Is there anything you'd like to discuss? Yes, Rebecca? Rebecca, could you start over, please? Um, the idea of absolute and relative, and living a life where you're experiencing revolts, you know, or paving back and forth between that, and in regards to money, and you started to mention a little bit about money, the idea of no vote, and it's this idea that's come up about uh, kind of with inheritance, whether it be that or, um, you know, the idea of something being mine or yours, or how to care for people whom I care for, that they're like this in mind, to control, you know, go to the family member's point of play, and, and, and share.

[01:10]

So all this is coming up about money, and I know families that are, they're implicated, but I'm speaking with one of them now because so-and-so has taken my part, and this applies, you've got to speak to the board. And so it's heartbreaking. I'm seeing this, and yet, how does one, when we deal with that, you know, how do we care for everyone? Well, if someone has a fixed idea of something, how do I accept and look at their fixed idea of something? And so it's just, you know, it's very complex. And yeah, there's this big traffic board with the absolute relative. But I hear you particularly asking, how do I deal with the relative, with the limited, like that this person is... Yeah, that's not the ultimate truth. That's relative truth.

[02:11]

There appears to be some, you know, there appears to be meaninglessness Limited views. Yeah. So how do we deal with these limited views? And clinging to limited views. When we see limited views being attached to, how do we deal with that? How do we fully embrace that? first of all, I guess, do you want to? Do you want to embrace these limited, painful situations in order to liberate people from limited, painful situations so they can open to the liberating truth? So the ultimate truth is not appropriate unless we really take good care of the conventional. Like, for example, human beings being attached to views of right and wrong, or, you know, mine and yours.

[03:18]

The opportunity of seeing this appearance of somebody, could even be me, who has a view, and I'm attached to it, and I think this view is true, and I'm attached to that truth that I see, and I see that view which disagrees with me is not true. I'm attached to that's not true. So now we have stress and fear and so on. So if I want to liberate the situation, I want my mind to open to the deep teaching, the deep reality, then I have to take really good care of the superficial. And so we start with, I want to take care of the superficial. with great compassion, so that we can open to the wisdom that will free us from this attachment to the limited views. So then, generosity. Can I welcome this appearance of rigid holding to self-righteousness or whatever?

[04:30]

A rigid holding to, this is injustice. Can I welcome that? Can I give my face to that self-righteous face that I see? Can I give myself? Can I open to that person and welcome them? That's the beginning. And I worked that generosity practice with this very challenging of a self-righteous family member. So again, one of the advantages of being a grandfather is that you get to meet little creatures who you adore, who have views. And you get to realize that you can adore someone and welcome them even though they're very rigid about reality.

[05:32]

You know, like my grandson used to say, what's your favorite animal? And I'd say, humans. He'd say, animals, you know, etc. And now I have his little sisters giving me lectures about things. And I can't say anything to her about anything, really. If I do, she says, you're not my mom. Her mom can say stuff to her. Anyway, she has her idea of what's appropriate, and that's pretty much it, for starters. But if my adoration of her and my respect for her comes into play, I can allow her to be rigid, and then she starts loosening it up. And then she says, well, maybe we can do things a little differently. I said earlier, maybe you could make some suggestions to me. Maybe, could you give me some help, you know? So that's generosity. Then the next practice is, for this full engagement with the world of illusion, is to be... All these beings who are rigid, they're holding on because they're very fragile and they're afraid.

[06:52]

They are fragile, that's not going to change, but they don't have to be afraid of it. And so we can be very tender with these fragile beings who are trying to hold on to their money, their possessions, their views. They're very fragile. They're calling for our tenderness, for our respect. And we can respond of what we say to them, how we look at them, and what we think about them. Because they can even pick up that we think that they're less than wise. Now if I do think they're less than wise, then I can... that's also a call... if I think somebody's less than wise, then that's a call within me for compassion, to help me not attach to that, that that's true that they're not wise. And then if you can be very tender and careful with

[07:57]

suffering self-righteous members of certain political parties. Then you can be patient with the stress that's in the relationship. Then you can you can consider how good it would be to be kind to them and feel energy to practice these practices. And be very careful of how you do them all. And keep refreshing your energy by drinking from the spring of your aspiration for compassion. And then you can relax, start relaxing and calming down and, you know, being concentrated and present. And then you can open the doors to the inner liberating truth, which then you can transmit to these people.

[09:08]

Once you open to it, you can then relate to them from wisdom, and then you start the whole process again. So this is possible. Because you include the whole universe, you can be just about anything. But you have to be completely compassionate with being something before you're open to how you can be anything for people. Even the first practice is quite challenging, to welcome somebody when they're really uptight. No, granddaddy, this is the way, this is the truth. Actually, that's kind of easy for her. But if an adult does it, it may be a little harder for him to go, oh, remember, this is like my granddaughter. When I see big, aggressive males, I think, oh, my grandson. This is one of my grandsons who is scared and large and on the verge of some very powerful action.

[10:16]

But this is my little boy, you know. Love can disarm this situation. Okay? Yes? I'd like to ask a question, Stanley. Yes. Yes. Yes. They have no basis for apprehension, for grasping. Their basis is causation.

[11:19]

You know, like the skandhas appear because in past moments the skandhas appeared and they were grasped, and the consequences of that are the basis for the arising of these illusions, of these categories. So there's a causal basis for the skandhas, but there's no basis for apprehending them. So when you see that there's no basis for apprehending them, the basis for apprehending them is dropped or negated. It isn't that you negate that there's categories, you negate that the categories exist on their own. Yes? Not at, I didn't get stopped at no eyes, no ears, no nose. I got stopped at no consciousness. And they call consciousness as an illusion.

[12:22]

I thought I heard you saying, with some response, by illusion. So then I got caught, because I thought, what is it made to say that consciousness is an illusion? And the way that I resolved that somewhat is to say that it's It can't be apprehended. Consciousness can't be apprehended. I don't understand what you're saying. I wouldn't... Can we hold Corette over to the side for a second? I would say that consciousness is an illusion. Yes? And it has no basis for apprehending it. And if we do apprehend it, which consciousness thinks it can apprehend things, and it even thinks it can apprehend itself, there can be that thought. Consciousness can have the thought.

[13:24]

Those things can be apprehended, and so can consciousness. Those are illusions. There's no basis for the grasping of them. Yes, no basis for grasping consciousness, which is many of the illusions which appear under the auspices of consciousness. So within consciousness there's various illusions, and they actually have a little subliminal message written at the bottom which says, you can grasp these things, they're true. ...and see that subliminal message, you just believe it and think you can grasp them. I mean, we do. So, consciousness is an illusion to the extent that we think there's a basis for grasping it, or that it... Is that what it means to say that it's an illusion?

[14:27]

It's an illusion to the extent, for example, that it appears to arise and cease. It's an illusion to the extent that it has a message that it exists. It's an illusion in the sense that it looks like it exists on its own. Those are illusory qualities. It looks like it's something independent of, for example, its contents or ideas of other consciousnesses. All those things are appearances which there's no basis for apprehending those appearances. But there is, and therefore consciousness finally does not succeed at existing. It only temporarily or superficially can appear to exist.

[15:47]

Because the way it appears is it doesn't look like a dependent co-arising. It looks like something that exists on its own. That's an illusion. But it actually is a dependent That's the way it exists. And it succeeds at existing as an interdependent appearance. It succeeds that way. But it doesn't look like an interdependent existence. It looks like a thing that exists by itself. That's an illusion. And that illusion requires its own causation. And if we're kind to the ignorance of causation, we open to causation. We can only know what? Well, what about just hearing somebody say that?

[16:51]

Is that deductive reasoning, if you just tell me that? Are you saying, I can only know that it does not exist on its own, deductively? Is that what you said? For example, deductive reasoning could be used to understand that something that appears to exist on its own does not. Is that what you're saying? Well, deductive reasoning is a perception. It's a perception which is called deductive reasoning perception. It's a perception that occurs because you're reasoning. Hmm? You can perceive cognitions and you can also perceive teachings and colors and so on.

[17:59]

Whatever understanding you're talking about, the perception of that could come by deductive reasoning. Yes. But that's not the only way it can come. It can also come by direct perception. There's two ways. Most Buddhists agree that there's two ways to know something. to know that things dependently co-arise, most people would first understand that indirectly, by indirect perception, through reasoning. That would be the first way most people would understand it. Does that make sense? Yeah, so that's . But it's deductive or inferential or indirect. It's not direct. And so you hear the teachings and you have some understanding of what the words mean. And then at some point, oh, you see something new. But it's still indirect.

[19:02]

Then you work with that, and then you see something new that's not indirect. So you can know these teachings that everything that appears is a dependent core arising. You can know that by direct perception. Including the consciousness itself? there can be a direct perception that there's no consciousness existing independent of basically a lot. But in the close near, there's no consciousness without a sense of self, without feelings, without the first ganda of sense organs and sense data, without perception, and without various mental formations. There's no consciousness without those. If you take any one of those away, you don't have consciousness except in the special jhanas where you don't have material data as part of the consciousness.

[20:12]

But of course the material data is supporting the arising of the consciousness because the body needs to be there still. It's not appearing in consciousness anymore. There's no physical data in the consciousness. which means there's no mental version of physical data in the consciousness. And that can be a direct perception of the aggregates that go with consciousness and the consciousness which goes with the other aggregates, the other categories, that this is a dependent core arising and therefore nothing there has any independent existence. It can be a direct perception and indirect perception. Okay? Anything else this morning? Yes? Yeah, I forgot that part.

[21:14]

Thank you. I love that poem. weaving incorporated and then there's this ending line that like um to me um needs attention or something but i always think of magician as being like passion i mean it was pretty weak for us but i thought i'd like to do a little bit more about magic's meeting Yeah, so I forgot the last line of the poem, which is that nothing can be done about the fact that this great compassion did out what the Buddha was up to.

[22:24]

So the Buddha didn't say anything, and the Mahajan says, look, the Buddha's teaching you, the Buddha's showing you the way things are. And then the poem says, nothing can be done about him pointing out the Buddha's teaching, which the Buddha didn't point out. Like, for example, the Buddha could have sat down and said, you called? The Buddha didn't go sit there just because the Buddha wanted to go sit there. The Buddha was called to sit there. And he didn't say, you called? In other words, he didn't say, I'm here because you asked me to come. He didn't say that, but it's right there. So Manjushri says, you guys don't seem to be getting it. You're waiting for the teaching. It's already here.

[23:27]

So, does the poet mean that we have to have somebody point something out. And I guess one interpretation is it's cleaner if Manjushri doesn't say that. And there are other stories where nobody says anything, the teacher just gets up and sits and gets down. But in this case he kind of defiled the Buddha's presentation by pointing. But it's like he had to do it. We have to sometimes say, there it is, which is kind of misleading, actually. He didn't actually say, there it is. He just said, clearly observe. He didn't say, look at the Buddha. It could have been, look at my new outfit that I have on, or look at the building.

[24:32]

He did have a point to say, it's right here. It's like this. And so in a way that story, which has precedent, it appears in other places in the scriptures. That story, in a way, is a good story at the beginning of the book, because the author is saying, here's a story, and I'm sorry that I have to have this book. but I feel like I have to. I have to publish these stories. But I'm kind of sorry because, you know, this book is kind of misleading, but I have to do it. And then I also have to write poems about what good stories these are. That's one way to see it. And people call the Buddha, so the Buddha has to, like, go sit on the seat. But it's kind of misleading.

[25:34]

But since the Buddha's called, the Buddha goes. And there it is. And by going over this enough times, you finally realize we don't have to have the Buddha sit. Because everything is showing us what the Buddha is showing us, namely there's no fixed form to Buddha. has to show us that many times before we realize that there isn't. So we have to show a form for people to realize there's no fixed form over and over. And sometimes in the process of doing over and over, it seems like people get more fixated that this is the Buddha. Who's that? And then, oh, wow, amazing, and then attach, and then And then it goes on, and finally we realize, oh, this is just a game that we needed to play, but we have to play this game. But it's a kind of misleading, because everything is teaching this the same way.

[26:46]

Everything is saying, here's a form for you to realize that it's not a fixed form, that this, whatever it is, is not fixed. Thank you. Yes. Is your name Harmony? Harmony? Harmony? Harmony is in Buddhafield, yes. My mother said I brought Harmony to her life. Yeah, you did. She could see it. Great. There's no basis for the grasping. Yeah. And that realizing that might be a great relief from much of art. Actually, it says all. I wondered if it helped me understand or integrate more why it, that there is no basis.

[27:57]

Because everything includes everything and is nothing more than everything other than itself. So if you want to grasp this cup, you have to grasp the color, the texture, and so on. But the cup is not the color of the cup. And also you have to grasp, not grasp, but take into account the stand here, the seat. You have to take into account yourself. This cup wouldn't be here without the whole universe. So you can't get a hold of the cup because you can't get a hold of the whole universe. And also, because the cup includes the whole universe, there's nothing to the cup itself. It's just the whole universe in this way. And also, the cup isn't just included in the whole universe, the cup is included in the whole universe.

[29:08]

So the cup's over here in the hat. But if you try to get the cup in the hat, that's hard too because this is the cup. So that's not a very easy way to get a hold of a cup by getting a hat. But in fact, the hat includes the cup. but I can't get a hold of a cup by getting a hold of a hat, and I can't get a hold of a hat by getting a hold of a hat, because the hat includes everything. So because we have no inherent self to grasp, there's no basis of it, but we can grasp cups, grasp hats. We can grasp cups and grasp hats. And that way of living is kind of like into deeper realization that hats and cups have no inherent nature and liberate you or liberate everybody by being that way with everything.

[30:11]

Which means respect everything as an opportunity for respect and wisdom realization. But we do have the illusion of being able to grasp a cup No, we're not saying there isn't that illusion. We just have the opportunity to realize there's no basis in perfect wisdom. And again, we might think perfect wisdom is to understand that there's a lack of basis of this being graspable. But if the sutras translate it to say perfect wisdom is the understanding that there's a lack of a basis, perfect wisdom is the lack of a basis. So the way things have no basis for being grasped and are grasped anyway is perfect wisdom.

[31:19]

And that is what relieves all suffering and distress, that wisdom. And that wisdom doesn't tamper with the grasping, which has no basis. In the physical world, what is time? We do grasp, but we understand that what we grasp or the action of grasping Not real. It's not real, not ultimately real. And which is similar to, there's no basis for this show we're going through. And the practices of compassion get us to relate to things the way we will relate to them when wisdom is realized.

[32:28]

When you realize wisdom, you treat cups and hats and people compassionately from your understanding. When you understand, there's no basis. you relate compassionately, and you understand that they have no basis by relating compassionately. Some people are practicing compassion but don't yet understand there's no basis for the apprehending that's still going on that they're practicing compassion towards. But when the door, when the eye of wisdom opens, then there's no, we can see there's no other way to relate, and that is the way everybody is relating. We see that now. And so we continue the practices which led us to see that. But now they're coming from a different place. They're coming from freedom rather than going towards it in a way. Well, my watch says 12.15.

[33:36]

Is there anything else? You want to bring up? The wall? Yeah, I didn't know which wall you meant because, you know, we're into walls here. You know, I'll never finish the wall. But the walls of the Founders Hall, were done and they were done the way I thought was best. Which was? With mud. With mud? Yeah. And the walls are still there about 25 years later. And I have been forgiven for my shocking behavior.

[34:38]

It could have gone differently. They could have come in and stuccoed the joint. They didn't stucco it. It's smooth. It's not crinkly like stucco. It's smooth. And it's got, you can see, like, in the mud. It's beautiful. Stucco might have been beautiful, too, but this is It's really a beautiful little surface there. My dream came true when I gave my dream up, as usual. It's kind of a usual thing. If you dream for peace and harmony, give up your dream and it will come true. If you dream for war and you give up your dream of war, war will not come true. So it's good to give up your dreams of war, because then war won't happen. And it's good to give up your dreams of peace and harmony, because then peace and harmony will happen.

[35:46]

It doesn't mean that you don't have that dream. It doesn't mean that isn't your desire, your heart's desire for peace and harmony. It's just that if you want peace and harmony, give your wish for peace and harmony to your local Buddha. and that will bring peace and harmony, that practice. Peace and harmony does not need us to hold on to the dream of peace and harmony rigidly. That's a nice scary way to end the talk this morning.

[36:24]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_85.15