to enlightenment and back. But keep flipping. Every time you notice you're in a position, I'm here... doing the practice, every time you think, I'm going to do zazen, just flip and realize the thought, I'm going to do zazen, has realized me. I just received help. I'm just receiving help right now as I think, oh, I'm going to do this. So you have to keep turning the light around that way.

[93:59]

So is that... I don't have to, but there's a possibility of doing it. Is that an example of how you would apply the teaching that is described in the sutra to feeling rather than to meditation, in terms of seeing the magical apparition nature of yet? Well, again, yes could be seen or could be experienced as a feeling. Or as a... If it's a dependently co-arisen feeling, which it is... Well, I don't think yes is a feeling myself. I'm telling you over here, we don't call yes a feeling, we call it a word. It could be a word for a feeling. Huh? It can be a word for a feeling. It could be a word for a feeling, yeah.

[95:02]

So before you say the word, you have this feeling, which is... It could be. Yeah, it could be like that. Yeah, that could be another feeling, yeah. So I'm not attached to it. Yes, but I am attached to the feeling. Oh. I told you this was my passion. So, the attachment stops the process, the flow of reception. So, and when you turn, when you remember the instruction of being aware of how you're receiving help, then it's easy for you to let go of wonderful things like yes. I shouldn't say easy, but it's possible. But if you're in the mode of getting stuff, then you want to hold on to what you've already got. Or you want to let go until you get more. Yeah, let go so you can get more or hold on to what you've got until you get more.

[96:06]

So that mode is very familiar. That's the mode of delusion, getting more. And trading less, what you have now, trading what you have now for more, wait until you get it before you let go of it. But anyway, I just want to tell you that I'm... Part of me seems like there's not much time to cover the ocean of Buddhadharma. So part of me likes to have three-hour classes. But at the same time, I kind of apologize for the classes being so long. So it was two sides. And so now it's 11.30, so we could have a little bit of quiet time before lunch. or we can keep going for a while longer. Would you like to just stop now?

[97:11]

Yes. So we could stop now. I don't see the zillions of hands shooting up. Maybe it's a little quiet time before... Maybe you could get over to the zendo pretty soon and start sitting. And then after you've sat sufficiently, to save all sentient beings, we'll ring a bell and have service. And we'll start chapter 7. Have noon service today. It would be good if you got calmed down before that. Because that would be rather difficult. Paramartha-samudgata is the next chapter, and paramartha-samudgata means born of the ultimate. That's the name of this bodhisattva.

[98:14]

A bodhisattva that's born from realization of a thoroughly established character. He's going to ask questions now. Did you say born or what? Born. The bodhisattva... It's the... People are asking, you know, what's it like for bodhisattvas? This is the bodhisattva... See, this is the bodhisattva emerging from realization of the thoroughly established character and talking. Coming out of that realization of the ultimate and asking questions for our welfare. May God bless you. May God bless you.

[98:58]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_84.42