I was planning to go to the Bay Area tomorrow morning, but I think it's better if I go this afternoon. And I'm sorry if my going hurts anybody. I think that it maybe does hurt somebody if I go, because it hurts me when I go, so probably there's somebody else like me. And I'm sorry that that happens when we come and go, that we're connected so closely that it hurts a little bit every time somebody comes and goes. But I'm sorry. I'm also sorry that if I stay, it hurts, too. So this is the last class that I'll give before it's at Sheen. And so I want this class to be a meditation instruction for Sashin, which you can use as you will, or use at your will.

[01:02]

So please think about this teaching today in terms of, think about how you would apply it to your sitting. And maybe after some presentation, we can actually discuss how you put this into practice. I hope during Sashin also to bring in Zen stories, which are the enactment of this teaching, and which are further instructions in the subtlety of this form of meditation. To that end, I would introduce a simple version of Zen practice, which you may have heard, and that is, first clean, then sit. This is also a simple version of the Eightfold Noble Path.

[02:18]

First clean means clarify your view. Develop right view. That's the first of the Eightfold Noble Path, right view. Clean up your philosophy. Drop all false views about reality, and just adopt the right view, which we call the Middle Way, or Madhyamaka. Then you have, what is it, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and then 8 is sit. So first clean, and then sit. That includes the whole Eightfold Noble Path. All the things between cleaning up your view and sitting are included between those two. This is the simple version.

[03:23]

So what this teaching is about here is to develop the right view, and then we yogically engage with that right view in our sitting. Okay, so I'd like to go back again to just what we did last night, and that is, we reached the 22nd karaka. And so we realized that when the dependently co-arisen object is cleaned, or cleaned of all imagination, that is the accomplished.

[04:31]

That the accomplished is the dependently co-arisen object of awareness, wherein this imagined realm is absent, or the accomplished is the fact that this is always separate from this, that this is an overlay on this. And when this overlay is completely separate from this, or when this is completely free of that, this is what we call the accomplished, which is the realm of non-discriminating wisdom. It's the realm of enlightenment. It's the realm where this dependently co-arisen world, which is the world where rainbows go over the Tassajara Valley and land at the Zendo, it's that world. Okay, so 23.

[05:37]

Oh, and that's 21. Then 22 is that when there is not the accomplished, there is not the dependent. When there is not the accomplishment, when there is not non-discriminating wisdom, when you have not yet realized non-discriminating wisdom, then the world of dependent co-arising is also not realized. So, this says, going up and attaining means cleansing or cleaning the world of willows and flowers of all imagining, then you go up and attain the realm of enlightenment. Attaining the realm of enlightenment, you go down and this realm of enlightenment gets transformed into this,

[06:41]

into dependent co-arising. Therefore, the Bodhisattva path of dedicating ourselves to attain enlightenment and return to the world to transform beings. And then again, dropping all imaginations, attaining the way and again coming down to transform beings. Round and round we go until the whole thing is homogenized. So, in the realm of the Madhyamaka teaching we talked about before, we talked about renouncing our belief in inherent existence. First step in that is to wish to renounce and to wish to become free of the belief in inherent existence of all self and phenomena.

[07:47]

Second phase is to confess that we do believe in the inherent existence of things and we do attribute inherent existence of things. And the third after that confession is renunciation proper, where after you've admitted what you're up to, you can examine what you're up to and drop it. One, two, three, not easy but that's how you do it. Similarly here, the first phase in renunciation would be to want to train yourself in the practice of Vijnapti Matrata Siddhi, to want to train yourself to accomplish the state wherein there's just mere concept. Next would be to admit that you do attribute imaginings to Vijnapti Matra. By the way, I also mentioned here, we have Vijnapti Matra,

[08:55]

that means mere concept. And then there's Vijnapti Matrata, which is a state of mere concept. Just like there's impermanence and there's the impermanent. As in that example, what is it? In Karka 22 it says, like impermanence and so on. So there is the impermanent, which is anicca, and there's the impermanence, which is aniccata. Similarly, there is Vijnapti Matra and Vijnapti Matrata, and there's sunya and sunyata. There's the empty things and there's a state of emptiness. So the first is to make the vow to realize the state of Vijnapti Matrata,

[09:57]

to accomplish Vijnapti Matrata, which means Vijnapti Matrata Siddhi. Siddhi means to accomplish. Also, Parinishpana means to accomplish, fulfill or consummate. Okay, maybe that's enough for starters. Okay, so 23, the non-substantiality of all elements has been preached for the sake of establishing the threefold non-substantiality of all substances. Twenty-four. The first is the imagined nature, fabricated nature. Parikalpita is non-substantial in terms of characteristics.

[11:03]

The other, the other dependent, the dependently co-arisen, is again one that possesses no self-nature, and as such is a different form of non-substantiality. So, the concepts or the objects of awareness that occur in this realm are different from the concepts and objects that appear in this realm. The concepts and objects that appear in the realm of Parikalpita, of the imagined, are mere concepts, mere imaginations. The ones that appear here are dependently co-arisen. Parikalpita is non-substantial in terms of characteristics.

[12:09]

Characteristics refers, well the Sanskrit word for it is lakshana. So, a phenomena, a dharma, and one understanding of the root of the word dharma is, the root I think is something like dharm. Do you know what the root of dharma is called? The root of dharma? Dharma. Dharma, which Dr. Jaini says means something that can bear something, or something that can hold something. And the thing a dharma can hold is a characteristic, a mark, a lakshana. So, it's saying that the first kind, this one here, these imaginings cannot bear characteristics. The dharmas that arise under dependent co-arising can bear characteristics, they can have marks. I will, yeah.

[13:16]

So, this is non-substantial in terms of characteristics. This has no marks. And this has no marks, we say these have no spalakshana. In other words, they have no own marks, they have no marks of their inherent existence. But they do have marks, they do have characteristics. Okay. So, example. An example would be a unicorn. A unicorn is an example of which of these two? What? What? What? First, how many vote for the first? How many vote for the second? Why do you vote for the second? Yes, it's mythical. This is the realm of imagination, this one. So, which one do you put?

[14:20]

The unicorn has symbolic meaning? Okay, so you put it over here. Is that right? I would suggest that the unicorn, when I say unicorn to you, what do you see? What do you think of? A horse with a horn. A horse with a horn, right? Now, where would you put that horse with a horn? Which of these categories? You put it in the first one, not the second one? I put it in the second one. Okay. Why? Why? Because it is a codependently produced concept. I even ask you. What? What it was like, and you told me and we all agreed. What's purely imagined, ladies and gentlemen?

[15:25]

What? Believing that the unicorn exists. Anything else? Is there anything else that is purely imagined? Besides believing things that exist? Besides attributing inherent existence to things? Where would a carrot fit? That's basically it. Like it says, a carrot is a... A carrot? Yeah, a carrot. What do you mean by carrot? I mean something a unicorn is... Something that is not a unicorn, but a horse. Yeah, a horse is the same as a unicorn. Yeah, a horse is the same as... Yeah. When we're talking about... Right now, when we're talking about horses, unicorns, and Jordan, they're all the same. They're all simply codependently produced concepts. So that's what you believe in them? It says right here. Where does it say? It says in Character 20, right? Whatever thought... Whatever thought through which an object is thought of as a substance, that indeed is the fabrication.

[16:30]

Definition of this is that thought through which an object is thought of as having a substance. That's... So, now notice the difference, ladies and gentlemen, between the image of a unicorn, which quite a few of you were able to conjure up, right? Notice the difference between that and the operation of believing that a unicorn exists. Can you believe a unicorn exists? If you can't, let's take one step back then. Let's take Tayo. Do you know Tayo? Would you please stand up? That's Tayo, right? Now, in the case of Tayo, did you have an image of him, a concept of him? That's a codependently produced concept, which we all can share in, which has effects, right? For him and for us. It has Lakshana, it has characteristics. Tayo...

[17:34]

Well, we'll talk about that later, but anyway... Now, can you notice that you believe that he exists? When he stood up, I had no thought that he necessarily exists. You don't have to do that. I don't say you have to. You don't have to do that. It's not required. As a matter of fact, it's good not to. However, unless you're already perfectly enlightened, you have to find out when you do do that. That's why I chose the unicorn, because most of you don't do that with unicorns. So, those of you who have attributed some existence to Tayo, or if not Tayo, then maybe take somebody else, like, for example, yourself. Imagine yourself and look to see if you think you exist. And if you're not sure, then notice the difference in existential status that you give to unicorns and yourself. Can you see the difference? Can you catch that you're doing something with the concept of yourself that you don't do with unicorns?

[18:34]

Can you see that? Hmm? Yes. That difference is this. Now, I propose to you, go ahead and try to do that with unicorns. You should be able to do it. You can do it. Matter of fact, you can do it. You can do it. You really can do it. You can do it to anything. You can do it to horses. Why can't you do it to a unicorn? You can do it to yourself. Why can't you? You can do it to a unicorn. And when you do it to a unicorn, when you attribute existence to it, that's what you mean, we mean by a dependently co-arisen thing, because the image of a unicorn is dependently co-arisen, right? Then, mix that in with, attribute then an imaginary substance to that. That converts the dependently co-arisen into the imagined. That puts this coating of illusion and imagination around it, and then you've got the world of birth and death.

[19:37]

And you don't have to do that to unicorns. As you see, a lot of you didn't do it to unicorns. Some of you did, maybe. Some of you didn't even think you could do it to unicorns. But ladies and gentlemen, you have the ability to do it to unicorns, because you have an imagination. You can imagine that unicorns exist, and you can get into it. Okay? But you must be able to identify, you must be able to identify that you are into it, sometimes. Otherwise, you're not being honest. That is not good. You must be honest, in other words, in order to tell the difference between actually dropping this stuff and basically saying, I don't attribute existence to things. Sometimes you don't. Fine. But sometimes you do. Not fine. So, just as in realizing,

[20:42]

through the Madhyamaka teaching, realizing the practice of emptiness, you have to be able to notice that you attribute inherent existence. Here, too, you need to notice that you attribute inherent existence to concepts. Not all of them, though, because I just thought of one, for the example, for that very reason, that many of you do not sort of carry around the idea that unicorns do inherently exist. Charlie? Is it possible to have a concept in itself without imagining that it really exists? Is it possible? It is possible. It is possible. That's the whole point here, that it is possible. Now, bodhisattvas are those who think that they actually, personally, could realize that state. Not just that some bodhisattvas have, but that they could do it. Other people think it's a great idea and would like to support those who do it,

[21:44]

but don't think that they can do it. It's not for me to tell you you can do it, but I really think you all can, because you all have that ability to perceive co-dependently produced concepts, and you also all have the ability to infect them. So, you have the possibility, then, of removing the infection. Yes? It occurred to me, when you were talking about the unicorn, that the more prevalent... Can you hear him? No. It occurred to me... It occurred to me, when you were talking about the unicorn, that the more prevalent, contemporary belief is unicorns do not exist. Would that... Would that fit the pattern to the same... Exactly. ...concept? Yes. Can you tell that you really do believe that it's true that unicorns don't exist? See the difference there? There it is. But they're both beliefs. They're both beliefs, and you actually think there's a substance to the belief that unicorns don't exist. You feel that kind of, like,

[22:45]

weightiness there, and that side of, like, there really aren't any out there, and if one showed up, I really would think that it was kind of a prop, Hollywood prop or something. Yes, there's... some level of experience there's a very... sort of a... a mutually verifiable difference between a horse and a unicorn. Yes. And those are other concepts that we use to do that. Right. Is it... it seemed like Kulbahana was saying that the imagined... the first realm was... was things that... was composed of all things that weren't experientially verifiable. Everything that we think of is the imagined. But maybe that's... that's my misreading. At any rate, does the difference between the horse and the unicorn in terms of experiential verifiability show up in this breakdown? In these categories,

[23:46]

do you... do you have those? The unicorn as an experientially verifiable event is the concept of unicorn which you now see floating before your mind. Yes. That's it. There's the experience. You got it? Yes. That's it. That's the only one you're going to come up with, probably. Right. So what's... where is the distinction between horse and unicorn? Right. Today, in this room, the distinction is that they're two different concepts which we all both have available to us right now. We have both of them available to us right in this room, right? Horses and unicorns. That's... they are different concepts too because they have different codependent origination. The difference between them is the difference between their lakshanas. Okay? Now, notice the difference, ladies and gentlemen, between the way you attribute... or I should say rather than try to trick you, try to find the difference between the way you attribute substance to horses, the concept horse, and the way you attribute substance

[24:48]

to the belief that unicorns don't exist. Or maybe it's not such a complicated example. Try to notice the difference between the way you believe and attribute substance to horses and the way you attribute substance to cows. What characteristic can you find to distinguish those two imaginings? Is there any characteristic you can find? One person says no. Any other opinions? Can anybody find anything else? Any way, any mark, any characteristic by which you can discriminate the difference between the way you attribute sub... what did you say? Feeling. You have a different feeling of the way you attribute substance to horse and the way you attribute substance... Oh, I'm sorry, that's your unicorn and person. No. We're talking about now the attributing of substance to something like a cow, a horse, or a unicorn. Start with an easy one. Watch the way you attribute substance to cow and horse.

[25:51]

Do you see any difference? Can you characterize any difference between the way you do those two acts of attributing substance? I don't think so. If anybody wants to say so, this would be interesting. So, yes? Yeah, but the picture of the cow and picture of horse is not the same. But your feeling might be different too between picture of cow and picture of horse. Okay? But the point is picture of cow and picture of horse is not what I'm asking you. Those are different because they have different marks. Okay? That's the difference between them, is their marks, their characteristics. They're both dependently co-arisen and also we can discuss and verify these marks among us because these Lakshanas make these images have causal efficacy. Namely, we can interact with them. We, perceptual process beings

[26:53]

can all interact about these dependently co-arisen things like willows and flowers. We feel differently maybe about willows and flowers. Okay? Because they're co-dependently produced in different ways. They have different marks. They have different effects on us. We have different feelings about them. Okay? What I'm asking is when you attribute the belief in the inherent existence or anyway when you attribute substance to the flower and you attribute substance to the willow can you identify any difference in the way you attribute substance? And we're being told by Vasubandhu that you cannot find any characteristic by which you differentiate the two. Therefore, there's no characteristic there's no characteristics in this in this imagined realm. It's it itself also lacks inherent existence.

[27:54]

It has no substantiality. The attribution of substance has no substantiality either. But you can't find its emptiness through identifying and looking at its characteristics. It's a different form of non-substantiality than the non-substantiality of dependently co-arisen phenomena. For example, dependently co-arisen concepts which are the objects of our knowledge. There are lots of dependently co-produced things but Buddhism is focusing in on the dependently co-produced phenomena and particularly the objects in the process of perception because among all the dependently co-produced things those that occur in the realm of perception are the ones that we most get hung up on and cause us the most misery because the sense of self arises in conjunction with the process of perception and so on which we've gone through already. So among the many many kinds of co-dependently produced things which is everything in the universe we're focusing in on co-dependently produced objects of knowledge

[28:55]

the mere concepts. Everything else in the universe is also co-dependently produced but they're not problems for us. Okay. Yes. And you want to? What do you want me to say? Tell me what you want me to say. Tell me what it is you want me to say in a different way. The process of it seemed like we were talking about the process of attributing substance looking for a characteristic in that and not being able to find it. Right. So whenever you attribute substance to different things which you do all the time you'll notice that the way of attributing substance is basically an ungraspable process and you have no way you can't feel

[29:56]

the difference in the way you zap existence on things it's always the same basically. There's no there's no characteristics of how you do that by which you can see that now I'm zapping inherent existence on Mary now I'm zapping inherent existence on Dorothea and the way I zap it onto you is different from the way I zap it onto you. There's no way to differentiate in terms of characteristics there. Okay. It's insubstantial the whole process but not in terms of of Lakshana. It's insubstantial it's insubstantial or rather it is insubstantial in terms of Lakshana. Okay. There's no way that it bears any substantiality in terms of Lakshana. Okay. Whereas the image of a unicorn the image of a cow the image of you those do have Lakshana but what they lack is inherent existence. They don't have any inherent existence but Lakshana don't. You look at what a cow is and start examining it you will never find out

[30:57]

what a cow is. A cow is as hard to get a hold of as the process of attributing substance to things. You can't get a hold of either one of them. However in the case of imagination there isn't even any Lakshana involved. There's no characteristics at issue here. Yeah. Imagination is that you imagine these things. Imagining a unicorn is not this. Imagining a unicorn is not the imagined nature. Imagining a unicorn is dependently co-arisen nature. Well you can say so but the way the way it dependently co-arises is such that the way it's empty is not empty the way the other one is empty. The way the other one is empty is empty in terms of Lakshana. The way this is empty is in terms the way the other one is empty is is in terms of

[31:57]

own being. The way this is empty this is empty or insubstantial in terms of Lakshana. Okay. So you can say this is dependently co-produced but the main way this is dependently co-produced is by virtue of our tendency to attribute substance. That's the main dependent co-producing factor here. Whereas in the case of imagining a unicorn or a cow the main dependently co-producing elements are the Lakshana. Because you're not producing in this case substance you're creating a concept not a substance. And the way you make concepts is with colors and shapes and feelings with these characteristics you use these characteristics to make the objects of knowledge. Objects of knowledge

[32:57]

are composed of these characteristics. That's how you build these concepts. That's not how you build substance into these concepts. You build substance in these concepts by the fact of your tendency your inclination your disposition to do that. So the imagined nature is also dependently co-produced and it's empty for that reason but it's empty for another reason. Namely there's not even the Lakshana's there the characteristics that there are in composing the world of willows flowers and turtles. Yeah. This this unicorn that I have is walking around it does have a disposition it has only being it doesn't have real being. In my imagining

[33:58]

in this sort of conceptual world that the example is illustrated it has it's riding with the cows and the horses with this this feeling of it it's separate distinct it has its own being. The first honest person to date. There it is. He thinks that cows and unicorns have own being. There it is. That's it. That's the imagined nature. Good. You got it. Huh? It ends up it doesn't have real being it has own being. What's real being? Real being is when then I add other further concepts on to this imagined conceptual realm but again the example is elicited and then I say well then that is really out there. That's a whole other kind of activity that I can put on top of it. Yes?

[35:02]

Well, I've got something going in the same area and it's related to a geography at some point in all of this concept we also make distinctions that are about really exist even though doesn't and doesn't really exist and if we think that things that we have decided don't exist exist then we have something about crazy and sane and I'm wondering do we really throw all of this stuff all into the same pot of non of non-existence or if we do that in this kind of

[36:03]

context is there such a thing as crazy or sane? Do you understand what I'm saying? It doesn't come out very clearly to me Well you asked several questions Yeah One question you had do we throw all this stuff into the same pot of non-existence is that what you said? Yeah What do you mean by all this stuff? Well in other words we as a group in general agree that there seems to be some difference between a unicorn and a cow on one level of looking at it in that we believe cows really do exist in the physical world and we don't believe that unicorns do And the reason why we don't believe unicorns do is because we think there is no such thing as a unicorn

[37:05]

Right We think there really is such a thing as a cow We have this concept called imaginary or fantastical objects and unicorns belong in some concrete way to this category rather than we have this other concrete category And we really believe they belong in And we really believe they belong in that category But I don't understand what you're saying in terms of I don't understand the distinction you made between unicorns have own being but not real being And if you're So Do you want to Yes Well I wonder if it's that unicorns are no lying houses Or perhaps magical cities Or for example our hot ship belong

[38:06]

There are classes They're all members of a class of things namely imaginary concepts We think there's such a thing as that class We think there's such a thing as imaginary concepts And all these things are magical entities Unicorns are not like a magical city They exist in and of their own right in that region They have own being within that space own being They're not dependently arisen They hang out on their own In the realm of magical cities and unicorns I see codependently produced phenomena The

[39:07]

unicorn that I see right now is a codependently produced unicorn It's a concept The same thing with the horse Right For me horse and unicorn in magical cities as I imagine them right now are codependently produced concepts And I can also subdivide those three categories and put horses into another concept called concepts of just ordinary things of the world and concepts which are fantastical creations But both the concepts when I look at them I see visual images and I see in both cases the visual images of both realms are codependently produced and the difference between each entity is in terms of its lakshana That's what I see What

[40:07]

do you see? Don't we share this realm? This is the realm of concepts In the realm of concepts we can have talk We can verify these concepts That's why I'm talking this way To verify actually what you're seeing And you can tell me what you're seeing and by talking back and forth I can find out what image you have somewhat So I'm trying to see here in terms of the realms of concepts and you see something other than lakshanas working together to create images We're depending upon some kind of trigger to produce the same image in one and the other You say They don't produce the same image now Well we're depending upon some kind of We're depending on language We're depending on some shared process that human beings have and we can

[41:08]

talk back and forth and we can verify although we can't share the image that we have inside of us We can verify that basically it's the same image although we can't see the same image But we can verify We can talk back and forth until you say Well it's got horns, two horns, got eyes Eyes are under the horns Finally we say Oh it's basically the same concept And you can say And I would put that concept over with farm animals and I put this concept over with I put them under the concept of farm animals Farm animals is another concept that has lakshana and the lakshanas are codependently produced And then you can have another magical creations and you can put then unicorns and other things in that category and that category is another category another concept which is codependently produced And the codependently produced things are said to lack inherent existence because they are conjured up by compositions of lakshanas So that's the way they're empty They're empty of own being Now there is a special kind of imagination which is to imagine that

[42:08]

codependently produced things which are codependent in their concepts their codependent compositions of lakshana to imagine that that confabulation has inherent existence that's a different kind of imagination than the imagination of this concept That's the imagination this concept has inherent existence That's this The concept of unicorn the concept of cow the category of farm animals and the category of imagined beings those are all concepts each one of which I can just talk about their characteristics and back and forth with you to see if we have the same characteristics Some people don't And as we grow up in society we make some deals with each other to sort of say yeah that's a unicorn Some people think unicorns are blue probably and some probably think they're white So maybe we can agree about that But if we're talking about Lakshanas and we talk about blue and white and horns and farm animals These things lack inherent existence

[43:09]

because they depend on these characteristics Now to say that these have inherent existence is something which we do and that when you attribute inherent existence to these then you have this type of situation This situation is not just imagination flat out going around I imagine things exist It's not that by itself It is the imagination of the existence of things mapped onto willows, flowers, unicorns, horses and people And not necessarily mapped onto everything Like when I first said unicorns some people maybe didn't do it that time What they did instead was as Jim said they switched over or they already had done it in the past they've already attributed inherent existence to unicorns as being in the category really of non-existence So we're getting

[44:10]

into questions and we're not moving through the text And so Okay So 24 The first that's the imagined the parikalpita is non-substantial in terms of characteristics And I would say it has no causal efficacy in this world Again the other the dependent paratantra is one possessed of a self-nature and as such is a different kind or a different form of non-substantiality No causal efficacy The imagination has no causal efficacy Okay Now this second one

[45:10]

is a dependently co-arisen concept And this second one which is a dependently co-arisen concept is the foundation of reality It's on this that you build reality Reality is when this is realized as it is It's upon this dependently co-arisen concept It's upon this other dependent form of existence that we build that reality is built and reality is for that just be as it is And this co-dependently produced concept produces effects which can be

[46:13]

shared and verified by other experiential processes or other beings Can we verify? Verified Proved You can prove to me by you can prove to me back and forth that you actually We can't share it We can't verify it back and forth Can we verify the fantasy? Can we verify the fantasy? As an image we can verify it Yes As a concept So dependent co-arising produces events dharmas and again the understanding that this is a dependently co-arisen dharma that understanding is dhar-ma-ta There is the dharma and then there is the dharma nature or the state and then we have the dharma dharma-ta

[47:14]

reality Understanding that dharma that events are dependently co-produced that is the realization of reality of dharma-ta What? What has characteristics? The foundation of reality has characteristics The foundation of reality are dependently co-produced concepts They have characteristics Yes And because they have characteristics they are empty of inherent existence Because their creation depends on characteristics that's why they are empty of inherent existence So the realization that

[48:14]

dharmas are dependently co-produced is the realization of reality And Buddhist and that's also the realization of Buddhist epistemology Buddhist knowledge is based on non-inherently existing phenomena And I want to say one more thing about this which is really cute the way the way Martha McGregor puts it This imagined nature this other dependent nature this Alright let's read it Alright you little fella Okay

[49:27]

I'll just remember it This This affirms what this negates And this in other words this affirms what this negates this affirms what is negated by this one This affirms what is negated by this one What does this one affirm? This This affirms characteristics Characteristics are negated here This affirms This affirms what this negates This affirms what this negates What does this affirm? Say it folks This affirms inherent existence which this negates Dependently co-arisen phenomena Dependently co-arisen concepts

[50:27]

negate inherent existence and affirm characteristics Imagined nature negates characteristics and affirms inherent existence So the champion of inherent existence is this one The champion of inherent existence is birth and death Birth and death is the champion of inherent existence And boy, I mean, look at it When a baby is born isn't that a champ of inherent existence? Wow, you got to step back for that one, boy This is This is real and death too Birth and death are the champion are the exponent They really affirm inherent existence They really affirm own being They really affirm misery And they negate

[51:31]

characteristics When you just have a baby born or somebody die That's just a baby born and somebody dying That's just red flowers and green willows But then somebody comes up and goes This exists That's this one But the way it does that The way it does this little trick of imbuing this process of life and death with inherent existence has no has no characteristics So it's non-substantial in that way Yes? Can we be a little more clear about the absence of causal efficacy in Hari Kalpita Yeah The ancients called black white and non-black delusion Isn't that causal causal efficacy Well the way I understand that is the ancients look at a sentient being and see that sentient being attributing inherent existence to things and then try to find

[52:34]

some way to help that person For example call black white as white in order to help them realize what they're up to Isn't that help causal efficacy of entering the realm of Hari Kalpita No you do this This activity is occurring in the realm of dependently co-arisen phenomena That's where the ancients functions The ancients don't Ladies and gentlemen This is not just symmetrical this process I told you last night This is not the same as this They are not identical They are separated The ancients live over here They do not go over here What is calling black white though Calling black as white is the ancients come into the realm It's this going down to convert

[53:35]

That's calling black as white It's coming back into the realm and totally functioning willingly in the realm of dependently co-produced phenomena Which if you attribute substance to them is dependently co-produced birth and death But the ancients don't see it that way even though they're in exactly the same world It's the same world of willows and flowers Same world They come into that world They live in that world and their wisdom is nothing other than that world But they do not attribute substance to it They only appear to it Yeah, they only appear to to people who attribute substance to it themselves But when they look at each other they don't see each other doing that And they can tell who is attributing substance to things You can tell by their pain So the placebo effect

[54:36]

of that activity is still not causal efficacy in the realm that it pretends to be Well, I don't know if it's pretending to be in that realm Anyway, it is causal efficacy Therefore, it's in the realm of dependent co-arising That's where they work They work in They work in the world The real world Which is always the same They don't go over into the realm of imagination The imagined world which never exists They don't do that However, they also recognize that that world has existence It does It is there that people do that It is so that people attribute substance to things That is so There's no substance that they attribute and there's really no people there But those people who are doing that there's reality to that That's what draws these people into the world That's what draws this accomplished nature into the dependently co-arisen world But

[55:37]

the people who are imagining substance are totally hooked into that world too So you can relate to them there The dependently co-produced world is where the world of birth and death and the world of dependently co-arisen suchness meet each other We still haven't got to 25 But I did say that part about that thing about that this affirms but this negates and this affirms but this negates Cut that Maybe you can get a picture of this Now this is an example This is not a unicorn that's happening Get a picture of this This is not a unicorn Wait, wait, wait Wait till we tell you Oh No, I'm going to do the sleeves

[56:37]

I'm going to do the sleeves over your head I'll do that at the end This robe This robe is a plastic robe and it doesn't adhere to itself It's totally unattached to itself Okay 25 The third The third is the ultimate meaning of events because it is also suchness Since it remains such all the time it indeed is a mere concept The third this one the accomplished the world of enlightenment Okay is the ultimate meaning of events And because it because it is also suchness Now Since it remains such all the time it's a mere concept So the ultimate meaning of events

[57:38]

is also a mere concept There's nothing to it That's why it's definitively co-arisen suchness Now The Sanskrit here is really nice I'll try to read Go ahead and you read it 25? Yeah Ahem Okay Okay So listen to this Okay Sarva Sarva Kalam Okay Always It's such all always always all time Sarva Kalam Like Kali Sarva Kalam Tatha Vyavat It's all the time such Okay This ultimate this way here This one here is all the time such The way this world is is dependently

[58:39]

co-arisen world The way it is is always such This one is the always suchness of this world Since this world always has the same suchness because it's just the way it is and it's nothing more than that This is just mere concept A big leap? A big leap? It's a very big leap and also you can do it Which is Sarva Vijnapti Matra It says Vijnapti Matra It doesn't say Vijnapti Matrata Oh Vijnapti Matrata It says Sarva Vijnapti Matrata It doesn't say Sarva Vijnapti Matra Right? That's it What? What? It says Sarva Vijnapti Matrata Right It does not say Sarva Vijnapti Matrata

[59:39]

What? Wait I said the same thing twice Okay First time I said it does say that Second time I said it doesn't say that Okay Right? I got it Is that right? One time I said it the way you agreed with it and the next time you didn't agree Don't forget you didn't agree the second time Okay I'm not asking you to agree the second time So that means it's the state of mere concept Yeah It's the state of mere concept Okay Now comes 26 As long as consciousness does not terminate in this Vijnapti Matra Okay In that case it's Vijnapti Matrata Not Vijnapti Matra Excuse me As long as consciousness does not terminate in Vijnapti Mat Tra What? I must take exception to this trend Do you have another transition? As long as consciousness

[60:41]

is not situated Ah, that's better Okay Amitishwari is terminating Okay Well terminated doesn't mean it ends it means sort of like that's its address Right As long as consciousness doesn't have the address of mere concept of Vijnapti Matra Okay As long as that happens so long will the it says dispositions for the twofold grasping not cease The other translation says as long as consciousness is not situated in perception only or concept only and this one says it differently it says the residuals of the dual apprehension will not come to to an end that's quite different I will, don't worry The word dispositions in this case is not the same word dispositions that we've been using before Before the word

[61:43]

dispositions was samskara usually when we said dispositions or the vasana the the bijas the seeds Okay Now he's using he's using the English word dispositions but the Sanskrit word is anushaya and anushaya are inclinations or tendencies latent inclinations or tendencies So inclination would be a good translation and in the other translation he says residuals Now listen to the difference between saying as long as the mind is not in the state of mere concept these inclinations of the twofold grasping will not cease The other one says the residuals of these twofold grasping but the residuals of these twofold grasping is the residuals of the grasping is that they cause a tendency a tendency and the tendency they cause

[62:43]

is they cause mere concept to be made into something that has existence So because of these inclinations which are built up out of the process of perception wherein these around these two graspings these two graspings the way they go they develop these inclinations and then these inclinations hit this dependently co-arisen concept which is just a concept and they convert it into this So the poor little process of perception of Ascension B is cooking along there right? And then these inclinations come over to it and they push it right over into here This is saying so long as this does not isn't situated in just mere concept these inclinations will always push it over in this direction I would say so long as you do not make your mind like a wall

[63:44]

you will be susceptible to these inclinations which make you turn this concept which is dependently co-arisen and therefore not inherently existent you turn this non-inherently existent thing into an inherently existent thing and you won't be able to stop it because the tendency the habit the inclination is very strong because so many times when there when there was grasping and grasped so many times we saw that what was grasped was an independently existing thing separate and independent of the grasping We did that so many times that we have a strong inclination when we see an object to think of the object as the independent of the consciousness like I wrote that thing on the board those two things we have a tendency to see the environment

[64:45]

as separate we have a tendency to see the passive aspect of consciousness as independent of the active aspect of consciousness or the passive aspect of thinking as independent of the active aspect because we did that so many times we have a strong tendency to make objects mere concepts into substance and also so many times when there was grasping and a grasper an agent of it we saw the agent as independent of the grasping or the knower as independent of the knowledge we did that so many times we have a strong thing there's no way we can fight it unless we can somehow you can't just sit there and just you have to make your mind like a wall then you have a chance to not flip over into birth and death yes if somebody like hits a swing at you with a you know broom or something you just you just see it coming

[65:46]

and you duck does that imply at that instant belief in inherent existence or is that a kind of a karmic reaction that is itself not karmically active or creative you know for your involvement in some kind are you saying that to imply what well a belief in inherent existence if you had no belief in your own existence I suppose you wouldn't care necessarily if someone flung you for example oh so if you see it coming and you duck so what's the point of view of a being that does not that does not uh uh that is what is what is the behavior of a being who clearly observes yes and for whom no words can reach that concept that they're aware of what is their behavior like under any circumstances

[66:48]

what is their what is their behavior what are they looking for in this phenomenon what are they like what's the point of view there they might not look for the intention of the person swinging the broom they might be looking for the intention of the person swinging the broom they'd be in tune with what's happening yes anybody who just ducks when something's coming their way is in tune with what's happening I must say same world isn't it the same a dependently co-arisen event right yes right dependently co-arisen namely here's his face here's a broom coming various cause and effects cause me to duck the broom goes over my head that's what I was getting at it's the same world the duck that's all I wanted to know the duck is simply brought about by you know the duck is always brought about by dependently co-produced events all things that happen are that way yes ok so you want to know what's the difference between these two worlds in one case the person

[67:50]

I've been over that you've been over whatever happens whatever happens is always co-dependently produced the content of non-discriminating wisdom is the karmically created non-discriminating wisdom is not operating on a being that is not involved in karma buddhas are involved in karma the content of buddha's wisdom is the karmically created stuff like brooms heads ducking and not ducking also to not duck would also have been dependently co-arisen and we have some zen masters that are really slow so when you swing a broom at him you'll hit him so be careful Houdini said that anybody can punch him in the stomach anytime so some college kids came to him after a show one time and said we hear you we can punch you in the stomach anytime Houdini said go ahead and they punched him before he got ready and hurt his stomach ruptured his

[68:51]

I think kidneys or appendix so tell it before you swing at somebody you think is enlightened tell him you're going to do it because it might be slow and then you'll have dependently co-produced bang on the head it's always dependently co-produced world that's all there is there's no other world that's all we've got available the only thing is do you attribute substance to that world or not if you don't fine if you do my point was if you're going to wobble away from Vijnapti Mantra Path it's probably going to be when you're under a lot of stress if you're going to be tempted away from that it may well be when something is really putting screws to you is that true or not true no did you hear what he said he thinks that if you're if you're a practitioner and you're trying to you're training yourself at Vijnapti Mantra

[69:51]

you're trying to clearly observe what's happening and trying to not let any any kind of words or attribution of substance reach it just trying to stay with dependent co-arising settle with dependent co-arising Lakshanas coming together to produce phenomena like for example um uh what do you call it um a broom swinging at your head he says that if somebody in that case none of that he says that when you would stray away from Vijnapti Mantra it would probably be when you're under stress is that not so and I would say that when you have strayed away from Vijnapti Mantra you are under stress I was referring to physical stress oh a karmically created stress well yeah I would say definitely not there's a dog chewing on your leg I would say definitely not I would say that the characteristic of pain the dependently co-arising pain is definitely not the thing that causes you to veer away

[70:52]

from uh your concept that's not what does it as a matter of fact it is the most helpful of all phenomena the thing that causes you to veer away is not what's happening it is the dispositions but aren't the strongest dispositions associated with the strongest stress if you will or the strongest stimulation or whatever you want to call it that's that that's actually my question or stronger stimulation related to stronger dispositions so you know what you once said in a class you once said you once said so this all sounds good if you little guys all come up here and start pounding me on me with your fists then you really have to see me so that's more or less the same question and I recall it was somewhat similar

[72:02]

well let's look at that now let's look at that well I would say at this point that it's very likely that when the people start pounding on you it's not that you switch from vijnapti mantra to siddhi concentration but that you weren't there in the first place and you just now are becoming aware of it because when people are stroking on you and you're contributing substance to that you don't really notice that you're getting upset for a while and eventually you start noticing you're getting upset but being attacked gives you more instant reactions so you more may quickly feel like you lost your cool but if you didn't have your cool in the first place I would propose as a real possibility that you already weren't doing it so

[73:02]

I would say then you know revising what I said then although it may look like I'm doing pretty well if you start pounding on me you may find out that I'm not it may not be that the pounding on the person is what causes them to give up their conviction to practice dharma but rather that shows that they haven't been and so that's part of dharma practice sometimes is when somebody thinks that they have been or maybe has been then to put a little stress on them to see if they really have been not so much would they give it up so we don't put stress on people basically unless we think they're already here people who who are over here no point in getting stressed let's try to get them over to looking at this from this point of view and then use stress to test them

[74:03]

so if I look like I'm pretty good then test me by stressing me by what would you know what would stress me codependently stress me and and see what happens but I don't think I don't think if I'm practicing that I'm in a small switch because I'm stressed I don't think so I think the dispositions but you know let somebody look at do the dispositions favorably do they kick in more strongly in stress than not in stress I don't think so I think they I think they're pretty indiscriminate I think they just I think they basically click in all the time is that a concept? huh? is that a concept? what I just said? or there's oh that happened that happens person in that state in that situation or is that or is just a concept?

[75:03]

I'm not quite following what you're referring to the person who who is over there is this a concept? yeah yes that's what it says that's karika 25 karika 25 says that because this is the same all the time it's a concept this is just a concept too this has no inherent existence either this this has no inherent existence either this has no inherent existence this has no inherent existence but the way they have the three ways that they don't have inherent existence is different you see so do you understand now the way these three realms or these three kinds of being don't have being this doesn't have being because in terms of having no characteristics this doesn't have any being in terms of having no own being this doesn't have any being because it's just mere concept and mere concept is the same so they all lack inherent existence there's nothing substantial

[76:05]

in the entire universe however if we can leave dependently co-arisen phenomena alone we'll have no doubt and this is the mind of Buddha and it's 10 o'clock or so so so please make your mind like a wall as soon as possible to protect yourself and others from the dispositions which have developed over this long career of seeing the knower and the known as independent there's more here but I think maybe we should stop because it's it's 10 o'clock yes yeah it seems to say that is that the crux

[77:09]

well that's the crux maybe somebody some other genius could think of some other reason to prove that it's mere concept but anything that stays the same all the time there's no such thing right it's just a mere concept we have a concept of something that stays the same all the time right and people do say that too they say that have you heard them say that it's shocking you hear about Buddha taught impermanence right and then they say but suchness remains is there always it's eternal Buddha nature all beings are the Buddha nature and it exists eternally Buddha nature permanent but didn't Buddha say that everything was impermanent but this is permanent therefore it is just a concept but it is you know logically speaking it is permanent because everything is always such the way it is right everything always is the way it is the 27th is extremely important and you should you can't believe 28 we have a 5 minute break I think we should stop

[78:17]

how many people want to stop for a break how many people want to stop ok 3 want to stop 4 let's stop we don't want to push these people there's more to this practice period than meets your eye there's more to this practice period than is dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio Greg I just want to ask you do you remember the other night you said the story about going to the grove yeah have you dealt with that part yet how language how words may reinforce this have I dealt with I'm sorry I haven't dealt with it yet you might have it sounds a little bit like I've bogged to it a few times but I don't think I've dealt with it much you can say more about it

[79:18]

I guess Anderson's Fairytale someday Anderson's Fairytale spelled S-E-N oh S-E-N sorry that's ok same initials H-C-N can you just say something because at the beginning you talked about trying to bring all this into my meditation practice and right now it feels kind of a little far away from my meditation practice make your mind like a wall which means not attributing your existence like in the fall practice period a couple years ago I think you were there the theme of the fall practice period was wall gazing a spring flower opens behind you or in the back just wall gazing means make your mind like a wall it means when something happens have no involvements it means exhaling having no involvements inhaling

[80:18]

not dwelling in body and mind that's what this is about it means this is an explanation of what it means to just sit so you're observing that relationship between the imagined attributing substance and just dependent co-arising can you see that? not even that what you just said what that really is is to not even do what you just said if you did what you said it would be not to even do that if you actually put into practice realizing that these two are separate if you actually put into practice this not this being entirely free of that if you were actually to put that in practice okay you wouldn't even do that because if you do that

[81:21]

then this the person who's sitting there doing that and thinking about doing that practice then this in fact is not free of this because you think of such a thing as doing that practice which you just talked about to actually do that practice to actually do it which you really should that's non-discriminating wisdom non-discriminating wisdom is when this is completely free of that but if you sit down and try to see this or get this to be free of this or try to see that these two are separate if you try to do that then you're this is now affecting this to realize that these two are separate to realize that this is free of this really always to realize that this world is free of all imagination to do that practice is to not even do that practice in other words just sit so what is the effort? and also just sitting

[82:22]

all right don't even do that so what's the effort? the effort is not to move ever the effort is to be just in the moment in the present and not move and anything other than just being there is just a mere concept any other practice you do besides that is just a mere concept and also just sitting would not be to get rid of those concepts it's just that those concepts don't reach the practice they do not reach it they're there all the time flying all over the place but they don't reach your practice your practice is pure this is the realm of purity this is the realm of just sitting which means that whatever is happening to you however you feel whatever you're thinking or sensing it's just that meantime

[83:26]

all around are imagined all the time and because of these tendencies there's a constant assault of imaginations of things that you are doing that you believe you're doing that haven't had an existence all the time you're being assaulted in this way your effort is to be just like a wall on that situation not to do anything about any of that then the spring flower will bloom in the back a gift will come to you what? not to even imagine you're doing that not even to imagine you're doing that practice however you probably will imagine you're doing that practice and it's a lovely imagination as a matter of fact we have theme songs that we sing to create positive imagery around this person who's not doing anything and see if that person cannot grab even at even at the accomplished and we give lectures and we present you with more instruction

[84:26]

about how to meditate and you're supposed to not let that get to you all the instruction is to see if nothing can get to you nothing can get to your practice and that's what the instruction is the instruction is to say don't let this get to you don't let this touch you don't let this touch the world let the world be as it is let the world be as it is and including don't let what I just said get to you it also is just a mere concept it's a well-intentioned it's a mere concept I I I misheard that famous that popular song you know what I thought it said I I thought it said I'm just a fool whose intentions are good oh lord oh lord please don't let me be misunderstood huh? it's just a soul it's just a soul but I I feel like more I'm a fool I'm just trying various things don't misunderstand me

[85:27]

okay please but since I'm a fool it's pretty hard not to oh please no no no no you check you check out how you're doing by having him hit you without warning yeah I think you I think he's a good person to do it he's very gentle actually he'll stop just before he gets to your head so we could use a broom in the Zen dojo instead of a kiosako and go for the head instead of the shoulders you know face the other way and also please remember that in Zen we don't the Zen monk is not told that the most important thing is enlightenment they aren't told

[86:28]

the most important thing is the accomplished they aren't told the most important thing is the realm of bliss and release they don't say that they say the most important thing is birth and death the most important thing is this realm that's the most important thing because if you can give up this realm everything else will take care of itself so you have to be a wall and admit you live in the realm of birth and death I have to admit that I'm constantly subject to inclinations to attribute imagined existence to things I live in birth and death welcome to my house and in that house I hope to be like Bodhidharma and just make my mind like a wall I hope to be like our ancestors and realize the way which we supposedly can realize if we make our mind

[87:28]

like a wall but we do that most of the time in birth and death let's not try to promote ourselves out of that we will immediately be released from it and we'll discover the world which is free of this as soon as we just drop this stuff but we can't drop it until we admit what we're doing can you really see what is? can you see what is? yeah no what you see is what is right now you see what is this is what is what isn't is the attributing of inherent existence to it all but this actually is this is the what's going on inside of you you know can I really see when you say something can I really I can't really but what but what's going on inside for me in me is not what's happening for you what's happening for you

[88:30]

is this face over here that's what happening for you okay and you can see that you can see what's happening inside you you can see what's happening on the surface of me that's what that's your world that is the world that really is the world and it's always going to be that world if you can just stop attributing inherent existence to what's happening inside you, that's called coughing and sighing in the mind, and if you can stop attributing inherent existence to me, that's called involvement outwardly, then this world as it is, then the world, which is going to be the same way, exactly the same, will be the world as it really is, and then you will be this great, beneficent being in this world. Okay? Same world, just dropping this attribution of imagined existence, that's all, which is very difficult. So mostly we're confessing that we're making mistakes, but as a friend of mine said, mistakes

[89:32]

are the ornament of freedom. If there's no freedom, there's no mistakes, folks. In the realm of freedom, on the big Christmas tree of freedom, the ornaments are mistakes. So, I'd like to end with my homage to birth and death. This is a poem for my son Peter, who I have hurt in a thousand ways, whose large and vulnerable eyes have gazed in pain at my ragings.

[90:39]

Thin wrists and fingers hung in boneless despair, pale and freckled back bent in defeat, pillow soaked by my failure to understand. I have scarred forever, through weakness and impatience, your frail confidence, because when I needed to be strict, you were there to be hurt, and because I thought you knew that you were beautiful. But now I see that no one knows that about himself, but must be told and retold until

[91:52]

it takes hold, for I think that anything can be killed after a while, especially beauty. So I write this poem for life, for love, and for my son Peter. My beautiful son Peter, who I love very much, age 10, going on 11, so I'm sorry if I've hurt you. I'm just a fool.

[92:46]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ