So, does that take care of you for now? Yeah, I understand, and I wonder if you would just say a little bit about that and suffering. A little bit about how suffering arises from that? Well, Greed, hate, and delusion arises from that mistake. Without that mistake, there's no greed, hate, and delusion. Greed, hate, and delusion is based on this thing. Things are out there separate from this. When we see them that way, we start getting basically greedy. We think if we like something, we want something, and we see it as separate, it's difficult for us not to think of taking it rather than tuning in to how it's given.

[01:02]

It's already given to us. You know, we wouldn't even be aware of it if it wasn't given. It's given, but we see it as separate, so we think we have to take it. So if we start taking what's not given, we start getting greedy. And then that doesn't work very well, sometimes. So then we find it irritating. It's painful to get involved in that, and we get irritated. And of course, it's based on the confusion of this superimposition. The confusion is not comfortable for us. But it's useful for various reasons. Because by confusion, you can get stuff and talk about it. So it looks like the price of admission to human life, of being able to talk to people, is to check into a confusion hotel. It costs a confusion. And it's a little bit uncomfortable to believe that... Clear crystals are emeralds.

[02:05]

And they have insects in your eyes. And then, but you know, most people prefer insects to nothing. This sutra is to try to encourage you to realize that nothing's not so bad. I don't know who's next. Maybe Rob. No, Timo, I think, was next. About the knowing of the thoroughly established character, wouldn't you agree that any sort of knowing would be an imputation? Or is there a knowledge without an imputation? Except the suchness itself. Again, you know, this whole thing of life, it's very problematical. And it's so subtle that it's very difficult to understand this material, it's so deep.

[03:10]

But anyway, I'm kind of thinking that at the beginning of knowing that the early established, there is some imputation, as I just said a moment ago. So when you first access, your first understanding of emptiness, which is the first correct understanding of emptiness, first correct cognition of emptiness, it involves some invitation, some sign. And in a sense, even maybe a little bit of projection of essence to emptiness. So when you first see emptiness correctly, you still might be projecting a little bit of non-emptiness onto emptiness in order to know emptiness. But even though you're projecting some non-emptiness onto emptiness, when you actually do it right, you still get the benefits of seeing the emptiness. But not as many as you will if you keep meditating after that entry.

[04:11]

And actually finally drop all need to use anything to get at the thoroughly established character. When you first meet the thoroughly established character, you kind of do draw yourself into it with these words and symbols and signs. And then the meditation practice is to remove the signs from the way you know the ultimate. But you're still looking at the ultimate. and it's still purifying your consciousness. And the more your consciousness gets purified, the more it's able to know the ultimate without any crutches, without any training wheels or guides. So the idea is that eventually we can know it directly without any conceptual support. But at the beginning we will need some conceptual support, even when we get all the way to seeing it clearly. and having a direct, not direct, but a correct, valid understanding.

[05:19]

That works, that actually transforms us. Yes? Again, some sort of knowledge or understanding could be separate from what is happening, right, or from the suchness. I have no problems to see. Excuse me, you said the knowledge of what could not be separate from what? And then you said suchness. The knowledge of the thoroughly established character could not be separate from it. It is suchness, that is suchness. Is suchness. So the knowledge of suchness could not be separate from... Suchness. The knowledge of suchness cannot be separate from suchness? Right. I have just used the word knowledge for understanding for something which is separate from the thing itself. Right, but this is a knowledge of how the separation between knowledge and the thing itself, the knowledge in this case, is the emptiness of that separation.

[06:24]

It's the knowledge that that separation is an illusion. So when you see that the separation is an illusion, even that knowledge can still have a little bit of that separation in it, even though you actually understand clearly and you never again will believe otherwise that that's an illusion. You understand the illusion, but still, even in that understanding, there's a little bit of duality. But eventually that duality can also be removed. So when you first understand non-duality, there's a little bit of duality in it. Eventually there'll be no duality in your understanding of non-duality. You'll have a non-dual understanding eventually, a non-conceptual, non-dual understanding of non-duality. Not a non-dual, non-conceptual understanding of non-conception. but a non-dual understanding of non-duality.

[07:28]

But at first you have a kind of dualistic understanding of non-duality. But not just a hearsay, but actually seeing, you know, conceptually, and therefore somewhat dualistically, non-duality. Okay? And then, uh, then Rob. Yeah, uh, we just said actually, that helped pretty well with what we wanted to ask, I think. Um, this issue of, um, Using crutches to ride at, or using duality to ride at non-duality, using crutches to ride at thoroughly established. So what we just read says that the absence, the strong adherence to the other dependent by which fully established is known. In this department,

[08:32]

What is it? Invitation. Didn't you? No, it was... I think it is. He said, in the absence of strongly adhering to the other dependent. Oh, as being. Being the invitation, yeah. But thoroughly established as being. Okay, so I'm not sure I even understand that correctly, but what I do understand is this, that strongly adhering to the other dependence, that being... as being a potential character, that, that is, that's an obstacle, obviously, in that sentence, arriving for, or at knowing the, um, fully established niche, um, So that's a crux, so to speak. So my real question, the crux of my question is, how do we work with that? In other words, that is an obstacle, and yet at the same time, it's recommended to us always kind of work with that. So that's sort of where I have the... Do you understand the issue that I'm sort of writing at? I don't know. But I did say that this is kind of... That paradox is very kind of like apropos of Zen practice, where we say stuff like,

[09:42]

Give all your stories a rest. Breathe through all your stories. Breathe through all conditions. What conditions? Well, the conditions are that you're living in a world where everything you know has this confusion. You're living in a realm where the way you know what's happening is by strongly adhering to it as being the invitation. You're strongly adhering to what's happening as being the projection and superimposition of essences and attributes on things. That's how you know what's happening. That's the way you're knowing. So in that situation, which is the circumstances of your life, which is your destiny as a human being, give that situation a rest. That's the practice. And the more you do that, the more you develop a weaker and weaker adherence to what's happening is being your stories of it. The more fluid your stories get to such a point that your teacher and some of your friends can come up to you and take your stories away and say, your story is not your story anymore, man.

[10:45]

And you say, you know, rather than, no, my story's right. Your story's right, but my story's right. You give that, you stop being that way more and more. And you start that way opening And you start entering the way. And as you enter the way and live that way more, you start to see more and more the place. You start to understand the place where the imputations don't reach, which is the other dependent. And actually you see the non-reaching of the words and concepts in your experience. You start to then... The dawn of emptiness arises. And then eventually, by going back there more and more, you actually think finally, like, actually get it, conceptually at least. And then you're like, after that you're like, you can refer to that experience and tell what that experience is and you can tell other experiences that aren't like that.

[11:47]

And you'll never get confused about that again. However, there's still a duality which is developed. I mean, that's removed eventually too. So it sounds like you're recommending, in a way, skipping strongly, just letting go. Just let go and get strongly adhering. That is just my question. And just get strongly adhering to the... Yeah, I'm suggesting that. And I'll tell you that I actually heard that that's been recommended for a long time. In a lot of Zen texts, that instruction has been really emphasized. That's why this particular sentence in Chapter 6, I feel, is very, very close to Zen tradition, and particularly our tradition, of Soto Zen. It's a very strong approach. In some ways, anyway, it's very strong. And so again, I think I mentioned to you before, someone said to me at Asahara, well, should we get into our story sometimes?

[12:52]

And I said, well, no, but yes, In the sense that you can get into your stories if that helps you let go of your stories. So you gotta check, are you getting into your stories to get something? Do you have a story about how getting into your stories is going to give you something or whatever? Prove you're right or fix things up? Do you have stories about that? Are you really letting go of stories? Do you want to get into your story in order to let go of your story? And you have to get a little bit more in so you'll be able to trust that it'll be okay to let go. Well, we can try it. And then the person can try it and we can see. You're not letting go. This isn't going to... I don't believe this is going to... even that comment could be done with or without adhering to the story of how the person is adhering to the story. So we, to some extent, we get into the stories to help us. But basically, we're just trying to let go of them to give them a rest. So cease, give it a rest, stop, breathe through, let go, relinquish,

[14:01]

What? All these involvements. This isn't the whole practice. This is just how to enter in the first stage of it will be calm, and then we can start playing with this stuff. But now we're not playing with involvement. We're doing this very relaxed, non-grasping, being batted around by everything, receiving. all this stuff to work with and giving it away, right? We're giving it that, then this is now doing it into the deepening contemplation of this material. But first of all, yes, let go of the strong adherence. Just go right ahead and let go of it. You don't have to wait any longer unless you just want to wait longer. And a lot of people don't want to start because they already sense what might happen if they did. Is that, you know, other people would maybe start influencing your life the way they always have been. Let's see, I don't know, I forgot. Fu, maybe? Fu, yeah, Steven, and Susan were the ones I said before, right?

[15:09]

And Owl, okay, so remember those. So what's arising right now is a fear, because I couldn't hold on to my question while you were talking to the other people, so it kind of evaporated. And, you know, that's kind of interesting, and I kind of like what you're saying. I wasn't so scared when I had my question all together, you know? Ready to, you know, meet you. And then I got really scared that he's gonna call on me, and I'm totally confused. But somebody's coming, so. I actually wrote it down. You remembered that. So you mentioned something about item by item. What I was confident in a while ago was that it's not what says characterless phenomena.

[16:15]

To me, it's putting these two things together again that Timo was bringing up, that for a phenomenon to be a phenomenon at all, it seems to have to be connected to sense consciousness. The phenomena have to do with something perceptible. And if it's characterless, then it seems like, how would you perceive a phenomenon, a sensory phenomenon, that has no characteristics? Good point. So the imputational character, the imagining has a character, and you can cognize imagining. Cognitive activity of imagining has a character. It's not characterless, it's a dependent co-horizon. And dependent co-horizons have a character, namely, another dependent character.

[17:19]

So imagining is another dependent character, words are other dependent characters, and you can perceive imagining and words. Okay? But what is imagined here you cannot perceive, you cannot perceive a self. It is non-existent, it has no character. So the imputational character as talked about in this case is something that you cannot perceive. And it has no character. And because it has no character, you can't perceive it. Because you can't perceive it, it has no character, of course. So that's part of understanding the characterless phenomena. It's part of understanding that the imputation has no character whatsoever. It's empty. It lacks the own being of character. It has no character. It's empty by having no character. So that's how the imputational character will be connected to the, in the next chapter, the lack of own being in terms of character.

[18:22]

A lack of character non-nature. And this should be studied Because when you understand this, then you can abandon the afflicted character. You can abandon the part, the aspect of other dependent phenomena, which is confusion of this characterless thing with something that does have character, namely the dependent core rising itself. Yes? Mine is really in that same territory. You said a while back that if you separated the imputational and the other dependent, that if you would look then at the imputational you would see nothing, and if you looked at the other dependent you would see nothing. My question is, are there different kinds of nothing? And so some of these, like looking at the characterlessness,

[19:28]

I take that back, by the way. You separated the imputational from the other dependent. If I said, if you look at the imputational, you'll see nothing. I take it back. You can see the imputational. You can see the imputational. But if you push the imputational away from the other dependent, when you look at the absence that's been created by that, then you don't see anything. But also, if you look back at the other dependent... Without using the imputation, you don't see anything. That's what I meant. Okay, so the image of... This is like something you can check out in your own mind. This is what's going on in your own mind. There's a place that you're that way. That's why I say you turn the light around and shine it back to the place where you just let go of body and mind. There's a place like that where body and mind and life are being let go of. That's the place where the imputation is not holding on to the other dependent. So these words are like to gesture towards this inner sanctum of your experience where things are like loose and not stuck together and not generating any affliction and the thoroughly established is just shining there in its kind of ungraspable radiance.

[20:51]

These three words, afflicted, or characterless, afflicted, and purified, seem like different gates to the same place. But are they different? I mean, they're different words, but I'm looking at whether there are different kinds of emptiness, which we talk about later. So this seems to be an introduction of that, and I'm interested, but... For instance, I'm already attracted to looking at the image. Excuse me. You asked first, you said, are these three characters different? Other than having different names. Are they different other than having different names? I don't know. But they do have different names. We know that part. That's an interesting answer.

[22:01]

And you may continue to hear these three names. Let's see, Stephen. I realize that in hearing these teachings I am developing gaming ideas that I didn't use path. I wonder if that's okay with you. Is it okay with me? Do you still have the ones you used to have? Oh, yeah. All of them? Well, I haven't calculated recently, but there's a lot. I think that those new gaining ideas are part of the way you will understand the afflicted character phenomena. By seeing new gaining ideas is a way to understand how the other dependent has this way of turning it into something that you can gain.

[23:16]

rather than something that's, of course, given. So that might be somewhat useful to see that you have these new kinds of gaining ideas with respect to new dependent core horizons. See, now we have a whole new... That was... took care of all the opal and owl. And after owl, we have a whole new inventory of questions. Yes? So that place where Bonnie and Lion are dropping off is where the absence of this one here is the imputational, of the imputational to the other dependent is happening, and that's where it looks like there's this shining other dependent, and that's brings me to this question that we have more to say about the alaya-vijjana of the Buddha, seeing that what that is, is that shining, highly dependent, free of the educational.

[24:21]

So, by meditating in this way, By having this new type of cognitive activity, which you can be aware of, like you can be aware of considering letting go all the time rather than trying to get stuff all the time, or you can be aware of that you're trying to get stuff, but that you're trying to let go of trying to get stuff, without even necessarily too much trying to get letting go. But just kind of more like, I'm willing to like, I really don't care that much, but I'm willing to let all these gaining ideas drop away. This is a new type of cognitive activity which could turn into a new kind of thing you're trying to get. But anyway, you watch your cognitive activity, you can notice that it's changing. Not everybody in the world walks around trying to let go of their stories, have you noticed? Not everybody is going around sort of opening to the possibility of changing sides in an argument. So anyway, your cognitive activity changes.

[25:25]

That causes your alaya to evolve. And alaya, I would suggest that alaya can certainly evolve quite a ways to a point where although there still is the seed for the idea of a self, what there isn't at a certain point is the predisposition towards using that image of a self. That's what gets changed. Just collecting dust. That seed is just collecting dust. No, that seed actually, it's functioning quite free. The seed of the predisposition is functioning in most of us. But as you meditate for a long time, that seed is recreated by our activity, usually. But as our activity changes, that seed of the predisposition towards the self stops, is destroyed.

[26:32]

Sprouts. Sprouts. Seems like it was sprouted into a wholesome seed. No, it sprouts all the time. And it forces us. to project the self onto things. We're predisposed, we're inclined, we're driven to impose duality on experience. You think that's a different seed than the one that's the potential for a self? There's a seed for the self, for the image of self. There's a seed for the image of separation of subject and object. which is a seed for the separation of subject and object. There's not subject and object from two different seeds. Subject and object come from one seed, and their separation comes with that seed. So it's one thing, actually, looking like two. That's the way the seed for that vision, for that mind, is that mind appears as the receptor.

[27:36]

That's the seed. That seed can arise... In a Buddha, I would suggest, or certainly in a very advanced bodhisattva, but I think in a Buddha. But even in an advanced bodhisattva, not even in a Buddha, the disposition towards that seed, that becomes destroyed. So, again, in... It's in 30 verses, isn't it? No. Yeah, it's in 30 verses. Is it 25 or... As long as consciousness does not terminate a mere concept, so long will the dispositions for the twofold grasping not cease.

[28:41]

It doesn't say so long as consciousness doesn't terminate a mere concept. Terminating a mere concept means so long as you don't train yourself to give up. the story of subject and object being separated. You train yourself until you get to the point where you actually, like, are really convinced of that, and then that starts transforming your dispositions. As long as that doesn't happen, you're predisposed to the two-fold grasping. But it doesn't say, so long as the mind does not terminate in mere concept, which is the realization of the illusoriness of that duality. So long as your mind does not terminate in the understanding of non-duality, again and again and again. As long as you don't get to that place and practice in that place, the disposition towards imagining that things are separate, that aren't separate, will not cease. But it doesn't say... As long as the mind doesn't terminate in mere concept, the two-fold grasping will not cease.

[29:45]

It doesn't say that. It says the disposition. So I think Buddhists can still, they can still have this two-fold grasping. But they have no predisposition to it. They just do it out of love for the world so that they can talk. Because without talking, they can't say, well, this student here needs this teaching, and that student there needs that teaching. But maybe somebody says, no, no, they're so enlightened, they can just send the right teaching without even thinking of two different people and where their minds are and stuff. But I don't know about that. Maybe they can. But even if... Because I say this, because... they seem to be able to see conventional world and ultimate world simultaneously. And seeing the conventional world means seeing how the imputational is mixed with the other dependent. But in order to mix them, I think there has to be some kind of like projection of two-fold grasping onto things. But it's not done compulsively.

[30:46]

It's done in order to talk. So you just come out of... Ordinary great yogis... look at people and don't perceive, you know, anything. When they're meditating on the thoroughly established character, all they see is the absence. They look at everybody and all they see is the absence of their story about the person in the story. They got a story of the person, but they're not looking at the absence of their story in the person. In other words, they're looking at the person in a very liberating way. But that time they can't talk. And the person says, talk to me, talk to me. So then the... The invitation will come, but on top of the person, they say, yes. You know, yes, Pierre.

[31:48]

But the Buddha can do... The Buddha doesn't switch back and forth in order to respond. But when these advanced people who have been able to look at people and not perceive them, who look at people in emptiness and don't perceive the person, are looking in freedom at the person, who are relieved of their ideas of the person, when they look at this person and they switch back and start doing the imputational thing again and don't see the emptiness of the person, at that time they're not talking the person out of this predisposition, they're talking out of compassion, that they've been drawn back into the world of confusion because they've been called. And that's actually why all of you are here. You just can't remember. And that's why it's hard to remember. Well, this terminated mirror concept, does it mean that everything in our experience is mirror concepts?

[32:57]

Well, is it? Yeah. Terminated mirror concept is one translation. Another translation is understand mirror concept. There's nothing but mirror concepts? There's nothing but mirror concepts? No, it's just that there's nothing. Everything that appears is mere concept. But everything that appears isn't everything that there is. The way everything appears is just mere concept. That's why I said our experience. We can only experience mere concept. You're experiencing the other dependent. It's just that it's mixed with its appearance. Its appearance dominates. So the way it appears to you is mere concept, but the other dependent is not mere concept. Yeah. So, anyway, it's the predisposition. That actually gets extinguished in the alaya eventually through the meditation practice.

[34:01]

So you still have the facility to imagine essences, but the predisposition, the setup, the way alaya is like you know, conformed to force these images of self out onto everything, that confirmation gets reshaped by the meditation. So the stuff's available when necessary, and it's necessary when Buddhas talk to people, and that people do need Buddhas to talk to them. and bodhisattvas can talk to people even though they no longer are compulsively projecting essences onto things. That's the change that can happen and that's part of what's necessary and that's part of what this sutra's about, is providing a picture of how actually you get transformed in order to be someone who can understand emptiness and let go of all approaches to practice at the same time evolve.

[35:12]

Okay, now we have a whole new group. Okay, so let's have all the hands raised up and I'll call them. Okay, so we have, I'll just start. David, Grace, Meg, Sala, Liz, Mikael, Scott, Timu, that's the group. Yes? So, if someone were to reach full enlightenment, or attain full enlightenment without ever having studied any of the sutras, would they automatically, or along with the enlightenment, gain the understanding of this sort of system of thought? Maybe not necessarily in this world, but in some form or another? Let's see who's next. Grace? I have a story.

[36:14]

I just want to see if it works. The story is that the physical brain that we have actually works by a gating mechanism, so that the more you send a thought through the brain, the more the neurons are activated to always go in a particular direction. So the particular direction of that thought process with respect to what we're studying is the reality or the truth of... subject and object being different. I mean conventional truth. We take that to be true, so we send the thought process almost unconsciously and habitually goes down a certain river. Meditating gives us the possibility of activating other neurons. But life itself pushes us down that main river of subject and object.

[37:15]

So human suffering... They say life itself pushes us down that thing. Activation in the human realm. Part of life pushes us down that road. But what is always coming up is the antidote. Another part of life is saying... Stop. Give it a break. That's the Buddha part. That's the Buddha part. So what we start doing is actually activating other pathways by giving it a break. And meditation helps activate those other pathways. Little sort of openings set the seed so that those other pathways have a greater... possibility of being activated in any moment and then i would think that the buddha mind itself is that this whole process is no longer unconscious in the sense that the whole map of the brain or you know if we had pet scans we could um the buddha would be able to sit there and sort of activate

[38:25]

different channels somewhat at will, as opposed to simply having impact. That's my physical story. Okay. Well, again, remember that Chapter 5 says that the alaya hooks into body and sense organs, so alaya can access a brain. And that's part of how a laya then gets all these seeds, by hooking to a body. And because of this close relationship, if you transform a laya, it has an effect on the body that it's connected to. However, and this is again back to the rebirth thing a little bit, the destiny of the body and the destiny of a laya are not the same. The body doesn't... While body and alaya are connected, they're partners and they share the same risks and benefits.

[39:31]

And so, as alaya evolves, the body evolves, and alaya has to deal with stuff that's in the body, inclinations of the body. And the body, as I mentioned, the way it's built, the way the organs function, they naturally give rise for good reason. In other words, in order to have depth perception, we have two eyes. and we have a discrepancy between them. The way the eye functions so nicely, this wonderful organ which creates three dimensions for us to experience, which recreates in our mind a three-dimensional world, and also a mind which can create a four-dimensional and a five-dimensional world, the body is part of the way we do that. What Albert Einstein creates his world was by accessing his body. So the body helps the mind develop, but the body also gives the mind possibilities for misconceptions, like real dualities. And so then the mind has all that crap to deal with, but also useful crap.

[40:33]

You can also transform the way that stuff is used, and that will then change the body. So then the body and alaya are evolving together. And in a very advanced alaya, that's going to bring the body a long ways. But when the person dies, the body doesn't have a continuity to another body, but the alaya does. It's a condition for another alaya. The body is not the condition, not the unique condition for another. It's a unique condition, but it doesn't have the same kind of continuity. Okay, so now some new people are trying to add their names to the list, but actually I think we're just going to stick with this group for a while. Meg? I think you could see Steven's name rasping in white. I think it is Dogen who said something that's roughly translated as in order to approach Zen, you move out of the city.

[41:42]

That is, in order to... In order to enter the practice, you have to do something which is fundamentally contradictory to the practice, which is to grasp it and go after it. When you first approach. Right. After a while, you can approach the practice without going away from it. But then it's an entrance of the way. Yeah, and when you first start, that's sort of the way you have to start. And you get inside, and then you find out you don't have to approach things that way anymore. So then you don't, and then you don't move away from the practice. But when you first come, that's why the Zen teachers say, when you started coming here, you deserve 30 blows. But now that you're here, you do two also. But you don't have to come here to get them. I think the need for new grasping is like a misguided but important access point. New graspings are access to understanding the nature of phenomena. See, and then solemnity?

[42:44]

A little bit you answered it when you talked about alaya, the body, all of it, but so the Buddha mind, in order to act in this world, has to come back to the world of duality, has to come back to the world of duality. Again, I'm saying the Buddha mind is not coming back and never goes away. It's working with both simultaneously all the time. Bodhisattvas have to come back. When you're completely enlightened, you're actually both simultaneously, constantly. But we are advised that we're going to switch back and forth for a few eons. All right, okay, then I'll do bodhisattvas. But what is it, what's the process by which the bodhisattva, as he is functioning or she is functioning in the world of duality, is now better?

[43:59]

You know, is, yeah, better. But we're doing this because it's helpful. I mean, otherwise there wouldn't be a point going on with doing this because we can help beings. Yes. So we're wondering how bodhisattvas are better? Yeah. Helpful than non-bodhisattvas? Yeah. Oh, because they're generous, they're ethical. They're patient, they're diligent, they're calm, and they're wise. And their wisdom, their wisdom is that they understand the thoroughly established character, that's their wisdom. They understand other things too, there's other wisdoms. But they have perfection of wisdom, which is that they understand the emptiness, and various kinds of emptiness. But even bodhisattvas who understand emptiness, there's various stages of deepening that understanding, various levels, which they're not involved in, but going through.

[45:07]

They're going through these stages without grasping them, and because they don't grasp them, they keep going through them deeper and deeper. But you have this look like you're trying to get something that you didn't get. What makes the difference that the bodhisattvas, after they see this, when they come back in the world, the thing that makes the difference is they see things differently. So even before a person has realized the perfection of wisdom, once you still be practicing generosity and precepts and patience, once you still be practicing, the bodhisattvas by this vision are more affected in those practices. That generosity is practiced in the realm of duality. That's where you practice it. In emptiness there's no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no generosity, no precepts. No. There aren't any things there.

[46:10]

Chapter 7, you've been chanting in service, and some of you have been studying probably outside of service. And as you are familiar with now, the chapter starts out by the Bodhisattva Paramartha Samavagata, questioning the Bhagavan. Bhagavan, when I was in seclusion, there arose this thought. Bhagavan has spoken in many ways of the own character of the aggregates and further spoken of their character of production, their character of disintegration and their abandonment and realization.

[47:20]

And he goes on to talk about the... Bhagavan has talked about the own character of many other things and their attributes. So I think there's seven different groups of things that are listed here. that Bhagavan has talked about the own character and the attributes. The own character and the attributes. In each case, he says the own character and then lists different attributes. Any questions about that? . Yeah, own character is this, I think we understand it, own character. It's a difficult word in the sutra, but it's probably what it said in the original Sanskrit, pa-laksana.

[48:36]

And the Lakshana means characteristic or mark or sometimes translated as sign, but I think it's better not to say sign. Mark, characteristic. Mark. I was signed up in Denmark. And the sign is actually like our inclination or predisposition towards a mode of grasping the thing, and the characteristic is more about the thing.

[50:25]

So the mark is more like, is more either the way the thing is defined and the sign is more the way the thing is apprehended. as you maybe run into, that the other dependent character is the basis for the invitational character, and it's the object of activity of conceptual thought, or it's the object of conceptual activity, And it's also the sign of compounded phenomena. But it doesn't say it's the characteristic of compounded phenomena.

[51:43]

Is the sign a compounded phenomenon? Yeah, the other dependent character is the sign of compounded phenomena. And the sign of compounded phenomena is part of what's offered by compounded and transient composed phenomena. are the objects of conceptual activity. The conceptual activity is not the objects that it's conceiving about. And the signs, these transient phenomena, the flow of experience, offers, includes, and offers signs by which consciousness can hook into it by means of conception.

[53:01]

And those signs include, those signs are actually the, what do you call it, the predisposition of consciousness to grab things in different ways. So part of the nature of transient phenomena is that it offers, it includes, it includes our mind. It includes our mind's predisposition to find ways to grab it. It grabs it as signs. We use signs of transient things and the signs of them are not out there separate from the consciousness grabbing them but that aspect of transient experience which is that it includes the way part of transient experience is that transient experience depends on our mind having some way to get it

[54:19]

So it can be the basis of imputation. That's a sign. But the characteristic is more like the characteristic of a form is that it can be hit by can be hit by material phenomena. So the word rupa, which is the name of the first aggregate of the five aggregates, rupa is related from the word rupani, the root rupani, which means can be hit. So material things can be hit. They're located, and they can be hit by other material things. Non-material things are not really hit, they're just objects of consciousness.

[55:28]

So the characteristic is that it can be hit. But the sign is the way our mind grasps it. And its other dependent nature includes the way we grasp it. So the phenomena, material phenomena, are never separate, are never separate or isolated from being grasped, from mental apprehension. And then after going through all this, which I'm going through rather briefly, we could spend the rest of our lives talking about, not the rest of our lives, but probably a few weeks on the term own characteristic.

[56:50]

And there's a big debate about what own characteristic means. But after going through this and saying that Tagata did talk about own characteristic, I guess maybe I'll say this, you know, this much about it, that one understanding of own characteristic is, he is, as I just said, that it's the defining... defining characteristic or unique characteristic or specific characteristic of an object of knowledge. So when we have a direct perception we're actually aware of

[58:01]

that svalakshana, that own characteristic, which defines the experience. Yeah, indirect perception. When you have conceptual cognition of that object, then you're cognizing the object via or through the media of an image of it. And the image of it is a not a specific not a specific characteristic of the object or a specific mark but a general mark. So instead of a sva-lakshana it's called a samanya-lakshana which means a common characteristic. Hmm? A common characteristic.

[59:06]

There's a common characteristic. Another common characteristic of almost all phenomena, all compounded phenomena, is that they have these four phases of existence, arising, lasting, deteriorating, and ceasing. Those are a general character of compounded phenomena. But the other general character is just the image we're using. to have a conceptual cognition.

[60:09]

So you use the same image. And so the image, in a sense, is the expression. The image is sort of a permanent thing, or the image, in a sense, is a permanent thing. It's the image of the thing, the idea of the thing. dare I say, dare I explore the possibility that this might be a Platonic ideal. So it's a general version of the object, a general version, for example, of a person, or the common, the image you use for that person over there. And that's what I said before, the conception is sharper than the actual person, than the actual object, but it's also an impoverished version of them because the unique or particular, specific way that they're appearing to you is actually depending on all the different contributing factors which make the thing happen.

[61:23]

And you're just using this standard common image of them to interpret this complex thing that's kind of blurred. But another way that some people think that the meaning of the own character in this case is different from what it usually meant at the time that the Buddha taught that all these phenomena had own characteristics. And so some people think that what the bodhisattva is asking the question is referring to

[62:25]

is an own characteristic, which is the understanding that these things that exist, like aggregates, or a form, for example, a color, for example, that this has an own characteristic, in the sense that own characteristic means that the thing has a characteristic by which it is the thing it is. That is a form, that is a characteristic. Pardon? Yes, Tom? Great. Great. But that's different from what I just said. It's different from the own characteristics. Actually, you're right. The own characteristics, in that sense, would be more like an idea. But anyway, just let me say that one is more like just saying that you first said all these phenomena have these specific definitions, and some people think you said all these phenomena are established by way of their own character to be what they are, and that they have a character like that that establishes them, that makes them what they are.

[63:46]

And in fact, there was the understanding In early Buddhism, the Buddha spoke in such a way that the early Buddhists actually thought, they actually had the view that things were established by way of their own character, and either he said it so they would think that or let them think that by what he said. So in early Buddhism, they actually had this idea that things, they didn't have this thing about people, that a person was established by way of their own character. But things like forms, like the aggregates, they thought the aggregates had these characteristics. They didn't say, in early Buddhism, they didn't say a person had a spa lakshana. I never heard that. But these aggregates have the spa lakshanas, have their own characters. And that meant that the thing is established by way of its own character. But it also was the definition thing.

[64:50]

But I don't think they really said that. So there's a debate about which kind of meaning of svalaksana is intended at this point in the text. And that part would be a rather complex discussion to go through the arguments one way or another for that. That discussion probably will occur publicly in California at some point. But then, after all that, still the bodhisattva, whichever way you take this, the bodhisattva had a question. After stating the Buddha did this, the bodhisattva had the question. And the bodhisattva's question was, Then I thought, after all that, what was the Bhagavan thinking when he said, all phenomena lack own being, all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start, and naturally in the state of nirvana.

[66:10]

Why was the... Why was the Bhagavad thinking, why was the Bhagavad thinking, quote, all phenomena lack. Own being. All phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, re-essent from the start and naturally in a state of nirvana. Another translation was, after all that, this is about, you taught the own being of this and the own being of that. You taught the own character of this, your own character of that. And then the other Chinese translations are more on over on the side of the Chinese translations are you taught the specific characteristics of the aggregates. You taught the individual characteristics of the aggregates and their attributes. And then Chinese translation says, I do not know what to make of this, that you taught that stuff.

[67:21]

World-honored one. With what implicit intent did you explain that all things have no essence, no arising, no passing away, and are originally quiescent and are essentially in cessation? I wonder, what is the inner intent based on which you said all things have no essence, no origination, no extinction, that they are fundamentally quiescent and inherently nirvanic. So, after teaching that things have specific characteristics or that they have a characteristic by which they make themselves what they are. Either way you take it, still, when you hear the Tathagata taught that all things lack full being, have no essence, you wonder, what was the Tathagata thinking when he said that?

[68:35]

What was the meaning or intention he had in his mind when he taught that? Because it sounds, in a way, to contradict the earlier teaching with respect to the aggregates, which means forms, feelings, perceptions, consciousness, with respect to the Eightfold Path, with respect to the Four Noble Truths. He went through all these different categories of things the Buddha taught, that they have specific characteristics, that they have specific characteristics, or that they even have their own characteristics by which they are what they are. Either way you want to take it, Now, how come the Buddha is saying that these things lack own being and aren't produced? What did he have in mind when he taught that everything is empty of own being? Because he taught before that these things, well, they have, you know, they exist. in a way, that they had these characteristics.

[69:39]

So isn't there a contradiction, some contradiction now in the second teaching that you're giving? Yes? Is that, like, broadness or broadness? Yeah, I guess so. You could say that for now. Is there any kind of contradiction? So I see there's no contradiction in the following. You mean, if you say that the Buddha taught frogness, and then he said that they have no frogness, you don't see a contradiction? No, that they have no inherent existence. Well, you just said they have frogness. You said his own being. Didn't you say his own being, like frogness? That they have no inherent existence of existence. I somehow understood the following. Well, originally you said, I thought you said, be its own being like frogness.

[70:43]

Did you say that? No, characteristic. Own characteristic like frogness? No, it's not. Not necessarily. It's more like, own characteristic is more like, I don't know, the frog can be hit. by light and the frog can be can be hit by by um by touch that's that's the own characteristic of just specifically i'll define anything by truck the other thing is that that the frog has a characteristic like fraudness that makes it a fraud, that would be an own characteristic. So then if they're kind of like that, how come you say they don't have anything like frogness? They say they lack own beings, say they lack frogness.

[71:47]

That sounds like a contradiction from earlier when you kind of said there was frogness. He didn't say frogness, though, he said blueness, blueness. He didn't say blueness, but there was the implication that there was blueness, that there was, that blue existed in a sense by way of its own character. And now you're saying that things don't exist by way of their own meaning. So it sounds like a contradiction. But I also want to say, which I've said to some people before, is that although he doesn't seem to be asking about... He did say, how come when you taught that, what did you have in mind? But he didn't say, when you taught that earlier stuff, what did you have in mind? What was your intention of teaching that things do have own characteristics and specific characteristics or individual characteristics? What are you thinking of there? So he's explicitly asking...

[72:49]

How come you did this? Because that kind of contradicts what you did before. But why did you say what you said before anyway? That's an interesting question to look at. They didn't ask that question, that's just implied. Now questions are coming. Should we go into questions or should I go a little further? You can go. Dad, I'm done. And then, to make a long story short, the Buddha says, well, your intention in asking this question about this subject is good. And then he says, therefore, Paramartha, listen well, and I will explain to you what I was thinking when I said all phenomena lack of own being and so on. Paramartha, thinking of three types of lack of own being... I taught all phenomena like one being.

[73:53]

So really the Buddha was thinking of three types but taught one. That's what they're saying in the sutra. In other words, the Buddha's vision of phenomena, the way the Buddha sees the ultimate nature of phenomena, is that they have, is that the ultimate nature can actually be analyzed. The ultimate nature is... You could say it has three dimensions or three aspects, but the relationship between these three aspects is more than three. It's very extensive, the relationship. You could say almost infinite relationships between these three. There's no end to the dynamics of the way the ultimate nature is. There's no limit to it. I just thought I might mention something about the vision, the human vision.

[75:00]

As we get older, our eyes tend more and more to focus on infinity. Because to see anything closer than infinity You have to contract some muscles around your eye and make your lens a certain shape to focus on anything. Oh, there it is. It's focused. But as you get older, your muscles, whatever, lose their tone, become flat or whatever. And they can't make the lens squeeze together to focus on things closer than close. But without squeezing the lens at all, you can see infinity very nicely. But to see things closer than infinity, that very response between here and infinity, you have to squeeze the lens to a certain shape to tune into that thing.

[76:12]

So that's one thing that's about getting old, is you get to look one more at infinity. Good. So the Buddha is looking, the Buddha's eye is looking at phenomena and seeing the way they are finally. The Buddha is seeing that all the time. And the way they are is that they lack own being. But that lack of own being actually is multidimensional. It's not the simple one he taught at first. that they just lack own being. Actually, they lack own being in three different ways. They have a character lack of own being, a production lack of own being, and an ultimate lack of own being. And the character lack of own being

[77:22]

first time he tells us about it. If you just did chapter six, the character lack of own being is the imputational character. As the lack of own being in terms of character is the imputation character. And the lack of own being in terms of production, but really it should be understood, although it doesn't say so, I think it should be understood as self-production. The lack of on-being in terms of brak itself, closed-brakness production, is the other dependent character of phenomena. And the lack of on-being, the ultimate lack of on-being, he doesn't tell you right away. He doesn't tell you. So he says, he teaches this way, he says, so what's the lack of own being in terms of character?

[78:47]

And he says, it's the imputational character. What's the ultimate lack of own being in terms of the production lack of own being, the self-production lack of own being? It's the other dependent character. And then he says, what is the ultimate lack of own being? He doesn't just say, it's the fairly established. He doesn't. I kind of expected it to be, it doesn't. What he says is, phenomena that dependently co-originate lack own being due to the lack of own being in terms of production. He just said that. He says it again. So it's something that can just help you memorize the chapter. He says, what is the lack of one being in terms of character? It is the imputational character. What is the lack of one being in terms of production?

[79:50]

It is the other dependent character. What is the ultimate lack of one being? And he says, the phenomena that are dependently co-originated which I just said, with the other dependent, which are the lack of own being in terms of production, lack of own being due to the lack of own being in terms of production. You said that, right? So you're repeating it again. And he said, they also lack own being due to being, due to an ultimate lack of own being. So the dependently co... the dependently... originated phenomena, other dependent phenomena, also lack own being due to an ultimate lack of own being. And why is this paramartha-samudgata? I teach that whatever is the object of observation for the purification of phenomena is the ultimate. Whatever is the object of observation

[80:55]

for the purification of consciousness or the removal of obstructions to omniscience. Whatever is the object of observation for purification, that's the ultimate. Pardon? Complete, perfect knowledge. Since the other dependent character is not the object of observation for purification, it is called an ultimate lack of own being. This is kind of difficult. But, you know, you'll probably get it today. if you happen to wake up sometime between now and 11.

[82:01]

Does he say what the object is? Does he say whatever is the object? Does he say what the object is? Yes, he does. What does he say it is? Well, first of all, he says that the object of observation for purification, what it is, it is the ultimate. It is not the other end. And the other dependent is not the object of purification, so the other dependent is not the ultimate. Okay? The other dependent is not the ultimate, according to the sutra. And the reason why it's not the ultimate is because it's not the object of purification. the object for observation, for verification. And so, the way it's translated here is that the other dependent is also a lack of own being due to the ultimate lack of own being.

[83:17]

So it's a lack of own being in association with the ultimate lack of own being. The ultimate lack of own being means the ultimate emptiness. So the other dependent lacks being the ultimate lack of own being. So he calls it also an ultimate lack of own being. So other dependent phenomena dependently co-origin things, and all phenomena are other dependent phenomena. So all phenomena, everything that exists, lacks on being in true way. Lacks, does not have, there's two types of nature that it does not have. There are two types of nature it does not have. One type is that it lacks the nature of producing itself.

[84:24]

Obviously, it's other-dependent. The other type of nature it lacks is ultimate nature. It lacks being ultimate. So we're being told in this way something about what other dependent phenomena are, and we're also being taught in a sense, it's almost like a fourth type of lack of own being. It's a kind of special type of lack of own being, which is lacking being the ultimate lack of own being, and it's called an ultimate lack of own being. The imputational, actually, also lacks being the ultimate lack of own being. Why doesn't he say that? The thoroughly established other dependent phenomena lack being the selflessness of phenomena. The ultimate is the selflessness of phenomena.

[85:38]

Then he tells us, after that he says, moreover, the thoroughly established character of phenomena is also an ultimate lack of one being. So there's two things which are ultimate lacks of one being. One is the ultimate lack of one being, which is the ultimate. The ultimate lack of one being is the ultimate. So one is the ultimate lack of own being. The other is an ultimate lack of own being because it lacks being the ultimate lack of own being. You don't have to deal with it. Pardon? Well, after you learn it, you may want it to be on the midterm. So after you learn it, we can ask you, and then everybody gets to put this question on the midterm. Okay? But you probably don't want to... I don't want to put it on the midterm until you learn it.

[86:39]

I know if I put it on now, it just will be kind of like chaos. And then, so Susan asks again, why doesn't he get it? Because the imputational obviously also lacks being the ultimate, right? The imputational is not the selflessness of phenomena. The imputational sometimes is the imagination of a selfless phenomenon. The imputational has it. It has a thoroughly established character, too. But for starters, anyway, the imputational obviously lacks being the object of purification. So why don't they say this imputational also is an ultimate lack of own being? I think it's because people don't usually think that the imagination of self is selflessness. But there is a tendency to think that the other dependent could be the ultimate.

[87:46]

It's a lack of one being in terms of production, dependent co-arising. The Buddha did teach dependent co-arising as a basic teaching of Buddhism, so they might think that you could meditate on dependent co-arising and purify your consciousness of all obstructions to omniscience. But it's not the object of purification. It's not the selflessness of phenomena. It is selfless, but it's not the selflessness itself. The selflessness itself is the ultimate. But they go out of their way, or the Buddha goes out of the way to point out that the other dependent, that he's going to call the other dependent, two types of lack of own being. Production lack of own being, ultimate lack of own being. So it has two types, and also there's two, in a sense, there's two types of ultimate lack of own being. One is lacking being the ultimate, which in some sense, all things lack being the ultimate.

[88:53]

and all things also are the ultimate. I mean, all things have the characteristic of being the ultimate. Everything has this ultimate characteristic of being selfless. All phenomena actually are selfless. But also all phenomena are dependent co-arising. There's no phenomena that aren't dependent co-arising when all dependent co-arising are selfless. But in their dependent co-arising way, they're also an ultimate lack of human beings which you may wish you never heard about. But anyway, the Buddhists must have tell you that, because if you don't hear this teaching, you might think that the dependent core arising was an object of truth, because you might think that dependent core arising was selflessness. Because, of course, it really is. Doesn't Nagarjuna equate them? Yeah, Nagarjuna equates them, like Nagarjuna says. I declare that whatever is dependently co-arisen is emptiness. So he equates that.

[89:56]

But what does the equation mean? I told you the other day what the equation means. That you never have emptiness separate from dependent co-arising and you never have dependent co-arising separate from emptiness. And the ultimate nature of dependent co-arising is emptiness. That's what the equation means. Words don't really get that good a foothold on reality, so you have to work with them a lot to tease out the actual significance of this. So maybe we can go over this a little bit. It's kind of a hard point. I must say I had a hard time with it, too. So you can have a hard time, too. So these are the three types, in a sense, three types of lack of own being.

[90:56]

You could almost say like, but don't say three types of emptiness quite. So in a sense, not all lacks of own being are emptiness. Emptiness is the lack of own being in terms of the own being, which is the essence. because it can be other types of own being, character own being, and a production own being, and an ultimate lack of own being. So we have first characteristic is one type is exemplifying one type of emptiness. The second is characterizing, in a sense, two types of lack of own being. And the third one is representing one type of lack of own being, ultimate lack of own being. So there's, in a sense, two types of ultimate lack of own being. Maybe now you can ask questions for a while. But anyway, I would say once again, the imputational character also lacks being the ultimate.

[92:04]

Although, of course, it also has the character or the aspect of being totally empty too. But it also lacks on being in a way... that the other dependent doesn't. It lacks own being in terms of character, whereas the other dependent doesn't really lack character in terms... lack... ...these names, John, Patty, Jane, Owl, Rob, Ambo, Did I say Paddy already? Daniel, Elizabeth, is that everybody that raised their hands? That would take care of you. That would do it. Okay. John? Yes. Chapter 7 opens with this mention of previous teachings of own character, and this teaching of own character.

[93:13]

Is that teaching given in this sutra or a different sutra? It's given in a different sutra. Okay. Generally speaking, in the latter part of the chapter they teach the three wheels. They don't tell you too much about what they are. They tell you the important characteristics of them. But the first wheel, the first turning is basically those teachings which you find articulated in, for example, what we call the Pali Canon or the early Sanskrit canon, Agamas and the Nikayas. So in those scriptures the Buddha taught the five aggregates. He taught the own character of the aggregates, the own character of form, the own character of feeling, the own character of perception and consciousness and so on. He taught those in those things.

[94:16]

He taught, by the way, in those teachings, he taught an analysis of experience. And when you learn that analysis of experience and direct your attention towards it, what was possible there, and which people attained, was a wisdom which understood that persons don't have a self. So the person was analyzed, the experience of a person, the experiences that persons have, the experiences that people have, and the experience of what a person is, the experience that people have of their personhood and other personhood, those experiences were analyzed into the five aggregates. the twelve sense doors, the eighteen elements of experience, and so on.

[95:18]

And the path of practice was analyzed into the Eightfold Path. The teachings on wisdom were presented following with these analysis as the Four Noble Truths. And these Four Noble Truths were taught. We were taught the own character of the truth of suffering, and the own character of the truth of origination, and so on. That's what it says there, right? So that's the way the Buddha taught, in an analytic way, and teaching the own character of things. That's a big part of the early teaching of Buddhism. It's called the first turning of the wheel. It refers to the first teaching, but also many... scriptures that followed the first turning of the wheel. First, recall the first scripture that Buddha gave, the setting the wheel of dharma in motion for the first time. But that wheel kept turning through many, many scriptures. Then the next turning of the wheel is this one here.

[96:20]

Second turning is the one referred to right here, which is the Buddha's saying, all dharmas are empty. Everything is empty of inherent existence. Or everything is emptiness. Actually, if you want to see what emptiness is, look at anything. That's what it is. It's the way that thing is, ultimately. The fact that you can't ever find anything, ultimately. That's the second wheel that made that point. And therefore, because of this, things discussed here in this chapter, because of that, things don't arise, don't cease, are fundamentally quiet, and naturally in a state of nirvana. That's the second wheel. And the third wheel, according to this scripture, in this chapter, the third wheel are scriptures like this, which note the first wheel and the second wheel, and also point out certain discriminations about the second wheel that you need to know, so you do not take the second wheel only literally.

[97:28]

Because if you take, this sutra points out, if you take the second wheel only literally, people who do that tend to slip into the view of nihilism when hearing that all things can't be found. You hear the teaching that all things have the ultimate character that they can't be found. Their selflessness is you can't find the thing. And then you might think, well that means the thing doesn't exist at all. Which is not true. Because As this siddha points out with this analysis of emptiness, all things do have this other dependent character. So they're not nothing, it's just that ultimately they can't be found. And when you see how they ultimately cannot be found, that vision, seeing that, purifies your mind of obstructions to perfect wisdom. Well, actually, it... It is perfect wisdom, and that perfect wisdom purifies your mind of all obstructions to even a greater understanding, and greater understanding, and greater understanding.

[98:34]

It's expanding based on that perfect wisdom. Next question? I don't know who's next. Owl? P? Is it relationship? P? Oh, is it Patty? Patty? Yes. Sorry. Nice going. Yes? What popped into my head was someone at their chance, and I wonder if it's like that front of the chat where it says, it is not you, you really are it. You are not it. It really is you. That popped into your head? That's nice. Is that some of what this teaching is? Yeah. Do you want to explain how I summed it up? You are not yet. It means that the selflessness of a person is not the ultimate. The what of the person? The selflessness.

[99:35]

Of the person? Is not the ultimate. No, that's not true. The selflessness of the person is the ultimate. You said selflessness, didn't you? Yes. Yeah, the selflessness of the person is the ultimate. But just change it to that it is and you got it right. The jewel mirror, the awareness of the jewel mirror is a way to meditate on this teaching. You got that right. The jewel mirror is that when you look in the mirror what you see is not you and it is you. That expression sums up this teaching. So that would be something a little bit that you can... This is an example of a teaching. You heard that thing about this is a teaching. You are not it, it actually is you. Okay, that's a teaching.

[100:36]

Now you can... You heard that teaching, now you can meditate on that teaching and discuss that teaching. You see how it applies to these... three types of lack of one being. Because in a way, in a way, it's like a jewel, or it's like, I don't know, it's like you are not it, is more like just all things lack one being. But it actually is you, brings in these other aspects of what Buddha meant when Buddha said all diamonds lack one being. Revenal. It's the relationship of own being and own character. Could you say that own being is that phenomena are established by way of their own character? Say again?

[101:38]

With the definition of own being, that phenomena are established by way of their own character. Is that a way to relate this to you? to believe an own being when we believe that that phenomenon is established by way of their own being. It's this establishment part. I think it's good, though, to extend that a little bit more and say that the own being of things is that they're established by way of their own character as being the reference of words and conceptual activity. Well, that's how the suture does it, but do you need to do that just to get any kind of own meaning? It doesn't work so much just to do it part way because the other dependent character is established by way of its own character.

[102:45]

The other dependent character is established by way of its own character. because its own character is that it's established by way of things other than itself. So that's the way things do exist. Things do exist through dependent goal arising. That's the way things exist. And that way of existing through other dependence is the character of the other dependence, so other dependence does exist by way of its own character. But it doesn't exist by way of its own character as a referent to conceptual activity in words. That would be making a self out of it. And that would be making a self out of consciousness. But if you add that second part in there, then you can say that's a nice definition of own being, or that's a nice definition of a self. I don't know if you did it with your Madhyamaka version of what you say, of the phenomena are established by way of their own, like, are truly established by way of their own character, inherently established by way of their own character, without easily some... In other words, what you just said is

[104:02]

a madhyamaka definition of self? Of the... Yeah. Yeah, it's the same, except that if you leave out that last part, then people might possibly be nihilistic, because they wouldn't necessarily know about the teaching that there's this other dependent character which does exist by way of its own character. The other dependent nature does depend, does exist, does exist by way of dependence on other things. It does exist that way, and that's its character, so it exists by way of its character. But own character, I guess is what's true. Its own character is that it has its other dependent character. Other dependency is its own character. And it exists by way of its own character. So the Madhyamaka can say that, and that doesn't contradict here, just that the additional part reminds us of this analysis.

[105:13]

This analysis is actually helping the Madhyamaka. The Madhyamaka, there's no signs, of course we don't know what happened to our history, but there's no signs of any treatises attacking this scripture as inauthentic. So somehow this sutra appeared in the world and the people of this very powerful school deriving from Nagarjuna, they saw it and didn't mess with it. Matter of fact, they might have even liked it because they thought, oh, this is cool. This is a way to explain emptiness that protects against nihilism. Because they already knew I mean, if Nagarjuna took his own teaching nihilistically, he wouldn't have been able to write it. Why would a nihilist have made the effort to write all this beautiful poetry? Obviously, he wasn't a nihilist. But what he wrote, when Westerners and other people look at his teaching, they thought, oh, this is nihilism.

[106:15]

So that's part of the conditions for the appearance of the sutra in the world. The sutra protects the world against the nihilistic slippery slope around the ultimate position. Because this is a different interpretation or a more extensive interpretation of emptiness than is in the Prajnaparamita scriptures. The Prajnaparamita scriptures, like the Heart Sutra, are the second turning. This is an elaboration, an unfoldment of the teaching of emptiness. And there's another unfoldment of it that's seen in this sutra in Chapter 8, which is the implication that the teaching of mind only teaches another kind of emptiness, but I'll bring that up later, this other kind of emptiness which is taught, which people see as being taught in chapter 8.

[107:19]

Okay, so we did, did we take care of Reverend Alvin for now? And who's next? Maybe, huh? You think you are? Okay. It could be. You said, I believe you said, emptiness of the lack of one being, which is lack of one being in terms of aspects. To me, that sounds a lot, it sounds the same as lack of one being in terms of self-production. Do you see those effects? Yes, and how do I see them as different? I can see how, if you imagine an essence, that you might think that the essence could produce itself, I guess.

[108:26]

I guess you could do that. But if you found out the essence couldn't produce itself, would you give up the idea of essence? If you just saw something and you saw it had an essence and then you saw that the thing didn't produce itself, would you give up the view of its essence? And I think you can hold the view of its essence while you say, OK, it doesn't make itself. I can see it. It depends on other things. But you still might hold the view of essence because the view of essence is not in the thing in the first place. It's something you're projecting on it. So would your projection, would your imagination of essence in the thing be dislodged once you saw that the thing was dependent on other things? Because actually you are looking all day long, you actually are looking at things that depend on other things, but you managed to project this essence on it. Anyway, and you project this essence on it, even though you say, oh, it's so nice to see the dependent core rising, it's so lovely, but unless I put an essence on this thing, I won't be able to make a conventional designation, and then I can't sell it or buy it.

[109:40]

So, out of the need for conventional designations, we project identities onto things, which seem to be more than just the word we're going to designate. But there is nothing more to the thing to justify the word than the word. There's something more to the thing, but nothing more to justify the designation. So we imagine there's something in the thing which justifies the designation, then we feel like, so I'm not just being arbitrary when I call you the finest such and such available in California. So I think maybe that way. Rob? You testified earlier that these teachings are to some extent an elaboration of the early teachings, which seem to teach emptiness in terms of emptiness of person, and in terms of person being composed of aggregates and elements.

[110:51]

Actually, When you say these teachings, you mean which teachings? That's a good question. Thank you. I mean any teachings that consider themselves a way of teaching. So not necessarily... For earlier teachings I discuss the selflessness of dharmas. If there are such teachings, I don't read them. I mean later teachings that teach selflessness of dharmas. Yeah, so... In the first... Somebody said to me one time, I was doing a workshop someplace, and they said, what's the difference between... I don't know what they said, I think they said Theravada and... in Mahayana or something like that. I said, well, there is no difference. And they said, but if there was a difference, what would it be? And I said, the early schools seem to have seen the selflessness of persons, but they didn't teach about the selflessness of phenomena.

[111:54]

In other words, they said, in the early schools, said phenomena, they didn't say phenomena have self, but they kind of said that they had self. They said phenomena exist, but the self of the person doesn't. And then somebody told a Theravada teacher and he wrote back and said, how could you say that, you know? Because there's a sutra which says, early scripture, which said all dharmas are empty. But even though there's an early sutra which says all the dharmas are empty, the people who were practicing said that these, like the aggregates do exist. And they made a big deal out of that. So that's the own being, that's the own character of the aggregates and so on. Then comes the second turning And the second turning, in a sense, is an elaboration of emptiness to expand it and to emphasize that the selflessness extends from persons to things. So it didn't exactly... It just really emphasized the emptiness of the things in addition to the emptiness of persons.

[112:58]

But when it did that, it set up a danger of nihilism. However, it did overcome... it successfully overcame disgust with the world of pollution and ignorance, because the implication of this, you know, is that of non-duality. So it was a good thing that happened, but it had certain dangers. The third turning, actually, the third turning brings back the validity and usefulness of the early teachings. The second teaching said, All these analysis are analysis of things that don't exist. So it kind of undermined the whole analytic philosophical presentation and psychological presentation of the early Buddhism. So people kind of stopped in some ways. They already heard about these analysis and they basically just blew them out of the water. So the virtues of that whole system was undermined or lost.

[113:59]

This third turning redeems the earlier teachings. The earlier teachings kind of said, this phenomena of consciousness, it exists. Second teaching says nothing exists, including that wonderful Buddhist stuff. The third teaching then grounds the teaching that dharmas are empty back in the analysis of consciousness. So, and you get a new analysis of consciousness and you ground the teaching of emptiness in consciousness in the sutra. And bring back all these analysis and actually build a whole new analytic system which is coupled now with the emptiness of all the elements in the system. That's the story of the three churnings. Does that address your question? No, I didn't ask my question. Yeah. So my question is, let's take an imaginary yogi meditating on the emptiness of the five skandhas.

[115:05]

Okay. Yes. And they're seeing the emptiness of the five skandhas. Okay. Seeing the emptiness of the five skandhas? Correct. Yes. Well, let's say they see the emptiness of the person, that so-called experience of seeing the emptiness of the person. But you switch now. Now they're not meditating on the five skandhas anymore. So what are they meditating on, this criticized yogi who sees the emptiness of themselves? What are they meditating on? In other words, what... I want to know... I know we say that the shortcoming of that meditation is that they still think the dharmas is real. You see like a person, you know, like a body, you know, that has a head and eyes and hair. You see that? So, first of all, that's not one of the aggregates, that image. But you can analyze that experience into the five aggregates, one of them being an image or a perception of the face. But the face isn't one of the kaskandas. That face is interpreted as an image.

[116:07]

Okay? So you have a way to analyze the person into these aggregates. And then, by analyzing the person in terms of its aggregates, then you can look to see whether the person you usually imagine, this independent person, this face which is cut off from other faces, for example, you can look and see if you can find the person in the aggregates. In other words, find the self of the person. You can see that when you look at a person, there are nothing more than these aggregates. But we think the person is something more than the aggregates. That's the self that we imagine. Either something more than the aggregates or in the aggregates. So we're not talking about meditations which lead to the realization of the selflessness of a person, which you don't seem to understand yet. But it takes a little while. I just want to ask them in a very simple way. For example, is it possible to realize that there's not an agent? That would seem to be a liberating realization, a very liberating experience. Yes, that's part of what you can realize by realizing the selflessness of others.

[117:14]

It's part of what you can realize by realizing yourself as a person is you don't think there's an agent, personal agent, in the... In the activities of the skandhas. There's activity but no agent. That's an early Buddhist statement. Right. So, but then these teachings come along and say, well, that's pretty good, that's pretty liberative. So what are they saying? Is that not liberative enough because you're still... In other words, can you have that realization? Would you still be clinging to dharma school? It might be liberative enough, you know, but it's also possible that you could see the selflessness of phenomena, or you see the selflessness of the person. Right. and still think that the phenomena which you're looking at, by which you realize the selflessness of the person, you could think that they existed. You wouldn't have to. By seeing the selflessness of the person in direct perception, you might be able to extend that to all phenomena. It's possible.

[118:18]

But some people didn't. In fact, and they actually, and what they said was, and I think part of the reason they said this, I think, was that to get people to study the analysis, if they told people that the analysis was an analysis and all the elements in the analysis lacked own being, that people might have thought, this is the nihilism again, that they weren't there at all, so why should they study a system of analysis of things that don't exist, ultimately? So they kind of like said, this stuff is really there. The self is what this stuff is. So now you can really learn this system, learn this meditation. So that may be part of the reason why they didn't want to undermine too much. And that's part of the answer to the question which was not asked in the sutra. How come Buddha, you didn't teach, how come you taught this own being thing? Why didn't you teach the second wheel right away? And also, what did you have in mind when you taught the second wheel? Why didn't you teach the third wheel right away?

[119:18]

And I think because if you teach the second wheel right away, people would probably be too nihilistic. And if you teach the third wheel right away, people would be too confused. The third wheel requires too much intelligence, too much development of society and awareness of philosophy of language and linguistic sophistication, which wasn't available to the society that the Buddha first taught him. If there had been several Buddhas recently in the neighborhood before the Buddha appeared, the Buddha could have taught this kind of thing right away, but there wasn't. So the first thing the Buddha was trying to do was to dislodge people's belief in self, but not dislodge it so much that they said, precepts? Empty, forget. So as a general principle on meditating on Buddha's teaching of selflessness of things, both people and elements of people, that if the meditation on emptiness is too profound, or the definition of it being too profound, is that the person can't maintain the meditation and simultaneously be unshakably committed to the precepts.

[120:28]

So, profound liberation, deeply authentic liberation in nirvana depend on deeply committed unshakably be committed to the precepts. But if your analysis gets in some sense ahead of your precept practice, then your precept practice can drop away. It's not so much that it gets ahead of your precept practice, it gets ahead of you. If your analysis is too deep, you can't hold the analysis and the precepts at the same time, you've gone too deep, you're too far ahead. So the first analysis was an analysis where the monks could continue to practice the precepts even while giving up a sense of self. And some of them went even deeper and saw the selflessness of things, but they just didn't write anything down for a while. They kept it secret, and Buddha may have said, that's right, but don't tell the rest of the monks, because if you tell them, they won't be able to practice the precepts anymore. You said there was a sutra, a new sutra that had that in it.

[121:32]

Yeah, but just like two of them, you know, out of the hundreds or thousands, there's just two, you know, called the Large and Small Scripture on Emptiness. And it says in there, all dharmas are empty. But look in all the treatises that everybody wrote on the Buddha's teachings, and how many times do you see that quoted? Zero or three? I don't know. I never saw it quoted in any of the treatises on the scriptures, any of the presentations of how to meditate in a systematic way.

[122:07]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_84.45