the etiology of the mass of suffering is described and reach the point where the Buddha then says for those people who are in this state of being caught in a cycle of suffering that Doctrines starting with the lack of one being in terms of self-production are taught. And so again, this is taught to suffering beings, sentient beings who have not generated the roots of virtue who have not purified obstructions, who have not ripened their continuums, who do not have much conviction, and who have not completed the accumulation of merit and wisdom.

[01:17]

So another way to put this, which was stated earlier, is this teaching of a lack of own being in terms of self-production is for beings who do not see, who cannot see how the imputational character is distinct from the other dependent character, and how the imputational character is distinct from the thoroughly established character. Beings who do not see this, it's for those beings that these three types of lack of one being are taught. And then, first of all, we teach the lack of one being in terms of self-production. And then he says, when they hear these teachings, and this must be a fairly deep hearing, because he says, when they hear these teachings, they understand dependently originated phenomena.

[02:43]

originated, compounded phenomena as being impermanent. Some dependently originated phenomena are not impermanent, but those are the ones that aren't compounded. Emptiness is the thoroughly established character is not compounded, so it's not impermanent. but almost everything we experience is compounded, is dependently originated, and is impermanent. By hearing these teachings about dependent co-arising and about how things that dependently co-arise do not have the nature of self-production, When we really hear this, we understand that these phenomena, these compounded phenomena, are impermanent.

[03:49]

And I can't say for sure what level is spoken of here, but you've already heard that things are impermanent. But by meditating on this teaching, you will actually understand that. you will understand that to be the way things actually are, you will see that. Rather than just hearing about it and having it make sense to you, you understand it by hearing these teachings, by listening to these teachings of dependent co-arising and production, lack of own being. They know, further, that these compounded phenomena are unstable, unworthy of confidence, and changeable, whereupon they develop aversion and antipathy towards all compounded phenomena.

[05:02]

And at this point a lot of people have difficulty hearing that because they think of beings that they care for and that are compounded phenomena, they think. So it's true that in a sense that everyone you know has a other dependent character, that they're impermanent and so on. So what does it mean to develop antipathy and aversion towards them? Some other translations would be they develop a fear of compounded phenomena or a deep disillusionment about compounded phenomena. Now these bodhisattvas who are hearing these teachings, these bodhisattvas are devoted to all living beings.

[06:44]

So what does it mean that they would develop antipathy and fear and deep disillusionment and disenchantment with regard to these beings? How is it that when we see that things are impermanent, changeable, unstable and not worthy of confidence that we would be disillusioned about them? Yes. It brings us into the realm of suffering.

[07:49]

What brings us into the realm of suffering? You mean, when we become aware that they're impermanent, we also become aware of suffering in relationship to them? So that's why we might be afraid or feel aversion. Yes? We become, feel aversion for our invitations about them. Yes? The solution, did you say? I didn't quite get the beginning.

[09:00]

I heard you say about let go of our illusions about them. What did you say at the beginning? Pardon? That's basically it. Oh, so you might think that when they say, have aversion towards compounded phenomena, that we have aversion, that that would, would that encourage us to let go of our illusions? Is that what you're saying? The aversion is to our illusions. Okay. Yes? Uh-huh. Experiences with nothing to hold on to or depend on. Mm-hmm. We can have aversion towards that view. We could have aversion to our attachment rather than to the people or to, you know... We could have aversion to our attachment

[10:08]

to these impermanent things. So there's a kind of, when you start to see that things are impermanent and unstable, there's a kind of aversion from a possible struggle there between holding on and letting go. So you want to just get away from the whole area. Yes? It says these people don't have much conviction.

[11:24]

Yes? They have aversion to getting involved. Yes? Aversion because we see that our sense of self is threatened in relationship with such things. Is that part of what you're saying? Yes, did you have your hand raised? we have aversion to things where we wouldn't be able to get satisfaction. Yes? Hmm.

[12:45]

Yes? It seems to be related to compassion. Yes. Aversion could be a way to establish yourself. Then the scripture says, having developed aversion and antipathy,

[13:51]

They turn away from wrongdoing. They do not commit any wrongdoing, and they adhere to virtue. Yes? It seems like in this case the word aversion and antipathy, which usually have a negative cast, are averted turning away to avert an antipathy, kind of not being sentimental. Not being sentimental. Pardon? Well, actually I said bodhisattvas, but these are not very highly developed bodhisattvas if they're bodhisattvas.

[15:11]

their beings who, as I said before, they don't have, they haven't planted roots of virtue and so on. They may be aspiring to the bodhisattva path, but this is kind of the beginners. And when they hear these teachings about production, lack of own being, these feelings arise. And when these feelings arise, They, it says here, they do not commit any wrongdoing. This is now an environment where we're being told that when we see things this way, or when we feel this way about compounded phenomena, it undermines wrongdoing and promotes a steady practice of virtue. Yes?

[16:14]

We detach ourselves. the power of projection on the face of the body. The point of recognition of self and object, of consciousness, of our body. Remember to get with the humanist, to go beyond that, that emotion into our essence. okay and then it says because of adhering to virtue they generate roots of virtue that were not previously generated up above it said they had not planted roots of virtue but apparently they had planted some

[17:58]

If they hadn't planted some, it might be kind of hard for them even to hear these teachings. But now anyway, they plant more roots of virtue, having heard the teaching and having developed, having these feelings arise in them, and having stopped wrongdoing and practicing virtue, they plant more roots of further virtue. And it says they also purify obstructions that were not previously purified, and they ripen their continuums which were not previously ripened. And on the basis of that, they have great conviction, and they complete the accumulation of merit and wisdom. It says they complete it, but then in a minute, a little bit later, it says they didn't complete it. But anyway, all this great development happens from hearing the teaching of dependent core arising, from hearing somehow on a very deep level the things are, that the things you're experiencing are production

[19:27]

non-nature, self-production, non-natures, empty of self-production. In that way they complete everything from the generation of roots of virtue up to the accumulation of wisdom and merit. This teaching and the listening to it seem to me to be fairly simple. It's just a matter of listening to it a lot, of being mindful of it on an ongoing basis, of really respecting this teaching

[20:35]

of dependent co-arising of everything that exists, and remembering it moment by moment. So the teaching seems in some ways accessible, but it's hard to remember it all the time. Again I have kind of a simple, straightforward view of this in that I would think that if you actually were steadily mindful of this teaching that you would experience the impact of this teaching and you could see if your feeling for things starts to change.

[21:57]

And you could see how it changes. and also maybe see that it's not entirely pleasant the way it changes, but that the way it changes starts to gradually undermine any wrongdoing. How you would start to feel more and more clear that wrongdoing just didn't make any sense. And somehow When you're not so enamored and enchanted by compounded things, the only type of activity that seems to be appropriate is virtue. See if that's the way it looks to you. Check it out. It seems like it would, but each of you can actually verify this.

[23:02]

in your experience and see if you find something different. See if you find, I don't know what, that you get more, I don't know what, enamored of things or more attached to things when you start to realize they're impermanent. Maybe you'll find something quite different from what the sutra says. That would be surprising, but maybe so. I don't mean to talk you into this, but I've heard from people who practice this that most people have developed an ongoing verification of this teaching when they practice it.

[24:20]

I've heard of it. It's not necessarily a difficult, easy transition from from feeling that things are permanent and stable and worthy of confidence to this other feeling, but that the positive side is that you feel more in accord with virtue and you feel more in accord with wisdom and you feel more courage to look at the other aspects of the teaching. Then the Buddha goes on to say, however, because they do not understand, as they are, the two aspects pertaining to the lack of own being in terms of production, that is,

[25:58]

the lack of own being in terms of character and the lack of own being in terms of own being, they do not wholly, they do not become wholly or completely averse towards all compounded phenomena. And they do not become separated from attachment. They do not become fully liberated. They do not become fully liberated from the afflictive afflictions, nor fully liberated from the afflictions of action, nor fully liberated from the afflictions of birth. So they do become somewhat liberated from all these afflictions, and they become somewhat or greatly averse and somewhat detached, but not completely, because they do not understand the other two aspects pertaining to the production lack of one being.

[27:13]

These other two aspects, these other two types of lack of one being are about, are related to the production lack of one being. So the meditation on the production lack of own being, the meditation on how everything that exists as a dependent core arising and doesn't produce itself, that's the basic meditation upon which one can understand these other two types of lack of own being. And if we don't understand those other two, we do not become completely liberated and completely unattached. Or the other way around, completely unattached and completely liberated. So this again is an indicator that the meditation on the other dependent, although it's the basic meditation, It's not the ultimate meditation.

[28:16]

It's not the ultimate object of purification. It doesn't take us to complete liberation, although it gives us some liberation, not complete. The meditation now has to move to these other two types of lack of own being which are based on this meditation. So we continue this meditation and then move to meditating on the other two. Once again, we continue the meditation on the other dependent character, always meditating on the other dependent character.

[29:23]

And then, based on that, extend ourselves into consideration of these other two aspects, the other two aspects of the teaching. And the sutra says, it doesn't say this actually, but I'll just say, therefore, the Tathagata further teaches doctrines beginning with the lack of own being in terms of character and ultimate lack of own being. Thus, they become fully averse towards all compounded phenomena, separated from attachment and liberated.

[30:34]

They pass beyond the afflictive afflictions, pass beyond the afflictions of action, pass beyond the afflictions of birth. Hearing these doctrines about these other two aspects pertaining to the production lack of own being, they do not strongly adhere to the own being of the other dependent as being of the character of the own being of the imputational. And then this whole process of disentanglement is initiated from this learning to not strongly adhere to the own being of the other dependent as being of the character of the own being of the imputational.

[31:42]

Further, they become confident of the lack of own being in terms of production. Further, they become confident that the lack of own being in terms of production does not exist as an ultimate lack of own being in the sense that it is just the absence of the own being in terms of character with respect to those phenomena. They fully distinguish this. They realize it as it is and in this way their understanding is not infused with conventional designations. Thereafter, they are not bound to conventional designations, and because their understanding is free from predispositions towards conventions, in this lifetime they produce the ability to understand the other dependent character.

[33:25]

And we talked about this before, but the other translations say they are able to destroy the pattern that arises dependent upon others, or they are able to extinguish dependency. In future lives they achieve cessation through cutting off the continuum. So they have the ability to not be reborn due to this. And then they become wholly averse towards all confounded phenomena, free from attachment and liberated. They become fully liberated. When you're fully liberated, you don't have to have aversion towards compounded phenomena.

[35:19]

It just says the other way around, they become wholly averse. Actually another translation says they become truly disaffected, truly disaffected with all those conditioned acts. They are able to truly detach from desire, able to truly become liberated, able to become totally liberated from the different types of affliction. In another place, the ancestor Vasubandhu says something like, that which appears is the interdependent nature.

[37:50]

That which appears is the other dependent character. How it appears How it appears is the imputational character. What appears is the other dependent character. How it appears is the imputational character. The non-existence of how it appears in that which appears is the thoroughly established character.

[38:54]

The non-existence of how things appear is based on what is appearing. And the non-existence of how it appears in what appears is the thoroughly established character. One way to then meditate on the imputational character, one approach to meditating on the imputational character based on the other dependent character, is you hear the teaching that things are other dependent, and you pay attention to what's appearing to you,

[40:10]

But you practice what's called turning the light around, withdrawing your thinking from appearances. You withdraw your thinking from involvement with appearances. and you shine your light back, or you turn your thinking, or you reverse your thinking, and you start thinking about, in a sense, the other dependent. The other dependent is what appears, but you're withdrawing from how it appears. You're withdrawing from appearance.

[41:19]

You're reversing your view away from objects back to the mind which knows the objects. And it is possible, according to some people, to be aware of for the mind to be aware of itself. However, it can't grasp itself. It is aware of itself, but can't grasp itself as an object. Therefore, when you turn the light around and shine it back, you don't see any objects. You don't see the appearances. Withdrawing from the appearances and looking at

[42:25]

the other dependent, which means looking at what appears but not seeing the appearance, looking at the mind rather than its object, looking at the mind rather than its contents, looking at knowing rather than what is known. The other dependent phenomena haven't now become permanent and stable and reliable. We are now looking at them in their unapparent way, their objectless, ungraspable mode. Such a meditation is a meditation where you can test to see if you can look at what's happening without making it into the imputation, if you can tolerate experiencing what's happening in an ungraspable mode.

[44:15]

is a step towards realizing that the way things appear, how they appear, does not exist. The way it appears is the imputational. And the way it appears is that it appears to be in duality. It appears to be an object which is out there separate from the subject. That's the way it appears. And that way that it appears does not exist. The way it appears does not exist. But what appears does exist and exists as a non-duality.

[45:33]

It exists in a way that you and others are inseparable, interchangeable, one being. And so the way the mind knows itself, not as an object, Otherwise, the way the mind knows itself in an ungraspable way is not a duality. It's a knowing of non-duality. And we need then to test this. If we have some access to this basically seeing without being able to grasp appearances, This experience then needs to be tested on appearances. We need to then look back at the way things appear, and the way they appear does not exist except in the mind of a person who is mistaken.

[46:52]

It exists in the mind as a mistake, but it does not exist otherwise. So we see appearances, but these appearances do not exist except as an image. But that isn't the image that we see. We see the image as though it were real, actually, in things. So we actually have to come back of turning the light around and then looking back at objects and see if we don't fall for them as dualities again. And that's Case 32 of the Book of Serenity, which I've mentioned, where the monk comes to see Yangshan and Yangshan says, Where are you from? And the monk says, Yun province, or you province.

[47:56]

And Yangshan says, do you think of that place? And he says, I always think of it. It seems to me that the monk's answer is a sign or signal about why Yangshan could immediately give him a rather advanced meditation. Anyway, in this situation he sees that the monk already knows that he's always thinking about where he's from. Always thinking about where you're from could also be rephrased in that You always imagine where you're from. Where you're from is what appears.

[48:59]

What appears is where you're from. How it appears, the way you think about it, does not exist. Where I'm from is what is appearing to me. What is appearing to me is where I'm from. But how it appears to me does not exist. So Yangshan says, the mind that thinks, the ability to think, The ability to think, the ability to think of where you're from, the ability to imagine what's happening is the mind.

[50:07]

That which is thought of is the objects or the environment. In what is thought of there are people and animals and plants and mountains and rivers and oceans and towns and cities and wars and peace and everything. And he says, reverse your thinking and think of a thinking mind. Reverse your thinking from thinking about appearances to thinking about the mind which thinks of them And then he says, are there so many things there? And again, there may be quite a long time between his instruction and when he asked that question. But in the story, it's just like the next line. It may have taken him a second to answer the question, or many years.

[51:11]

Anyway, he says, now Are there many things when you turn your mind, when you turn your thinking back and look at the mind which thinks of these things rather than turning your thinking towards these things? And the monk says, when I get here, I don't see anything at all. And Yangshan says, this is good for the stage of faith, but you have not yet reached the stage of a person. And the monk says, do you have any further instruction? And Yangshan says, to say that I do or I don't wouldn't be accurate. Based on your insight, you receive a seat and a robe. From now on, see on your own.

[52:14]

So one way to interpret this story is that the monk was able to turn around, turn his thinking and look back at the mind that thinks, look back at the mind that thinks of objects and see no objects. And this I think you can see is parallel, perhaps I would say this is parallel to chapter five where it says bodhisattvas study the way the mind works they understand how this these three transformations of consciousness work and then they also see they also do not perceive eye consciousness eye organ or colors they actually do not see these things as objects which means you don't see them. Actually, they're appearing, but the way that they appear, you don't see, so you don't see them, you don't perceive them.

[53:36]

This monk seems to have reached that stage, but we ask then another stage where you now can see them again and not be fooled, where you can see appearances, And the way things appear don't exist. And the way things appear is based on imputation of essence and attributes upon them, which makes possible conventional designation. That you can come back to the world of conventional designation without believing that the appearances of things are the things appearing. So in one sense, meditating on the other dependent has this effect which is described in the scripture.

[54:37]

Another sense of meditating on the other dependent would be that you would start to withdraw your attention from the imputation you actually are somewhat familiar with the imputational right now. It is simply the way things are appearing to you. Now, can you imagine withdrawing your involvement in the way things are appearing, which is a way to look back at what appears? You're not looking at nothing. You're looking at what appears, actually. but not in a way that it has packaging put on it, so you won't be able to see packages. And appearances are packages. So this is a, again, this is a, what do you call it, a practice called turning the light around.

[55:47]

It's a wisdom practice, a wisdom meditation. And I'm just introducing it to you now again. And I'll do it again. And you may not feel like you'd like to try that or give yourself over to this type of meditation, which is OK. I'm just sharing it with you. It's part of the tradition. And I'm trying to relate this sutra to our tradition. to the Zen tradition of Soto Zen, but also to many other Mahayana traditions do this meditation of turning the light around from appearances in the other direction towards the mind which is aware of appearances. I would guess that many of you can sense that there's an awareness of appearances

[56:53]

And I think that you probably feel like the awareness is not the same as the appearance, that they're two different things. Which is our usual dualistic way of feeling about the world. That the knower over here is separate from what is known over there. This is ignorance. I mean, believing this is ignorance. The appearance is okay. That's just a fantasy that's cropping up moment by moment to create appearances. But the belief in it is ignorance. The deep belief in it. Just a little bit of a tiny little taste of believing it's okay. But strongly adhering to it, which is our habit... is a source according to the scripture and many Zen teachings coming in accord with the scripture, this is a source of our affliction.

[57:56]

So now we're considering various ways to loosen the adherence to what appears as being, excuse me, the adherence to how things appear as being what appears. The adherence, for example, to how you appear to me as being what you are, who you are, that is appearing to me. Every moment you appear to me, all of you, all of us appear to you, every moment we appear to you, and you have a way of seeing how we appear to you, and that doesn't exist. So you can consider now that people have been instructed in the past to take a break from how things appear and look back at the mind which knows the appearances and the mind which creates the appearances too. But not so much look at the creation of appearances, that's another practice, but just look at the awareness of the appearances without making it into a duality.

[59:14]

In other words, making it into another object which will just make you dizzy. Better probably just to keep it shining in the regular direction rather than shine it back and make that into an object called nothing. And that's part of the difficulty is it looks kind of like nothing, but it's not nothing. It's actually what is appearing. It's actually what is happening, but in an unpackaged, ungraspable mode, which is the way things basically are. Like I was saying to somebody, if I go for a walk out in the mountains, I'm not an appearance. I'm a person who's walking in the mountains, dependently co-arising, step by step. I'm not an appearance until somebody looks at me. But the mountains don't see an appearance. They just see their friend who's not an appearance. I'm not in a dualistic relationship with nature. Neither are you until you appear to somebody, and then duality has arisen.

[60:20]

We don't come as appearances, but we are what appears when anything appears. Yes, Jill? Yes. What does it mean, did you say? Yes. Yeah, maybe you should do some other stuff, too.

[61:24]

But anyway, in a sense, I could say, yeah, we're always talking about everything that's ever happened to us. we have no alternative. We're always talking about our whole life. And we think about it. So most people don't realize that they're thinking about the place they come from. You do come from some place. We are dependent core horizons. We come from some place. And it's a pretty complicated place we come from. But not just that. We don't just come from some place. We think about where we come from. In other words, We think that where we come from is what we think about. But really what we think about is not where we come from. It's just what we think about. It's what we think about, but what we're thinking about it is not it. The monks kind of seem to know that. He didn't say, I mean, he didn't say, well, occasionally. Occasionally I think of my uncle. He said, I always think about it.

[62:26]

Well, Yangshan said, oh, this guy understands something. He understands that we are pretty much non-stop thinking about where we come from. We don't just come from where we come from. We think about it. And when we think about it, we can talk about it. But if you don't think about where you come from, you can't talk about it. You still come from there, but you can't tell people anything about it. And you can't buy and sell it. So anyway, this monk was kind of somewhat wise and honest. I'm constantly involved with appearances, in other words. I'm always thinking about appearances of where I came from. I'm constantly involved with that. And where he came from, where you come from, where I come from, is we come from our whole life up to this moment. our whole existence up to this moment. That's where we come from. That's what makes us.

[63:27]

That's our other dependent character. That's our laya vijnana, which is the resource of our entire past by which we will interpret the present. That's the way we are. That's the kind of creature we are. And we can become nice bodhisattvas even though we're that way, if we understand this process. Yes? Yeah, but you made that one up yourself.

[64:31]

So probably that would be good to drop that practice. That's making you nauseated. The sutra doesn't say that. So when you make up your own meditations, you might get sick. I think you've got your regular way of being involved with objects, which is somewhat more or less nauseating. And if you try new ways to be involved with objects that you think are niftier... You may get sicker, or you may get less nauseated, but in the long run I think you're basically just setting yourself up in this affliction path of grasping objects as being what's happening. And to try to resist that by saying, not Pam, it's okay. You can be creative, but remember there's a cost of playing with objects, of being involved with appearances. So... you're sort of whomping up the duality.

[65:34]

Maybe it'll make you so sick you'll just stop it. But that's what it sounds like, is that you're just getting more dualistic about the duality. So first of all, she's out there, and then you out there her out there. Or you're not the out there. Is that like a raised hand there, Timo? Okay. It sounds like seeing suchness.

[66:41]

It sounds like seeing suchness. When you can look at something and see the absence of the way you're thinking about it, when you look at something and see the absence of how it appears, and you understand that what you're seeing is the absence of how it appears, not just to look and not see anything. Because that's what the monk said. He said, I don't see anything at all. He didn't say, I see the absence of my thinking in everything. His answer was good, but it wasn't penetrating far enough. So when you see not just the absence, and think that it's nothing, but you understand that you're seeing the absence of something in what's happening, then you see suchness.

[67:52]

No, the seeing is not the suchness, right. Like I said yesterday, the ultimate is not my ultimate concern. My ultimate concern is closer to seeing the ultimate than the ultimate itself. So in some sense, I honor the ultimate. I honor emptiness. I honor suchness. But it's not that it's really that holy. It's more that it's just the way things are. But the perfection of wisdom that knows and understands and deeply sees that suchness, that's holy, that's lovely, because that wisdom is the wisdom of the Buddha. That wisdom is the wisdom that unleashes the Buddha's compassion. So this is the seeing of suchness that's really what's important. Suchness is available moment by moment, but it's hard for us to see it.

[68:53]

because we're deeply habituated to seeing the imputational as being the other dependent. We're deeply habituated to see our thinking about where we're from. We're deeply habituated to see our thinking about our mother as being our mother. and our thinking about our father as being our father. That's our deep habit. But our thinking about our mother is not our mother. It's based on our mother. Our mother is the basis of our thinking about, but our thinking about our mother is not our mother. So where we're from is our mother and father and so on. And we think about it all the time. But our thinking is not it. But we think so. And we suffer because of that, more or less.

[69:55]

So when you look, when you give up involvement with the way you think about things, when I give up involvement with the way I think about things, then they look really different, almost like they don't look like appearances anymore because I'm not seeing, I'm seeing an appearance but I'm not seeing how it appears. So it looks like not much at all, even though I'm looking right at where I come from, where my life comes from. But it's good for me to understand that what I'm looking at is the absence of my way of thinking about it. Then I understand suchness, maybe. And that way of understanding purifies my mind of this habit, which creates the obstructions to our potential for perfect wisdom. So we need to kind of like train ourselves in this, I'm feeling. So this is somewhat available to you.

[71:01]

I think you have some access to this. And again, the basic meditation is remember, you know, the interdependent, other-dependent, lack of self-production is the basic thing to meditate on. And then when you're ready, you can withdraw to the way that appears to you. Withdraw from appearances. Withdraw from the objective packaging which your mind puts on interdependence. And scout around that territory for a little bit. Here. Not too busy. You know, but usually we're pretty busy working with the objects, right? Yeah. Is that like a raised hand too? Okay, I see. Yes. I'm confused because sometimes it sounds to me that you talk about the computational, the other dependent, and the established as kind of three layers.

[72:14]

Three layers? And sometimes it doesn't sound like this. It doesn't sound like there's a difference. Sometimes it sounds like there's not a difference between... Yeah. Well, they're different, but not totally different. So in the first part of Sutra, actually, it talks about the relationship, in a sense, between the other dependent compounded phenomena and the ultimate. And it says that the ultimate's not completely different, not without difference, and not without difference, and not the same. That the ultimate, the way the ultimate is, is that it transcends, it's completely beyond sameness and difference with the compounded.

[73:15]

So you can't have the thoroughly established without the other dependent because the thoroughly established is the way the other dependent is. It's the way the other dependent is. And you can't have the imputational without the other dependent because the imputational is the way the other dependent appears. It's a fantasy about the other dependent. That's what the imputational is. So it's more like, rather than layers, it's more like the other dependent is basic, is our life. Our life is a dependent co-arising. And it has this character of being a dependent. It is a dependent co-arising. That's our life. And it doesn't produce itself. Our life doesn't make itself. Our life arises in dependence on things other than itself. That's the basic ground. And then we have these imaginations about it which are based on it.

[74:20]

They're based on it. And they also are dependent co-arisings. But some of the imaginations are imaginations that things don't dependently co-arise. That's one of the imaginations, and that dependently co-arises. So we imagine things that don't dependently co-arise We imagine that things can be separate from each other, in particular that knowing and known can be separate. We imagine that, and we imagine things that don't exist at all, and we project that back onto something that's not that way. So we project dualities back onto a non-dual situation. And the other dependent character is that that projection doesn't ever actually apply to this. So the other dependent is based on is based on the other dependent. It's really about the other dependent. So the other dependent is central, and the other two pertain to it. One pertains to it in such a way that if you confuse them, you become all entangled in conventional designations and get into this tight suffering loop.

[75:28]

The other is, if you realize this one, it starts to undermine this process, this habit of ignorance. So they both bear on the same thing. They both bear on the central, in some sense, the central characteristic. That makes more sense? Amazing. Yes. Yes. That's sort of the baseline or the pedal point of our meditation music. Yes. Well, just listen to that.

[76:58]

Put a little Buddha in your ear and listen to it. Listen to that. Put it in some simple form. It's easy to hear. until it becomes in some sense, you know, not so much a verbal message but it's actually registered on you and you feel that impact of that teaching all the time as you move around. You know, like, also like joining your palms, you know, could be a way to manifest hearing that teaching. You just feel like, this is like Dependent Core Rising. This mudra could be like this mudra now means Dependent Core Rising. So you just feel the teaching through your hands on your abdomen. That's maybe a symbol for it that would help you remember it. Or your posture. Your posture is a Dependent Core Rising and you can use your posture as a reminder to meditate on Dependent Core Rising.

[78:00]

It's a basic thing about your posture. So one can go on, but does that give you some feeling? Yeah. As the objects arise, remember that that what's arising is an other-dependent phenomena, and the way it's arising, the way it appears to be arising, is the imputational. So then you think, you remember that the way it is appearing is not really, it doesn't look other-dependent. It looks, you know, out there, on its own.

[79:02]

So that's the way it looks. You say, oh, but I've heard a teaching that's not the way it looks. Oh, yeah. What's the teaching? Oh, it's not out there on its own. It's other dependent. It's not making itself. So that balances this false appearance. Yes? While you were speaking, I was, my eyes were cast down on the road, and there was a beautiful image of Prashna Parni to kind of a, in a Tuscan face, very, and I knew that there was not Prashna Parni here, and it was that I had created that in my life, and where I was sitting, you know, one corner of the niche, one or the other, And it wasn't packaged.

[80:05]

The packaging of that object was not quite there, but I had confidence that it wasn't out there. You saw this image, but you didn't think the image was packaging this other package, which is usually called the floor. You didn't think it was packaging something. You just saw it as an image, right? Not as applying to other dependent phenomena there. You didn't think there was something there, right? I didn't think there was something. I think I thought there was. There was an image. There was an image, yeah. All objects are like that. Well, in this case, what you were looking at, you know, what appeared was the pinnacle rising.

[81:13]

Well, what was that that appeared? And how was it that the way it appeared wasn't it? Because it wasn't the floor. We knew that. But what was the other dependent character of that image of Prajnaparamita? How was that image not what was actually appearing? Can you see that? In other words, the image of Prajnaparamita is absent in Prajnaparamita, and the image you had of Prajnaparamita is absent in something. I thought that there was an absence of self and attributes.

[82:27]

I understood that it didn't have that package, that it had a self. Well, possible, but it's possible also that the image had the attributes of Prajnaparamita in this particular form, and that it had the essence of the image, that it was an image of an essence. But did you, you know, when you said you were stumped, in some sense that may be the word that came from what was the basis of the appearance that you can speak from this place that's beyond the appearance.

[83:29]

Feel like Wendy's way in the back. What are you doing way back there, Wendy? What are you doing? Trying to get your hands warm. How's it going? Are you ready, Wendy? What did you say? Are you ready, Linda? Yes. Okay. Please sing. Summertime Are you ready, Wendy? No.

[84:36]

Can you sing? Are you going to try to keep your hands warm? Can you sing? Would you sing? Go ahead. When you get by, you know that you will be free. You're caught up in your story. I'm what's wrong and what's right. Walk through things and say it's all right. Should we start over now, right? That's a pretty good thing.

[85:37]

Turn the light around. Shine it back from that appearance. Yes, Frederick. Okay. Vernon, would you like to sing now? Would you please sing, Vernon? Would you please sing, Vernon? Don't look up there. Sing, Vernon. God's right here with you now, holding your hand. Okay, Frederik, can you sing now?

[86:40]

The big car is jumping and the cart is high.

[86:49]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_88.48