In the Abhidharmakosha, Chapter 4, at the beginning it says, referring back to Chapter 3, which is called The World of 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. 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,

[01:04]

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, 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. 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,

[02:18]

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 reason for emptiness. 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,

[03:25]

but it is actually the content of the meditation. It's actually yogis, 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. 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

[04:36]

that after Buddha was awakened and after he was encouraged to teach, the way he talked, first of all, the way he taught was by talking. He taught by talking, first of all, as far as people were concerned. He was actually teaching before he started talking, 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

[05:53]

what we need to do, first of all, is to identify 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 is space to it, and see if you can then have the spaciousness of all phenomena revealed to you. As Linda said to me one time, she saw at some point that what seemed to be space ... Can I say

[07:11]

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. That's what it eradicates. And by doing that, it reveals how wonderful existence really is,

[08:17]

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 moat, there are infinite number of Buddhas. In every dust moat, there's tremendous spaciousness, and that spaciousness is full of Buddhas, and those Buddhas are full of spaciousness, and that spaciousness and so on. So, whether this class is just abstract philosophy, or whether it becomes relevant

[09:25]

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. You need to start with confession. Confessing that you do that.

[10:32]

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 basically devote myself to such a kind of confession? And then, repentance. Repentance would mean avow that I will realize the lack of inherent existence of all things. You don't usually say our vows that way, but when you say dharmas are boundless, I vow to enter

[11:39]

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. 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 in order to operate in the world? No. In order for me to sit here and listen to you, I have to realize the perturbations in the air that your voice makes. In order to get out of the room, I have to assume the door will open.

[12:42]

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 holding 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 is showing the development of how built in this process of development of this is. However, this idea that it's necessary in order to operate in the world, it may be necessary but it is also possible.

[13:49]

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 a little bit 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. So you guys want to talk now? 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 ... Can you hear her? I think maybe you have to talk for them. I was thinking that I think that the only way to be harmonious could be to realize emptiness.

[15:00]

So you can really be harmonious. 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. It's just 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 or is the middle way emerging? 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?

[16:10]

We are dependently co-arisen being. 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 Sandokai. Yes? 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. Especially when you feel like you've come to a stopping point. 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.

[17:16]

Because if you ask me right away I'll never get the stuff out there and there's a certain amount of material 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 and then we can go into it. If this is a good... I'm ready to stop presenting and have questions and answers for a while. 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 endurance. Treating things as if we see a lack of inherent existence. No. 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.

[18:28]

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 what I'm saying to you is, rather than go around trying to attribute lack of inherent existence to things, why don't you admit that you don't do that? Admit that you do the other way, that you're attributing inherent existence to 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.

[19:31]

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'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, 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.

[20:33]

That's what I would suggest. Pivot, the place where you start to turn. This attitude, this identification is a reversal in the way we operate. 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, 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. One parting comment from the kitchen. I just realized what you're saying. You're not simply talking about acknowledging it intellectually, you're talking about noticing it constantly and making that a practice. And you can notice this because this is something which is happening phenomenologically, and this is being, this is something that's being.

[21:39]

Actually get into it, but also notice that this will be an actual change in the way you conduct your life. Because you don't ordinarily admit this. 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 mine 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. Admit it, as much as you can. I think your kind of practice was to treat every little object with love. So you had a point about that. Treat every little object with love, every little touch.

[22:43]

Yeah, that's another way you could do it. Yes? Do we know the realization of emptiness? 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 is 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. And once realized, you stop being cruel to things. Yes? Earlier, when you were teaching me to have a second life, what came up for me was the difference between, say, cleaning two of my personas with suffering, and cleaning other five personas with suffering.

[23:46]

Excuse me, did you say gym? Sorry, diving. My question is, 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... Buddha nature is what somehow produced the teaching which came to me,

[24:46]

and it's my Buddha nature which is resonating with that, which causes me to utter these words to you, and encourage you, 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 the dependently co-arisen being of suchness. That's the dependently co-arisen being of Buddha nature. They're both dependently co-arisen. One includes the realization of the emptiness, the process of dependent co-arisenation. The other does not include the realization of emptiness. So, we're meditating on dependently co-arisen being,

[25:50]

and the beginning of the course is to say, start to notice that in this dependently co-arisen being, 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... 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

[26:53]

until it takes hold and you can do it when you're walking around. This is part of 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 go over it and over it until you get it right so that it actually doesn't slip out of your hand. 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. Yeah. 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 focus on emptiness, isn't it?

[27:57]

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, now, of course, then... I mean, 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 identical. So, I don't understand, then, you know, in the four schools of Buddhism, why the Vaisakhas and Santrantakas 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 us. I'm sorry the kitchen's drawn, but anyway...

[29:00]

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. And later, these other people got into teaching the dependent co-arising of dharmas, of things, and they said that those things exist. First of all, Buddha, okay? Buddha taught the BCA of dharmata. That's what Buddha taught. He is the teacher of the dependently co-arisen nature of reality, dharmata. That's what he taught. Then these two schools finally got together,

[30:02]

and they got into teaching the dependent co-arising of dharmas, of dharma, of reality factors. Excuse me, what did you say? Dharma in terms of phenomena? Yeah, phenomena, like the 72 dharmas of the Vaibhashikas and so on, and the 75 dharmas of the Sattva 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 school, have lost the original point of the Buddha. And they got into their own scholastic presentation of it,

[31:03]

and lost the real wonder, ungraspable vastness of Buddha's mind. They had developed a tremendous philosophical system, so beautiful that you just have to be in awe-struck 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 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, now that I've studied Abhidharma for 22 years, I can say you don't have to study this stuff, in a way. But actually, I won't say that.

[32:06]

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 in order to demonstrate that these people had lost the original meaning of 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, they didn't say that 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. That's why the Madhyamaka people used emptiness to return to clarify the fundamental teaching of Buddha,

[33:08]

about the fundamental teaching of Buddha. I just want to check. You said that they didn't teach that. Are you sure any place in the Abhidharmakosha, 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 Vaisnavati Matrata Siddhi, I kind of see him starting to become a Mahayana. But he does not say dharmas, not 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, what do you call it? A discourse, or a designation, having recourse. In other words, what appears,

[34:19]

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. Satrantika people would say, and in fact, a lot of these dharmas are just Prajnapati, are just sort of set-ups to make things understandable. And these people are saying, the Madhyamaka people are saying, all dharmas are really just set-ups. And even, everything produced by this process,

[35:20]

and the process itself, is just a designation. And that's what the Vijnapti mantra 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 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, and he may have read it, I even 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, thank you for coming. And thank you, Vicky, for coming. They're going to leave right now. Could you,

[36:22]

this may be a whole, not a whole, but, distinguish between not-self or lack-of-self and lack-of-own-being? Well, lack-of-own-being is a, 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, like you, remember your lecture? The two-fold depravity? Mm-hmm. 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 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, you can use selfhood for, selfhood is an example of inherent existence. Selfhood of a person.

[37:26]

But, so if, if the Vaishikas and Svatantras were saying that the dharmas were marked by not-self, you know, that still, that still not, going as far as saying lack of inherent existence. But 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 that these people are what's called nasty people. You know, asti means exist. There's astivada, sarvastivada. The vada means path. Astivada. These are the asti people. Astivada. Sarvastivada. Okay? All asti, all asti path. Okay? But these people

[38:28]

are not the nastivada. That's the other, that would make them not the middle way. The middle way 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 codependently produced being. That's why they weren't just 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 the identity. That's why it's the middle. So you can't look at

[39:29]

emptiness directly without attributing 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 produced being all around it. Because emptiness is always about codependently produced being. Emptiness shows the true nature of, emptiness is to, is to clarify what dependently co-produced being is. Just like emptiness 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.

[40:30]

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, and again, the world's 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.

[41:30]

Start this massive confession program as the, as beginning, as the beginning of turning around to start doing the meditation on emptiness which will, 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 it's emptiness but we have to admit where we are first. The renunciation that you're talking about comes after the confession? No, the confession is renunciation. Well, no. There's, maybe the renunciation is, but just to, just to confess is a kind of renunciation because you're giving up, instead of just going around the world enjoying what your mind,

[42:35]

mind habits are you're actually adopting, you're, you're, you're taking on this additional responsibility which is a kind of renunciation of being a person who didn't do that. You're renouncing being not a yogi. You're renouncing your, your, irresponsible childhood. Yes? Would it be possible that in the first couple of years that emptiness was understood why talk about it? Yeah. There's always that possibility that they understood it, but then why did they talk about it the way they did? Why did they, but it's possible that, that they, like, like I was talking to Lesley and some 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, from the knowledge. Okay,

[43:36]

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 had, was the school policy, but they didn't do that. They, they knew that they had to take into account the observer. Now these days people are, 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 involved in knowledge, that knowledge has personal involvement. And unless you admit that personal involvement the knowledge is not object, 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, we're, we're putting something onto this stuff. Okay. But it's possible these people, all of them were sitting back there,

[44:36]

they knew everything was empty, they knew that they, 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, when they got this teaching said, you know, they said, this is the teaching but actually, 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 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

[45:37]

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 progenaptic, 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're just a front and they read it and believe this stuff. Well, it seems like you really did that practice. You really did. Did what practices? Practices that lead to school. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Mahayana says that if you keep working on these things long enough, you'll find out they don't work and you'll naturally overflow into Mahayana and, in fact, a lot of people did that, right? ... ...

[46:26]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ