I'm going to wash. Chris asked and also Pam asked that we keep in mind how what we're doing here relates

[01:18]

to the rest of the world. How what we're doing here is is a mode of grappling with the problems of our global global situation. And so I thought I might start by saying that in the Abhidharmakosha chapter four at the beginning it says referring back to chapter

[02:21]

three which was called the world where it describes the world in all its different forms it says and where does this world come from and Vasubandhu says it comes from no that's right but that's not what he said. Huh? I gave you a hint it's chapter four. Chapter three? No chapter four chapter three is the world chapter four is something like growing crops. The other one is the target between the bombs. There were two worlds. No that's that's case 12 of the Shoyu Roku. Anyway the answer that Vasubandhu gives you're when you

[03:23]

said mind that's right but the answer he gave was I mean it's not really right it's ultimately right. The answer he gave was action. That's where the world comes from. Karma. The world comes from karma come from action creates the world. Of course at the base of action is mind but mind itself does not create a world. That's a Buddhist teaching. What creates the world is karma. The mind is not necessarily involved in karma in action. The mind that is not involved in action does not create a world. However minds do get involved with action and then a world is created by individual and collective action. That's what Vasubandhu said. That's the you

[04:29]

know Abhidharmakosha presentation. Then in the other Tamsaka Sutra the chapter on the formation of the worlds the Buddha says the world is a consequence of action and aspiration. So we add in here that not just action but also the vows of beings and the intentions of beings together with their actions are what is responsible for this world. Now our aspirations and actions arise from our basic point of view. They arise from mind. So ultimately the world is born out of our basic attitude and basic intention. So therefore in order to transform this world

[05:33]

we must transform our attitude, our vision. Change our basic vision of the world and then the world will be changed. Maintain the vision that we already have and the world will continue to be produced along the lines that you are now witnessing and being produced according to people's view. The basic view of almost everybody is that things are substantial, that things have inherent existence. This is called the view of selfishness. This view that things inherently exist produces a world of greater or lesser amounts of misery. So what the Buddha's teaching and

[06:47]

particularly what Mahayana Buddha's teaching is about is to transform people's minds so that they completely finally renounce the cherished belief in the inherent existence of things. If they can make that transformation then at least they can begin the project of acting out a new and enlightened way of life which is a transformed world right away. So that's kind of the basic idea of how we relate to the world through, for example, the study of Mahayana Buddhism, in particular through the study of Madhyamaka, homage to Manjushri Bodhisattva.

[07:54]

So there's this thing which you heard about, it's called emptiness, which is the lack of inherent existence of all phenomena. Phenomena are what lack inherent existence and the things that lack inherent existence are phenomena. This lack of inherent existence is the heart of Mahayana Buddhism and really the heart of all Buddhism and all Buddhist practice. And in Zen everything we use, all of our practices, all of our forms, all of our

[09:02]

bodhisattvas and all of our inspirations, all of our ancestors, all their teachings, all that stuff we understand is the whole thing lacks inherent existence. So every morning we say, all phenomena are marked by emptiness, all phenomena are marked by a lack of inherent existence. It is not necessary to understand this emptiness in order to practice Buddhism to some extent. You can practice Buddhism a great long time and make tremendous good in this world without understanding emptiness. But to have the practice or the understanding

[10:06]

of the practice of Buddhism be complete, we must understand emptiness, we must realize emptiness. What about the other way around, to understand emptiness and to not practice Buddhism? Impossible. But Buddhism doesn't mean sign up for this Zen center or something like that. Buddhism means that you take refuge in Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. That's all. It has to be. Well actually, to realize emptiness you have to have the vow to save all sentient beings too. You can start to study emptiness, start to realize emptiness, work towards realizing emptiness without the vow to save all sentient beings, but you cannot accomplish it without this aspiration I propose. You must have that kind of scale of aspiration in order to realize

[11:16]

this lack of inherent existence. Yes? What's the distinction between mind when it's not capitalized and when it is? I think usually when they do the big mind with the capital thing, I think they mean basically Buddha's mind. And when they do small mind, I think they mean ordinary karmic consciousness. That's usually what it is. Mind with a capital M, I think, means a mind that's realized emptiness. It doesn't refer to consciousness? It refers to consciousness which doesn't believe in itself as having inherent existence. But the small one is the consciousness which is the one that lacks inherent existence and doesn't realize itself yet as lacking inherent existence. That's usually the way people use it.

[12:20]

But I'm not in control of the lithography and typography of this universe, so some people are not going to follow my view. In this context, could you define what inherent existence is? Well, that's good that you asked that because the first step in making this class or this study of Madhyamaka philosophy, the first step in making it a real experience for you, will be for you to become able to identify what inherent existence would be like. Inherent existence is what you're ordinarily familiar with. As a matter of fact, you're very

[13:27]

familiar with inherent existence. It's the fact that you think things are concrete. And the first step will be for us to confess to ourselves first that everything we see all day long is marked by inherent existence. In other words, we see inherent existence all over the place. Because of our speed? Because of our what? Because things sort of have a sense of continuity, they seem to continue at this moment? Well, it's because of ignorance that we do that, I mean that we see things that way. That's because of ignorance.

[14:44]

There really isn't continuity out there. But we see it that way. We see continuity of concrete things. Do you know what I'm talking about? I'm not telling you the way things are, I'm telling you, I'm telling you, can you see how you see things now? Can you admit that right now you see things as having inherent existence? Yes. It's my mental routine, and it's excellent. Right. So now what's your question? What's your answer? But you anticipated my, basically in the practical assignment, this kind of study is that first of all,

[15:54]

we have to notice that we do think things are solid and concrete and substantial. We do think that. It's built into our senses. Our senses are telling us that. They're composing concrete images to say, you know, this is our situation. Yes? It seems to me that it's more that we want things. I don't think anybody can really believe that things have inherent existence. We want things to have inherent existence. For something to be the way it is, it's a desire. I don't think anybody can truly believe that things have inherent existence. It just seems that desire kind of takes over, and we want things to be that way in kind of a cycle. Underlying reality.

[16:55]

So is it desire? Well, you can make that proposal that you think desire comes first, and then ... Well, I don't know if it comes first. It seems pretty strong. It's definitely part of the cycle. Desire is part of the cycle. But you wouldn't desire inherently existing things, if you saw them that way already. By virtue of where you want to put your finger, definitely desire is the place to put the ... That's a turning point right there. If you cannot go according to desire, you can turn the whole process around. But desire comes along after inherent existence is already believed in. There's actually something more basic than desire, namely ignorance, which believes already that there is something to desire. Okay? Yeah. Oh, you're next. In this book, he talks about the difference between inherent existence and imputed existence.

[17:59]

So, like, if you're seeing the imputed existence, the existence as a result of a cause, or because of something else, you see it, like, non-concretely? Does it look different? Imputed existence is concrete. Imputed existence, though, as a result of a cause, he says that that exists. That's the non-realistic point of view. So it is concrete? No, you think it's concrete. So it's not different from inherent existence? Inherent existence, concrete, same thing. Imputed existence, same thing? What you impute is concreteness to things. You impute that to them. Well, anyway, this is not time to get into that. Yes? Well, I was just saying, it sounded to me like when Jim was talking about desire, that he was talking...

[19:06]

There was something about permanence that was in there, that you desire things to continue. First you believe they're there, and then you desire things to continue. That's what it sounded like. I don't know, Jim, is that... Desire permanence of things that you already believe exist, is that... would that be... Like, you think you're you, and you think this is a hat, and you want it to continue so your head will stay moving. So the desire is not for this hat to have an existence, but you already assume it has an existence and you want it to continue. Anyhow, that's what it sounded like. I think that I'm not going to receive any questions for a little while. I'm going to give you some more stuff before you start asking questions. Before I call on you, anyway. There's four schools in Buddhism, basically.

[20:10]

One is called the Vaibhashika. Another one is called the Sautrantika. Another one is called the Yogacara. And the other one is called Madhyamaka. I don't know if I should write these down on the board or not. What do you think? Should I do that kind of thing? Tom? Okay. So, these are the four schools, and nobody seems to be arguing too much that there's much other besides these four. Almost all the Buddhist tenets fall in these four categories. The first two, the Vaibhashika and the Sautrantika, are what are called the Yogacara. One is called Hinayana. The other two are what are called Mahayana. Yogacara and Madhyamaka.

[21:16]

Some number of years ago, there was a kind of concern to not be impolite to Theravadan Buddhists by using the term Hinayana. And the word Hinayana does not refer to Theravada Buddhists. The word Hinayana basically describes, is referring to the Buddhists whose orientation is primarily from the point of view of being. And the Mahayana people are those who are primarily approaching practice from the point of view of non-being. It's talking about lesser and great, but it's not so much a matter of one has a narrow and the other has a wide view. It's more that one is looking at life from the point of view of existence, and the other is looking at it from the point of view of non-existence.

[22:21]

That they're actually in different dimensions, rather than one's bigger than the other one. And there are Buddhist schools who take the point of view of being. And the ones that take the point of view of being are the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika. A slash over S makes it like a SH. Is it AI? At the beginning, yes. Vaibhashika comes from a word which is Vibhasha.

[23:35]

There is a very large compendium of Buddhist philosophy called the Mahavibhasha. And the people of the Vibhasha, in Sanskrit when you want to say somebody who is of something, you put an A after the first syllable. So the people of the Vibhasha are the Vaibhashika. This text is a compendium of Abhidharma scholarship. So that's one school. Sautrantika is also a Hinayana school orienting towards being, the existence of things. And it's from the word Sutra. So those of the Sutra are Sautras. So Sautrantika. One of the main doctrines of the Vaibhashika school is what's called ...

[24:47]

They're sometimes also called the Sarvastivadins. Sarva all asti. Sarva asti. All, all, asti, exist. It's a school of all existence or a school of how all things exist. And the other two schools, the Mahayana schools are Yogachara. Yogachara. Or you could also call them the Vijnapti. They're also called Vijnapti. Vijnapti Matra, as in Vijnapti Matra City.

[25:52]

Yogachara means basically practicing yoga. And Vijnapti Matra means just consciousness or mere consciousness. And the other school is called Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka means middle, so it's those practicing the middle way. This school, Yogachara was ... You know, the people who get credit for founding it are Vasubandhu and Asanga. The Madhyamaka was founded by Nagarjuna. So these two schools do not uphold the Sarvastivada attitude.

[26:58]

They do not uphold that all things exist. In effect, what they're upholding is that all things lack inherent existence. Both of these schools are from the point of view of emptiness. Logically speaking, Yogachara would come first and then Madhyamaka. But actually, historically speaking, first was Madhyamaka and then was Yogachara. Madhyamaka was a teaching which used the fact or the teaching that things lack inherent existence. It used that teaching to clarify the true nature of existence. It used the teaching of emptiness to clarify the basic Buddhist teaching which all these schools uphold. The basic Buddhist teaching of dependent co-arising.

[28:02]

That's basically it. And that would be the main thing we'll get into first, is to talk about how the Madhyamaka was primarily concerned with clarifying what conditioned or dependent co-arising is. The night that Buddha was awakened, the content of his meditation was the cycle of conditioned co-production. That's what he was meditating on. Could you repeat that? The cycle of? The cycle of. I won't even say cycle, I'll just say he was meditating on dependent co-arising,

[29:12]

which we will now on quite often write like this. DCA, dependent co-arising. Dependent co-arising was in Buddha's heart at the night of awakening, and dependent co-arising goes through all these schools. All of them have at the most fundamental Buddhist teaching is dependent co-arising. This teaching is the teaching which comes from the wonderful mind of enlightenment of the Buddha. That's the teaching that Buddha gave as directly an expression of the awakened mind.

[30:18]

However, after Buddha's life and many years of practice of his way, these two schools developed a way of teaching it, which became finally somewhat rigid, and lost for Buddhism some of the wonder, some of the primitive wonder of the Buddha's way. And the Madhyamaka came along to resurrect the wonder of this teaching of dependent co-arising. And the key for unlocking that wonder and revitalizing or resurrecting the true life of this teaching,

[31:38]

the key to it was emptiness, realization of emptiness. So, I guess my plan at this point is to say a little bit more about emptiness, just a little bit, and then get into the Madhyamaka teaching about conditioned or dependent co-arising. So, the Mahayana view of emptiness,

[32:54]

which Nagarjuna, who as you know is in our lineage. We Zen people consider him to be our ancestor, one of our pioneers. He gave this teaching as what he felt was the deepest intention of Shakyamuni Buddha. And this teaching which he gave to express his realization of Shakyamuni Buddha's most basic intention, is the basis of the transformational psychology of Vasubandhu, as expressed in the 30 verses. It's also the basis of what we call the Zen school.

[33:58]

And it is the basis of all Mahayana schools. He's considered as a patriarch in all Mahayana schools, and he is considered the founder of eight schools of Buddhist thought. And also, all Buddhist doctrinal developments after him come from him. Even the Theravada or Hinayana doctrinal developments all have to go back to him. So, all of Buddhism sort of comes together around Nagarjuna. It sort of like forms a kind of a knot there. All the different lineages sort of converge, have to deal with him, and then go out again. So, as I mentioned earlier, I not only want to have a study and realize intellectually about emptiness,

[35:22]

but I actually hope that we can have a realization of emptiness in our lives. Okay, now I would like to say again something about this inherent existence. That it is not something that Buddhist scholars have somehow imported into our lives by their philosophical system. What we're talking about here is our ordinary way that things exist. Inherent existence is referring to whatever ordinary way you think things exist. And I, for one, will say that I ordinarily think things concretely exist in and of themselves.

[36:32]

Like I look at that post there, and I mainly look at that post as this post, not as that post in relationship to all of you. My primary agenda with that post is the post as a post by itself. And I think it's solid and concrete. And I know it's made of various parts. If I think about it, if somebody tells me about it, I know it's made of various parts, I know it's caused by many things. But mostly I'm relating to it as how it is somehow covering all its parts. So the emptiness which you're trying to realize is the lack of inherent existence of people, plants, and all physical things.

[37:38]

Concepts. And concepts, yes. Concepts. This concrete mode of being may appear in various ways. We may think it's ugly or beautiful. But I'm proposing that there's another mode. A mode of non-being with which the real life of everything is revealed. And when I wrote that, somehow this poem came to mind. It's a poem written by a father to his son. But I feel like the reason why I thought of it then was because it could also be written by a human being written to emptiness.

[38:55]

Because the real heart of each person we know, the thing that really is most important about everything we meet is its lack of inherent existence. And it is that to which, just like with a person, just like with a son or a daughter, what is most wonderful about them is what we most are worried about hurting. And in fact, the most wonderful thing about everything that we are usually guilty of hurting is its emptiness. So this poem is called a father's poem, but it could also be called a meditator's poem, particularly a Buddhist meditator.

[40:14]

This is a poem to my son, Peter, who I have hurt a thousand times. Whose large and vulnerable eyes have gazed in pain at my ragings. Thin wrists and fingers hung in boneless despair. Pale and freckled back bent in defeat. Pillows soaked by my failure to understand.

[41:20]

I have scarred through weakness and impatience your frail confidence forever. Because when I needed to be strict, you were there to be hurt. And because I thought you knew that you were beautiful and fair, your bright eyes and hair. But now I see that anything can be killed after a while, especially beauty. So I write this poem for life, for love, and to you, my son, Peter.

[42:31]

Age 10 going on 11. This is a poem about how we treat our children. It's a poem about how we treat our students. It's a poem about how we treat our teachers. But deep down it's a poem about how we treat emptiness. And I propose that if we would stop treating emptiness like that, we would gradually stop treating our children like that. And I also propose that if we treat emptiness like that, it's pretty hard not to treat people like that. Because the way you treat emptiness is the way you're going to treat people.

[43:36]

Because people are empty. That's their heart. And so are trees, and so are rocks, and so is garbage. And if we're impatient and weak, we don't understand. And if we're greedy and so on, we won't be able to dedicate ourselves to look to the real heart of things, which is their emptiness, their wondrous being, their lack of inherent existence. So I feel we must sing to each other and to ourselves that all dharmas are marked by emptiness. This is our theme song. And also, that emptiness is dependent co-arising.

[44:53]

And dependent co-arising is emptiness. I thought you knew you were dependently co-arisen. I thought you knew you were empty. But now I see. This is the rest of the poem. I forgot. But now I see. I thought you knew you were beautiful and fair, your bright eyes and hair. I thought you knew you were beautiful and fair. But now I see that no one knows that about himself, but must be told and retold until it takes hold. I thought you knew you were empty. I thought you knew that you were dependently co-arisen.

[45:57]

But now I see that nobody knows that about herself, but must be told and retold until it takes hold. We need to tell ourselves, and again and again until it takes hold, that we are empty. That we are dependently co-produced. And that what we do is extremely important, but what happens is dependently co-produced. Like Joaquin's story about pouring wax into the sink. But now I see that no one knows that about herself, but must be told and retold. Emptiness and conditioned co-production takes hold. I have to find a way to go over and [...] over in all the millions of different ways until it takes hold.

[47:09]

So I ask you to bring forth as much as you can of faith and love and respect to listen to this teaching of the gentle Buddhas. Which is not so easy to listen to in certain ways, because we have to go over the same thing again and again and again. The same boring story that you're beautiful, that you're empty, again and again until it takes hold. And also it's difficult to listen to because it is actually awesome. Because it implies a radical reversal of the way you see the world. So it's scary too. It's boring and scary. It's boring until you've listened to it so much that it starts to get scary. The reward for sitting through your boredom will be scary. So first you have to be patient with this stuff and then you have to be courageous with it.

[48:19]

And when you need courage to face this stuff you're getting very successful. If you're already scared, that's good. You're already into it. Another thing which Zen students sometimes have an aversion to is a reasoned discourse. Reasoning. To some extent we have to reason with ourselves about this emptiness thing. Because we have reasoned ourselves into believing that things have inherent existence, we now need a set of reasonings to counterbalance our reasons. Every morning we get up there and we recite reasons for emptiness.

[49:23]

But there's more reasons that we need in order to make that sutra really come alive for us and become something more than a devotional exercise. It requires devotion, but it needs more than that. So the reasoning that we need to go through around emptiness not only establishes in reasoning that things lack inherent existence, but it is actually the content of the meditation. Buddhist yogis need a reasoned discourse to sit with them. That actually constitutes the subject of their meditation. Because they're not just meditating on empirical phenomena.

[50:32]

They're not just meditating on empirical experience. They're meditating on the emptiness of the empirical experience. They're meditating on the identity of dependently co-produced being and emptiness. This is what Buddhist yogis are working with. And I think I agree with the observation that after Buddha was awakened and after he was encouraged to teach, the way he talked, first of all, the way he talked was by talking. He talked by talking, first of all, as far as people were concerned. He was actually teaching before he started talking,

[51:36]

but people didn't get much out of that. I mean, they got excited about it, apparently, but they didn't know exactly what it meant. They couldn't get a foothold. So he started to speak, and if you look at the way he spoke, he spoke about truth. He started talking about Sophie. Sophia. In other words, he sounded like a philosopher, and he had a reasoned discourse, which he gave out right away. So... So what we need to do, first of all, is to identify

[52:45]

that although we've heard from physics that all the things we see are actually not solid objects, but mostly space, to not start there, but to start with the fact that we think that what is space is mostly solid objects, to admit that what we've heard is space we think is solid. Admit that, be honest, and then apply this reasoning that it's space to it, and see if you can then have the spaciousness of all phenomena revealed to you. And as Linda said to me one time, she saw at some point that what seems to be space...

[53:49]

Can I say this? That what seems to be space is actually full of things. So, first of all, we see that what is space... We don't see that, but first of all, we misconstrue space as things, and then later we see things as space, and then we see that the space is full of things. But that particular sequence is different than not even seeing the space anyplace in the first place. So, again, I want to make very clear from the beginning that the teaching of emptiness, what it eradicates does not eradicate being or existence. It eradicates the inherent existence of existence.

[54:51]

That's what it eradicates. And by doing that, it reveals how wonderful existence really is. Namely, that it's spacious, and that spaciousness is jam-packed. And all the stuff it's jam-packed full of are totally spacious. That's what we mean by, in every dust mote, there are infinite number of Buddhas. In every dust mote, there's tremendous spaciousness, and that spaciousness is full of Buddhas, and those Buddhas are full of spaciousness. Infinite spaciousness, and so on. So, whether this class is just abstract philosophy,

[56:05]

or whether it becomes relevant to your everyday life, will depend on each of us realizing a sense of what inherent existence is. Of what inherent existence is. We need to realize what that is. And then, we need to be able to see that everything we perceive is marked by this inherent existence. Which, by the way, referring to the 30 verses, that that kind of marking of every experience by inherent existence is what's called parikalpita, or pure mental fabrication. That everything that we experience, we impute this inherent existence to.

[57:09]

You need to start with confession. Confessing that you do that. Just, you know, every experience you have is an opportunity to confess that you are attributing inherent existence to things. You don't have to do anything special to do that. You just need to admit what you're already doing. So, I guess I'll just stop for a second and ask myself, would I be willing to, you know, basically devote myself to such a kind of confession? And then repentance. Repentance would mean a vow that I will realize the lack of inherent existence of all things.

[58:10]

You don't usually say our vows that way, but when you say, dharmas are boundless, I vow to enter them, that's one way to understand it, you're saying, I vow to realize the lack of inherent existence of all things. And I'm willing to do the dirt work, or the grunt work, of admitting that I'm always imputing inherent existence to things. Yeah. Yeah. It seems to me that it's necessary to impute inherent existence to some things in order to operate in the world. It seems to you that it's necessary to impute inherent existence to things in order to operate in the world? That's true? In order for me to sit here and listen to you, I have to realize the perturbations in the air that your voice makes.

[59:21]

In order to get out of the room, I have to assume the door will open. Can you hear what he said? He said, it seems that it's necessary to impute inherent existence to things in order to operate in the world. But I would say to you that it's necessary to impute inherent existence to things even if you don't operate in the world, even if you're totally non-functional. If you're just lying in your bed, not doing anything, not opening any doors even, not calling on a job, not even noticing the sounds in the room or something, you still, it's necessary as a human being that you do that, because it's built in. Right, I agree. It's more basic than that. It's not something we desire necessarily or anything else, it's built into the central system. It is necessary, basically necessary, and that's also what is being shown in 30 Verses, it's showing the development of how built in this process of development of this is.

[60:26]

However, this idea that it's necessary in order to operate in the world, it may be necessary, but it is also possible to completely reverse your whole point of view and to start seeing and realizing that things lack inherent existence and operate in the world in a much more happy way. Still being able to find the door. Still being able to find the door, but not find the door the same way as you used to. It's going to be more difficult to find the door now. That doesn't sound like the middle way. The middle way doesn't sound like the middle way. Oh. So you guys want to talk now? Yes. I'm not done, but I'll stop. You've been patient. It seems to me like, I think that the only way to really be harmonious...

[61:29]

Can you hear her? No. I think maybe you have to talk for them. I'll hear you. I was thinking that, I think that the only way to be harmonious could be to realize emptiness, so you can really be... Mm-hmm. The only way to be completely harmonious, to complete the practice of harmony, is to realize emptiness. That's the proposal of Mahayana Buddhism, that you will not be able to really realize peace and harmony in the world unless you realize emptiness. Otherwise you'll always be operating on a false ground. And just, you know, it's a matter of time until the situation is going to arise and you're going to grasp it, and it's on for a loop. Yes? Is the middle way realizing emptiness,

[62:29]

or is the middle way, samdopaya, is the middle way the merging of... The middle way is the realization that emptiness and dependent co-origination are identical. The identity of dependent co-arising, the identity of dependently co-arisen being, that's us, right? We are dependently co-arisen beings. The identity of this dependently co-arisen being, without attributing inherent existence to it, that's the middle way. Or the identity of not attributing inherent existence to things. In other words, emptiness and dependently co-produced being. Those two together are the middle way, which is samdopaya. Yes? I have a...

[63:31]

Before I get to the substance of what I wanted to say, I just wanted to say that I sort of appreciate you talking and us reserving comments or questions when you feel like you've come to a stopping point. In that light, I would be glad to lay off the substance of what I have to say, if you've got more to say. I have more to say, but I think the way these classes should go is that I should just put stuff out for a while, and then you should talk. Because if you ask me right away, I'll never get the stuff out there. There's a certain amount of imperial which you're not going to be... which I don't think is going to come out unless I just present for part of the class. So I'd like to make the classes that way, to present for a while and then have questions. Because questions... It's nice. I'm glad that questions come up immediately. But sometimes I'll answer your questions by what I'm about to say. I'm ready to stop presenting

[64:33]

and have questions and answers for a while. So... What? My question is, is it a useful exercise, or a useful... not exercise, but a useful practice to... even if we don't fully see it that way yet, to go around assigning a lack of inherent... treating things as if we see a lack of inherent existence. No. That would be... That would be an example of where you should admit that what that was is... that is attributing inherent existence, that particular thing you just thought of. That's another example of where he tried to do something which wouldn't be that and actually it turned into that again. Okay? So that's... So what I'm saying to you is, rather than go around trying to attribute lack of inherent existence of things, why don't you admit that you don't do that? Admit that you do the other way,

[65:33]

that you're attributing inherent existence of things all the time. Okay? Find that first. Commit yourself to confessing that. To go around and... That is the way to sing... To go around and sing all things lack... or all things are marked by emptiness. Tell yourself that. That's fine. Okay? To remind yourself of that all the time. But the actual exercise is to say that even while I'm saying this, I'm always, in every experience, attributing inherent existence to every syllable that I make when I say all things are marked by emptiness, right along every moment of the way I'm attributing inherent existence throughout that sentence. So first of all, admit... First of all, we have to be honest. That honesty will lead us to realize what inherent... lack of inherent existence is, rather than us trying to say things are. This will empty... This will naturally empty out things for us. That is...

[66:35]

That's what I would suggest, is you start to... identify that objects appear as if they exist in themselves. First, the pivot of realizing emptiness and generation of this kind of wisdom is to identify that objects appear as if they exist. So if you say the sentence, all dharmas are marked by emptiness, all is an object, or all, all, those several objects there, each one of those objects appear as if they existed in and of themselves. Try to identify that that's the way you feel about that sentence. That's what I'm saying first. If you can do that all the time, then you've started to meditate on emptiness. That's what I suggest. Pivot, the place where you start to turn. This attitude, this identification is a reversal in the way we operate. Okay?

[67:37]

It is a reversal. You are already starting to turn around, you are renouncing your ordinary way of thinking. Ordinarily you go around and you do it, okay? But you just do it. You do not, and you just go along with it. Now we're saying, you're not just going to go along with it, you're going to now start to say, I'm doing it. I'm attributing substance to stuff. Okay? One hearty comment from the kitchen. Yeah. Well, I just, it's really, I think what you're saying, what you're saying, that I just, you're not simply talking about acknowledging it intellectually, you're talking about noticing it constantly and making that a practice. Yeah, and you can notice this because this is something which is happening phenomenologically and you actually, this is being, this is something that's being. Actually get into it, but also notice that you will, this will be an actual change in the way you conduct your life. Because you don't ordinarily admit this.

[68:39]

You enjoy the world which you're imagining exists and you're also having problems with it, it's sometimes beautiful and so on, but you usually don't admit what you're up to. You don't admit this activity of mind which you're involved in. That's what I'm suggesting will be the first turning point towards actual practice of emptiness will be to admit that you are not marking things by emptiness, but that you're marking things which are marked by emptiness with non-emptiness. You mark empty things with non-emptiness. You're putting labels on this exists independently of itself. You do that all the time. I do it all the time. Everybody does it all the time, all the time. Admit it as much as you can. Yes. I think Plutarch's practice was to treat every little object with love. So you have a point about that. Treat every little object with love, every little touch. Yeah, that's another way you could do it. Yes. Do we know the realization of it?

[69:44]

I said, do we know the realization of emptiness? No, you do not know the realization of emptiness. You don't need to know it because it's been realized. It is not the object of knowledge. It's not an object. Realization of emptiness is non-dual. This is non-dual meditation. Okay? It's not an object of knowledge. However, it is realized. When it's realized, you stop being cruel to things. Yes. Earlier, when you and Jim were having a chat in the lab, what came up to me was the difference between saying cleaning two of the five skull nodes is suffering and cleaning all the five skull nodes is suffering. Excuse me, did you say Jim? Sorry, David. My question is

[70:46]

are we biochemically set up to just operate this way? And is our intention coming from our emptiness being so that it allows us to clear ourselves from that situation? I think, yes, we are biochemically wired or whatever to operate this way. And we should understand that we are and see how that's so. And it is our true nature, our Buddha nature, which is pushing us to realize this because it wants to realize itself. This is the... You know, Buddha nature is what somehow produced the teaching which came to me and it's my Buddha nature which is resonating with that which causes me to utter these words to you and encourage you

[71:46]

and exhort you to actually enter into this practice which will start to actually reverse certain tendencies which are built in or send them in a direction because there are two kinds of conditioned co-production, two kinds of dependent co-arising. One kind is the kind of dependently co-arisen, you know, transmigratory birth and death. That's co-arisen too. But also, there's another kind of dependently co-arisen being. That's a dependently co-arisen being of suchness. That's a dependently co-arisen being of Buddha nature. They're both dependently co-arisen. One includes the realization of the emptiness of the process of dependent co-origination. The other does not include the realization of emptiness. So, we're meditating on dependently co-arisen being and the beginning of the course is to say, start to notice that in this dependently co-arisen being

[72:50]

there is the imputation of inherent existence. In other words, this is the realm of birth and death. You are in samsara. Being in samsara means that you attribute substance to every element in this process. Being in nirvana means that you're no longer believing in the inherent existence of the being which is dependently co-produced. But you have to admit that you're in samsara first and being in samsara, the key element in being in samsara is this belief in inherent existence. That's the thing that makes samsara work. Can you explain again that... Huh? That... I'll do it a thousand times. This is what I mean by imputation because I have to go over this, over this again and again in many, many different ways until it takes hold and you can do it when you're walking around.

[73:51]

This is part of, you know, what Zen people have to learn how to do is to have this in your system so that you actually have this reasoning in you and you have this reasoning going in your yoga all the time. You do it over and over until you get it right so that actually it doesn't slip out of your hand, it doesn't slip, you can say it right and you know that there are different kinds of conditioned co-production and emptiness is identical with them. You need to learn that. Yes? Yeah, I had a question about the yoga practice. And I don't, actually, I don't even have the language for the question, but just to have an experience or to experience dependent co-arising, it's already necessary to experience emptiness or to have a deep emptiness, isn't it? Because

[74:52]

No. It isn't? No, because there's two kinds of dependent co-origination. One kind is a dependent co-origination which is birth and death. Right, but to experience the wholeness of it, to have a feeling for the wholeness of it. Oh, no, of course not. You have to be open to something which isn't normal. Yeah, if you're talking about the wholeness, well then, that qualifying, then the wholeness of it, the wholeness of it is that it's empty. So, I don't understand then, you know, in the four schools of Buddhism, why the Vaisakas and Satrantakas are called the Hinayana and we're called the Mahayana, if their practices which acknowledge and are based on dependent co-arising don't actually include the same experience in our schools. I'm sorry, the kitchen's gone,

[75:52]

but anyway, the Buddha taught dependent co-arising, right? That was the content of his mind, of his awakened mind. But the dependent co-arising that the Buddha taught was the dependent co-arising of reality, of Dharmata, then later these other people got into teaching the dependent co-origination of Dharmas, of things, and they said that those things exist. First of all, Buddha, okay, Buddha taught the BCA of Dharmata. Dharmata. That's what Buddha taught. He is the teacher of the dependently co-arisen nature of reality,

[76:53]

Dharmata, that's what he taught. Then these two schools finally got into teaching the dependent co-arising of Dharmas, excuse me, of Dharma, of reality factors. Excuse me. In terms of phenomena? Yeah, phenomena, like, you know, the 72 Dharmas of the Vaibhashikas, and so on, the 75 Dharmas of the Vaibhashikas, that's what they taught, okay? The Madhyamaka then goes back to revive Buddha's original teaching, which is that dependent co-arising is actually dependent co-arising about reality. All these schools have teaching of dependent co-arising, but these schools, according to the later schools, lost the original point of the Buddha,

[77:53]

and they got into their own scholastic presentation of it, and lost the real wonder, ungraspable, vastness of Buddha's mind. They had developed a tremendous philosophical system, so beautiful that, you know, you just have to be awestruck by it, and I was thinking when I was preparing for this class that I spent many years learning these systems, learning the system of dependent co-arising of Dharmas, and what these Dharmas are. And I thought that when I was, after I graduated from college and graduate school, my brother was going to go to college, and I said, you don't have to go to college. And he said, well, I have to go to realize that you're right. So he went to college, and after he was done, he said, you're right. I didn't have to go. But, I can say to you too, now that I've studied Dharma for 22 years,

[78:55]

I can say, you don't have to study this stuff. In a way. But actually, I won't say that. Because actually, it is useful to study it because you understand better why these people are doing what they're doing. If it weren't for these people, these people wouldn't have to say anything. Buddha's teaching would just be left alone. They had to resuscitate it. And, they had, in order to demonstrate that these people had lost the original meaning of the dependent co-arising of reality, they had to connect dependent co-arising with emptiness. Which showed, and these people did not do that. They said these Dharmas, which were produced this way, were not, they didn't say they were empty. Now they said, of course, all Dharmas are marked with selflessness and so on and so forth. But they did not emphasize emptiness. So that's why they used emptiness, the Madhyamaka people

[79:56]

used emptiness to return to the, to clarify the fundamental teaching of Buddha about the fundamental teaching of Buddha. I, I just, I just want to check that you said that they didn't teach that. Are you sure any place in the Abhidharma collection, there isn't a single place that says that Dharmas don't have own being? Yeah, I'm sure. Although, I agree with the theory that Vasubandhu wrote the Abhidharmakosha and the Vijnapti mantra at the city, I kind of see him starting to become a Mahayana, but he does not say Dharmas, not even, didn't even mention one. He does say that a lot of the stuff, he does say that a lot of the stuff in the Abhidharma is what they call Prajnapati. Prajnapati means a kind of a discourse

[80:59]

or a designation having recourse. So, in other words, what appears, what's produced by dependent co-arising are designations which are not really things in themselves. They're just set up for convenience. And in Abhidharma, when certain arguments pressed as to the meaning, when the Satrantika people pressed the Vaibhashika people in the Abhidharmakosha as to what these Dharmas were, these Vaibhashika people sometimes would collapse and say, well, actually, we just do this to make our system work. And the Satrantika people would say, and in fact, a lot of these Dharmas are just Prajnapati, are just just sort of set-ups to make things

[82:02]

understandable. Okay? And these people are saying, the Madhyamaka people are saying, all Dharmas are really just set-ups. And even everything produced by this process and the process itself is just a designation and that's what the Vijnapti Matrata is saying too. It's all just designation. That's Parikalpita, mere mental fabrication, just designation. And so in Abhidharmakosha you see them starting to say, throw this word Prajnapati around as Vasubandhu is sort of saying, this is just Prajnapati, this is just Prajnapati. So he's verging on this in the Abhidharmakosha but he doesn't say, by the way, these Dharmas are empty. Even though the Prajnapani literature has already been published at that time

[83:03]

and he may have read it, I don't know. I think, I don't want to get too far ahead of the kitchen so I'll stop with Blanche's questions since she's leaving. By the way, Blanche, thanks for coming. And thank you, Vicky, for coming. They're going to leave right now. That distinction between not-self or lack of self and lack of own being. Well, lack of own being is basically the same as lack of self. It's just that it's pushed all the way to the end of the universe. So there's two, there's basically two kinds like in, remember your lecture? The two-fold depravity? Okay? So the first depravity is belief in the inherent existence of a person. Belief in the selfhood of a person. So you can use inherent existence and selfhood the same

[84:04]

for a person. Okay? And then also belief in the selfhood of phenomena. Okay? So the emptiness of self and the emptiness of phenomena. So in fact, you can use selfhood for, selfhood is an example of inherent existence. Selfhood of a person. But so if, if the Vaibhashikas and Sautrantikas were saying that the dharmas were marked by non-self, you know, that still, that still not going as far as saying lack of inherent existence, that the dharmas lack inherent existence. And they still, they still were saying that these things existed. They still were saying that. And by the way, it's also important to remember that if these people were the asti people, okay, it does not mean

[85:05]

that these people are the way to call nasty people. You know, asti means exist. There's astivada, sarvastivada. The vada means path, astivada. These are the astivada, sarvastivada. Okay? All asti, all asti path. Okay? But these people are not the nastivada. That's, that's the other, that would make them not the middle way. The middle way was between the two. If they would say that, if they would go over to the nastivada, that would be nihilism. But they weren't nastivada. They were, they were, yes, they were nasti. They were saying these things don't exist, but they were also saying that this nasti, this lack of existence is the same as co-dependently produced being. That's why they weren't just

[86:07]

totally just negative, totally just no inherent existence, no inherent existence. They were no inherent existence, but there were no inherent existence and they were saying that's exactly the same as this dependently produced experience. That's the same, it's identity. That's why it's the middle. So you can't look at emptiness directly without treating it as something. That's right. Like, use the example of you can't have, you can't swim in a swimming pool that doesn't have any water in it. You know? You can't, you can't practice emptiness without dependently co-produced being all around it. Because emptiness is always about co-dependently produced being. Emptiness shows the true nature of, emptiness is to clarify what dependently co-produced being is. Just like emptiness

[87:10]

is to help you see that everything, the table, the people, the ceilings, the sky, the mountains, to help you see that all that is just vast space. That's what emptiness is. And then, after you see it's a vast space, then to see that the vast space is full of stuff. And the stuff is full of vast space and the vast space is full of stuff. It's to open your eyes to the way things actually are. So the beginning of the practice is to realize that basically your, all the time your senses and your habits and your opinions and your beliefs are to go around and say space is a thing. You know. Inherent existence, I now, I'm impatient with it. You know. I don't understand it. Therefore, I want to get you guys in line and be a thing. Be a thing. Be a mensch. Be a big boy. Stand up. Get to work. You know. And you,

[88:11]

and again, the world is beautiful so you think you can treat it that way. Well if you do, you'll kill it. So now let's, let's start our remedial course and admit first of all that we go around and identify the tendency of mind to make things into things that exist by themselves. Start this massive confession program as the beginning of turning around to start doing meditation on emptiness. Which is applied always to what? What is the subject of the meditation of emptiness? Unemptiness? Conditioned, co-produced existence. Dependently co-arisen being is what this confession is applied to. So far we don't see

[89:13]

as emptiness. But we have to admit where we are first. Does the renunciation that you're talking about come after the confession? No. The confession is renunciation. Well, no. There's, maybe the renunciation is, but just to confess is a kind of renunciation because you're giving up, instead of just going around the world enjoying what your mind habits are, you're actually adopting, you're taking on this additional responsibility which is a kind of renunciation of being the person who didn't do that. You're renouncing being not a yogi. You're renouncing your irresponsible childhood. Yes. Don't you think it's possible that in the first high schools that emptiness was understood? Why talk about it? Yeah. There's always that possibility

[90:14]

that they understood it. then why did they talk about the way they did? Why did they... But it's possible that they, like, I was talking to less than ten people about the fact that until recently the idea in science was that in order to have an objective knowledge you had to separate the observer from the knowledge. Okay, that was the, that was the, what do you call it, the school, that was the face of the science institution. Okay. But actually, according to certain scientists, they didn't really, they just, they listened to that and they knew the school was a school policy, but they didn't do that. They knew that they had to take into account the observer. Now, these days, people are, now most people, or many people anyway, are agreeing that to have objective knowledge means that you, you include the fact that there's a person involved in it, that there's passion

[91:14]

involved in knowledge, that knowledge has personal involvement. And unless you admit that personal involvement, the knowledge is not objective, because you're denying something that people automatically do. Okay. That's the Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is to say, yes, we got to admit we're involved, we're putting something onto this stuff. But it's possible these people, all of them were sitting back there, they knew everything was empty, they knew that, and also they knew that they were attributing inherent existence to these things, which the school said, yes, they do have inherent existence, and the people knew that they were the ones who made it be there. They knew that, and they just let the school go along saying this, and successive generations when they got this teaching said, you know, they said, this is the teaching, but actually it's not, we're just kidding. And they always told them, they always give them that disclaimer, you know. There are things like that, like in Zen monasteries too, they say, well, yeah, yeah, they serve the abbot last, but that means that you don't take seconds,

[92:15]

and we give you snacks later. That's what that means. Because if you actually take seconds, and they're serving the abbot second, that makes the meals an hour and a half long. So, yes, we serve the abbot second, and we're going along with the traditional way, but don't take seconds because that makes the meal longer, and we'll give you some food later. That's what you call a scuttlebutt. Maybe there was a major scuttlebutt program going on among the Indiana people, and 95 percent of them understood it, and they told the new people too. But it's hard to keep a program up like that, because sometimes you slip, and you get a lot of new recruits, and you don't tell them the new recruits. Some of the new recruits don't get that information that actually this is just all progenapted, and they start to believe that these things and so on and so forth, and then they start writing treatises on it and so on. So, I don't know. It's possible, though. It's always possible that actually they just affront, and they read it and believe this stuff. Well, it just seems that if you really did the practices, if you really did the practices, did what practices? Practices of the two schools.

[93:17]

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, Mahayana says that that if you if you keep working on these things long enough, you'll find out they don't work, and you'll naturally overflow into Mahayana. As a matter of fact, a lot of people did that, right?

[93:29]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ