or the body. Yes? Is it the same as non-duality? Well, nothing's like the same. Nothing's really, no things are the same, completely the same as non-duality, and nothing is completely different from non-duality. So, the practice of Shamp... The practice of Samatha is not entirely the same as non-duality, and of course it can't be totally different.

[01:02]

It is a practice. Non-duality is not the same as or different from any practice. There's no practice that is non-duality completely, because if it was, then all practices would be non-duality, would realize non-duality. I was emphasizing the purity of whatever practice it is. Yes? Yeah, for example, Samatha, to practice Samatha in a pure way. Right. [...] Yeah.

[02:05]

The purity, the emphasis on practicing whatever practice, for example, the purity of the practice of Samatha, the purity is the non-duality. But non-duality or ultimate truth or purity, are not, you know, there's no difference in non-duality. But there's differences in practices. There's shamatha, there's vipassana, there's kinhin, you know, there's bowing, there's many practices. So among practices there's difference, but there's no difference among non-duality. But the emphasis on purity in Zen practice is to make whatever practice it is for example, not be defiled by duality. So, for example, it's good to practice shamatha. It's good when shamatha is practiced, not from the point of view of you do it.

[03:14]

If you do shamatha, then in some sense the shamatha practice is dualistic and impure by the idea that you're doing it. But when everything, when all events, when all factors of existence come to play, and a phenomena arises, and the phenomena shamatha, then it isn't you doing it, but you're there, and the shamatha's there, and the practice is realized, but it's not you doing it. So there is this stabilization without contrivance. So not just in Zen, but there's this very strong emphasis, starting with Bodhidharma, down to the early ancestors, to make whatever practice we're doing, including stabilizing consciousness, to make the practice pure. So it's the purity that's the non-duality. The practice itself isn't, strictly speaking, non-duality. However, the practice isn't totally different from non-duality, but it also isn't totally the same.

[04:20]

Pure Samatha would be non-dualistic Samatha, yes. And in that way, when you practice Samatha non-dualistically or purely, that kind of Samatha, of course, is more easily accorded with the realization of penetrating understanding and the study of non-duality. So if you have a dualistic shamatha, it doesn't go very well with studying non-duality. Although, you know, there's kind of a problem there. Yes? Yes. I can see.

[05:37]

Yeah, I can see that point. Can you see her point of view? Okay? So then, according to that, that shamatha practice would still be a little bit defiled by that lack of understanding of selflessness. Right? Let's say you got really top-notch shamatha and you hadn't practiced vipassana yet. Right? Or let's say that, okay? And that way of talking sounds a little bit defiled, that you hadn't practiced shamatha yet, right? Or that you haven't practiced vipassana yet. That sounds a little defiled, that you haven't done something.

[06:37]

We're bringing in this you who hasn't done something. And was that the same you that was doing the shamatha all the way along there? On some level, because... Because if there wasn't that on some level, then there would have been vipassana, right? So if there hasn't been vipassana yet, then there must be this innate idea that there's somebody there doing the vipassana, the shamatha, right? So the shamatha must not be pure, right? And it can't be pure unless there's a realization of selflessness, right? So then that's impure samatha, right? That's your point, right? Yeah.

[07:41]

I mean, the course level could be like, you intellectually understand that you're not doing the shamatha practice. And other aspects, too. There might be light on the you doing it in various ways. Kind of like somebody said, that was nice shamatha you were doing there. You said, on me? No. And really feel that way, yeah. But actually, deep down in some place, you still think you're doing it. Right? There's that kind of innate preconception that somebody did this and it's me. Or somebody, something did this and that something is not, you know, it actually kind of stands out by itself and it pulled this off. And I'm not going to tell anybody I think this, but I do. I mean, somebody does. Okay? So that's in pure Samatha practice. Right? On a subtle level. And you're saying that must be there until there's virtual enlightenment.

[08:54]

Right? But it still is defiled shamanic practice. Right? Got it? Yes? Oh, you heard her say that? I didn't. Did you say that? No.

[10:07]

No, I wasn't saying that, no. Not me. Pardon? No, pure samatha, samatha that has no defilement, to no duality, that would be sufficient. But then, as you said... then vipassana must be realized, if there's no duality. If there's really no sense of any independent activity separate from the shamatha, then this is the same as vipassana, deep vipassana. And that would be pure shamatha, totally pure. But it would include insight simultaneously. And this is one of the differences in perspective in Buddhism about whether you have to actively, whether the vipassana has to be a separate phase from the shamatha, or whether the shamatha and the vipassana can, whether there could be a meditation so pure

[11:22]

that it would simultaneously realize selflessness, or whether you have to get this relatively pure stabilization and then go into insight work, and then when the insight work is complete, the Samatha practice and every other practice is purified of any kind of self-imputation. So there seems to be, there is some difference of opinion, or, I don't know the difference of opinion, but different philosophical view on this, and this is some rather subtle discussion, which may or may not happen during this practice period, but we'll see. Anything else on Samatha, though? Pure or impure Samasya? Yes? Stabilization is one of the translations for Samatha. Tranquility, Pardon? Calm abiding, tranquility. How... Well, in a way, the way I would relate to it would be that in that story, you know,

[12:48]

that story, I told that story already, right? Didn't I? So, in the story, Guishan says to Yangshan, all sentient beings just have karmic consciousness, boundless and unclear, with no fundamental to rely on. How would you test this? In experience. And Yangshan says, if I see somebody, I say, what is it? If they hesitate, I feed them back the poop He doesn't say what he'd do if they don't hesitate. But on the first level of interpretation of the response of somebody who doesn't hesitate is that when they hear the concept, what is it? They hear that, what is it? And for them, that cognition is just that cognition. And they don't conceptually elaborate, what is it at all? So they're practicing shamatha. You say, what is it? And when they hear that, what is it?

[13:52]

That's just another sound or another cognition that they deal with. And for them, there's no like them over here, Zen master over there. And, you know, what am I going to say? They just respond from this place of that concept is just that concept. And there's no hesitation in their response. So this is shamatha, and the shamatha is being tested. So in shamatha, well-developed shamatha, even if karmic consciousness is still functioning on some level, like maybe Helen's talking about, on the coarse level, the shamatha disperses it. Because when somebody presents you with a concept, if you can... Just let it be a concept. This is not the karmic consciousness response. The karmic consciousness response is to try to elaborate on this and make it into something and get a hold of it and give the right answer.

[14:56]

So the other example in that case was where one monk asked Jinnan, he said, in the Avatamsaka Sutra it says, that the fundamental affliction of ignorance is the in itself is the immutable knowledge of the buddhas he said i don't understand this and yunnan says oh it's easy watch this and there's this boy over nearby and he says to the boy hey you and the boy turns his head he said is this not fun this is not the immutable knowledge of all buddhas So, you know, what does a Buddha do if you say, hey you? Just turns his head. Because, hey you, he just responds, you know. Maybe he, I don't know which way he turns his head, but anyway. It's just, hey you. That's all there is to it. So just shamatha would take care of that. Then you say, what's Buddha?

[15:57]

But when you say, what's Buddha? They don't just let that concept be that concept. Then they start thinking about it. They start elaborating on, what's the answer to that question? They start looking for a fundamental to rely on. So then they hesitate. And then he says, when the boy hesitates, he says, isn't this not the fundamental affliction of ignorance? So in Samatha, the way you respond in Samatha is you respond like an enlightened person. You can test it that way. You still, however, may hold deep down inside the view of self. But the way you're relating to phenomena in this stabilized state is the way you would relate if you were enlightened. So you can test it. Now you could also test simultaneously whether the person had vipassana too. But this samatha is not actually looking for some fundamental to rely on.

[17:01]

If you're looking for a fundamental to rely on, not only do you not have vipassana, you don't have samatha either. Because in samatha, when something happens, you're not trying to get something out of it anymore. You're not trying to have a concept and then get it, or have a concept and have it be yours, or have a concept and have it be good, or right, or wrong, or whatever. You're really just letting the concept be a concept. In that fixation of that representation of the phenomena, you're stabilized. But also, you respond like a Buddha. However, vipassana is where you actually would uproot even the possibility of looking for a fundamental to rely on. In vipassana, in samatha, you could still have that tendency to look for it. you're not doing at that moment. So vipassana parts the diluted karmic habits for the moment. Still, all you've got is karmic consciousness, but it's not functioning at that time because you're not acting like karmic consciousness because you know there's no fundamental to rely on.

[18:12]

You shouldn't say you know it. You're acting like you know it. And you're not trying to get something. OK? So that's not pashamatha, but it sort of is, isn't it? Yeah? I'd like to check out a way of working with concepts that sometimes do, and sometimes when I have a concept. That's good enough. Sometimes when I have a concept, it has to do A lingering concept? A lingering concept is a concept that's been elaborated into a lingering concept. Elaborated.

[19:14]

Those other things were elaborations. So sometimes I actually wish you would fix the concept and just keep it going on. Because I know that if I'm doing it right, I really suffer when I try to find the concept. It shifts around. So it's almost like I have to commit to the concept. Oh, I see. So are you saying that you don't elaborate then on the elaborated concept? Wherever it is, even though it might be elaborated already. Okay, yeah. In other words, it's never too late to recover.

[20:19]

No matter how bad the mess gets, in fact, the only way you got a mess is if there's a mental representation of this phenomena of the mess. And you can always find this way that this mess has been represented nicely as a mess. And let it be that. Yeah, I'm not thinking about that so much in regards to . Yeah, that's good. Yes? It's very much like just feeling what it's like to be in a mess. In other words, feeling what it's like to have the concept of a mess which you're dealing with as a way of dealing with whatever mess is there. But you're dealing with this concept of meth, and then you see what it's like to have that concept.

[21:30]

But when you just deal with that, the way you're dealing with it is shamatha. And if you do it fully and consistently, you're pretty happy being in a meth. I mean, you're pretty happy with the way you're relating to the meth. So that practice is... You're just with it. Yeah, you're just with it. In other words, there is this non-conceptual way that consciousness is always with whatever concept it is aware of at that moment. There is this way that consciousness always is with whatever it's dealing with at that moment. And when you're when your attention is engaged with that way, then there's stabilization in the life unit.

[22:34]

But when attention is not, is wandering off and looking at other things besides the way, for example, that mind non-conceptually deals with concepts, then there is, you know, disturbance. There's lack of calm. There's agitation. in that grasping. You're aware of the way awareness deals with this feeling. So that's why it's an inner thing. You're not looking out at the feeling. The feeling is not something out there that you're looking at. You're looking inward at the way consciousness is aware of, for example, a feeling. And if it's a feeling, then consciousness is aware of a concept of a feeling.

[23:37]

So there are, again, as we talked about before, there are various kinds of phenomena, like there's feelings and emotions, but the way consciousness doesn't actually know the feeling or the emotion, it knows a representation of the feeling or the emotion. or the concept. They could be concepts of concepts. And the way it relates to it, the way consciousness is kind of like steadily, reliably, non-judgmentally, non-conceptually. It just, you know, you throw consciousness a concept, catches it. That's it. It doesn't drop it. If it drops it, nothing happens. There's no experience. If it catches it, it catches it. Everything's a catch. But there's no elaboration of those catches. They're all caught the same way. Namely, in a way called awareness. So in Samatha, you turn around and you look at that quality of consciousness.

[24:41]

So you're resting in the nature of mind. You're resting in the way mind receives concepts as knowing them. which is different than talking about how consciousness is aware of the concept. It's true it is, but if you think of it that way, which is true, consciousness is aware of the object, but if you turn the light out towards the object, then if you're not already calm, then you're agitated. So consciousness is aware of the object, but if mental attention, manasikara, is turned towards the object, out there, then there's agitation. But if it's turned towards the way consciousness is knowing the object, then it's aware of this non-conceptual way, this unbiased, very receptive, accepting way that consciousness is with everything it touches, everything it knows.

[25:44]

Then if you turn towards that, then calm is established. And that is also not grasping. When you relate out to things, then you start grasping them. That creates more hubbub. That's what Shama does in turning the light around. Usually light is shining in the direction of the awareness. Usually awareness is awareness of some concept. So then the mental attention is turned outward in the same direction that the awareness seems to be going. This is agitating. And this is our normal mode of operation. To turn the light around is to, you know, as you say, it's not the human world. This is an unusual thing to do, to turn the light around and look at the way the mind is dealing with its concepts. And looking that way, you don't grasp, you're not grasping those things. See, the mind isn't grasping, it's just aware. But when you look at what it's aware of, you start grasping. When you look at how the mind is aware,

[26:46]

then there's no grasping of what the mind's aware of. See? So that's why Samatha is turning the light around and shining it inward. It's an inward practice. And it's unusual that way. And there are some qualms, which maybe somebody wants to raise now. Some people have qualms. They think, no, we can't do that. You can't do that. We can't live like that. We have to be engaged externally, outwardly with these things. Now, isn't there some people here that think that's what you have to do all the time? Please speak up now. Here's your chance. No? You don't want to talk now? Yeah, it is hard-pressed. Yeah, so there, see? Some people think that really, it's definitely hard, but some people think, no, you really can't live that way. You can't. not be engaged outwardly with those you can't not be engaged you can't turn the light around and give up your engagement and shamatha is saying give it a try if you don't think you can do it when you're driving a car or when you have an argument with somebody well okay don't but isn't there some situation where you could give it a try give it a try

[28:09]

After you do it, then you can turn back and look outward again if you want to, but give it a try. It is hard though, but it's mostly hard because it's the habit to do the other. That's the main reason why it's hard. The social problems you get into, there are some, but they're nothing compared to the strength of the habit of going with the direction of the light going outward. Yeah, open some windows not on the creek side. Oh, and I see Luminous All's hand raised, and I would like to say something that he said. He said, isn't following the breath no conceptual elaboration? Didn't you say that?

[29:13]

Isn't following the breath no conceptual elaboration? In other words, in other words, explain yourself. The whole point of following the breath is to stop conceptual elaboration. Is that not so? If there's awareness of breath without conceptual elaboration, that's a Samatha practice. Right? So he's also saying that any kind of conceptual elaboration while following the breath isn't really an intention of following the breath. It still sounds like a non-conceptual object to you.

[30:31]

And if it sounds like a non-conceptual object to you, then it would sound like an object appropriate for Samatha, wouldn't it? Because that's the kind of objects Samatha has, non-conceptual ones. So aren't we okay? We're following the breath then? Yes, if we follow the breath non-conceptually. So if you follow the breath non-conceptually, you are doing a shaman to practice. Then your breath following is turning the light around and shining it back. Because even if you don't think you're turning the light around and shining it back, in fact, if you're dealing with the breath non-conceptually, you are now on the side of awareness. You're acting like awareness. You're not acting like a person who's following his breath. You're not acting like a person who's looking at his breath. You're acting like consciousness. So you're turning your attention away from being a person who's following his breath to being consciousness who's aware of breath. So then it's a Samatha practice. Okay?

[31:33]

Can you ask another question? Unrelated, it's got to be about Samatha. Okay, yeah. Yes. Yes. It sounds a lot like Dzogchen and Mahamudra, yes. Well, that's part of what I was talking about, is this idea that somehow could you... How is that presentation you just mentioned not something... How is it more than Samatha practice? Because some Mahamudra or Dzogchen...

[32:36]

Expressions are the ultimate samatha of dealing with concepts non-conceptually. And they call it samatha. You could say that's the culmination of the practice, but they did call it samatha, the ultimate samatha. This is part of the difference between the way that Mahamudra and Dzogchen or Atyoga present things and the way that the Majjharmaka school presents things. The Majjharmaka school seems to put more emphasis on actually articulating the process of investigation And the other school seems to almost, it's almost like you flow naturally from samatha into the vipassana without becoming discursive again.

[33:43]

It almost sounds like that. It almost sounds like to switch back to the discursive analysis is almost like it's hard to see that it's happening. That's part of the subtlety of looking at, that's what I was referring to before. Pardon? Who? Kendra? Kendra Kunow? Kendra, yeah. Right. Right. Say it again.

[34:50]

No, that's always true that you don't leave Samatha to do Vipassana. But what might be, what almost sounds possible is that you're practicing Samatha in such a way that you go directly into the purity of samatha, which must be also the realization of vipassana, without doing this additional practice of vipassana on top of your samatha. But then, logically, there seems to be some problem in that because you're coming in. If you don't have vipassana already, isn't there some impurity in your samatha practice? And if there's impurity in samatha practice, how does it get purified without vipassana starting? This is part of the problem of the Mahamudra-atiyoga thing in relationship to the Majjamaka analysis thing. This is part of the subtlety, which we are talking about already, and we'll talk about more, but I was thinking that this is tonight's still about shamatha, but you're verging on...

[36:08]

on this Vipassana stuff. If I hold my ear to the microphone, it doesn't help me hear you. Yes. Even though I talk louder, I still can't hear. Can you speak louder, please? No, I have to get Vicky to drive for me. Like last night during Zazen, there was this sound outside, you know, but since I was doing shamatha, I didn't know what it was. But my jisha wasn't, so he told me it was an avalanche. It was a, you know, huh?

[37:13]

No, he said, did you hear the avalanche last night? And I said, no. I heard this sound, but I didn't know what it was. That's what I have you for. So he told me, right? It was an avalanche, right? A rock fall. But he actually found out from Vicky. Yeah, they were conceptual elaborating and trading conceptual elaboration notes. So they figured out what it was. Poor me. I didn't know anything. But I don't need to. So they drive me wherever I need to go. Yes? So can you practice samatha and be driving a car? Can you drive a car with most conceptual elaboration? Can you drive a car without getting oriented and involved outwardly?

[38:17]

Right? That's your question. The answer is, yes, you can. But you probably should not start practicing Shama to driving a car. But once you understand how to do it, how not, basically, you understand that these things are not out there. You can, like, you know, you can drive an airplane, right? Sit in an airplane and drive an airplane up in the sky. What did you say? Okay. You're driving an airplane, and you're sitting there, and these guys are looking at this piece of this screen in front of them. They're not looking outside. They're looking at the screen. The screen is supposedly about what's out there, but they're not looking at what's out there. You can deal perfectly well with the external world while realizing that what you're dealing with is your mind. You don't have to make it outside. When you realize you're dealing with your mind, you calm down. Spontaneously. But you still have got good data there.

[39:20]

It's the same information, it's just that you haven't externalized it. When you externalize it, you're agitated. When you realize it's not external, you're calm. But it's the same information minus externalizing it and getting all entangled with it. So you can actually drive a car better once you understand what you're really dealing with. Because if you think that you're dealing with reality, out there, it actually interferes with your driving skill. When you first start driving, you really think that. The road's out there and those other cars are out there. But after you drive more, you realize that that's not really the way to drive. The way to drive is to deal with what you're seeing and the feel of the road and the pedal and the arms and the steering wheel. You deal with that stuff. That's how you drive the car. Not thinking of those other cars out there. That just makes you more nervous. And some people think, oh, well, you've got those lights in front of you, and when they get closer to you, you have to remember that it's out there, otherwise you won't step with your foot on the brake.

[40:30]

It's not true. You can put your foot on the brake without saying, that car that's out there is getting closer to me. You don't have to do that. You have to pay attention to the lights, to the colors, but your feet know what to do when the colors get bigger. You don't have to say it's out there. Hmm? Tell that to the officer? No, you get your jishi to tell the officer. What? You get your jishi to drive. That's right. You shouldn't be driving in the first place. Samatha people should not be driving. That's what I told you, right? It's getting a little late, but I'll take another question. Yes? Yes? Samadhi, one point in one concentration, is a type of samatha. Loving kindness, following the breath, all kinds of concentrations come under samatha.

[41:41]

All samadhis are kinds of samatha. It's a broad, it's a broad thing, a broad, a broad category. What? Say it again. Yeah. The thing that makes, while the mind is paying attention to the things you just mentioned of whatever it was that you called kinin, while the mind is aware of these things, to turn your attention inward to the way the mind is dealing with that, that is shamatha. It's not shamatha to be paying attention to the feet.

[42:44]

or to the sounds or the thoughts. Awareness is, that's awareness's job. And awareness does that whether you're practicing Samatha or not. But if your mental attention is also going outward towards these things that mind is aware of, then generally speaking you're agitated relatively, more or less. You can be fairly calm and still be orienting towards these outward things. But if you turn back to the way that the mind is actually working with this stuff, that is a much more calming orientation that can take you to a really stable, long-term orientation. And that's one of the reasons why I think that this type of meditation is a more reliable concentration than concentration when you try to turn your attention towards something and focus on it. If you try to focus on something, like, as you said in that quote I did the other night, if you try hard to focus on something, you get tired in about five minutes.

[43:47]

And actually they've shown if you test things behaviorally, you know, to tie behavior, behavioral tests to concentration, people can only concentrate at a high level for like three seconds. if you have some behavioral criterion for it, rather than just their introspective report that they personally felt concentrated. But if your concentration is not on the outward object, focusing on something out there, but more on the way the mind is dealing with things, in fact, the way the mind deals with things is steady. And if you look towards that, then your concentration can be steady for long periods of time. So the concept is, I wonder what's for lunch. That's the concept. Perfectly good concept. And if you don't get entangled with that concept, in other words, you just let consciousness be aware of that concept, which means you have an experience of that concept.

[44:56]

You've got to experience the concept. Consciousness is now registering it, is cognizing it. Okay? If you just let it be that, you're not mentally or conceptually elaborating it, that's shamatha. Or, to say it the other way is, if you turn the light around and look back at the way the mind deals with that, it just says, we've got concept, concept on board here. What is it? Oh, it's, I wonder when lunch is. That's it. Consciousness does not do anything more with it than that. It just registers it. It's just the raw impression of that concept. If you're oriented towards that, this is stabilization. I mean, this is the, what do you call it, the trope or the gesture of tranquility. If you can be steady in that, so that, you know, it's like, what's for lunch, what's for dinner, why do they have in that, blah, blah, blah, whatever it is, in each one of those concepts, you keep orienting steadily back towards the way the mind receives it in its non-conceptual way, then the shamatha becomes not just a gesture, but actually an established way, and it starts to take over your body.

[46:11]

Just like this week, it started to... You could feel it... you know, the gel was starting to set, you know, he was getting, the shamatha was accumulating in the room, little by little. And even people who were still somewhat involved in external objects were getting this contact shamatha. Right? Right. If the person never thought of their feet or their breath or, you know, what direction they were walking or the other people moving with them, okay, or never called it kin hin, but was just aware of... Because they're orienting outward, they're outwardly involved with the K'in H'in, right?

[47:30]

They're kind of like K'in H'ins out there, and they're all entangled with the K'in H'in, and they're doing it really well, and they wonder when these other people can't do it, and blah, blah, blah. It's like road rage, right? But some other people, they're just no good at K'in H'in, but they just exude this kind of like warm, you know, this warm... concentrated vibe, you know, it just starts to ooze all over the room. You just sort of like get dragged into it, you know, because they're practicing shamatha. Now some people, God bless them, they, what they're paying attention to is like their feet and their breath and their body and the other people and they're practicing shamatha. So they like a really good kiheen people plus they're exuding the shamatha. That's the best, right? We like them best. This is like the Soto Zen way. So really you should integrate the two. But some people are really good at following the form, but they're doing it outwardly.

[48:33]

So then they're hysterical and nervous, intense, and, you know, judgmental about themselves and others. Other people are not so good at the form, but they're not so good in the inner way, and they practice samatha. So they're really calm, and then they're ready to understand that even though they're no good and the other people are really good, we're not really on two different teams here. Okay? Yeah, I'm good. But I think maybe it's enough for tonight? Huh? We have a class tomorrow, too, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day. And that's it, yeah. It gets to be that way.

[49:24]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_86.44