DCA stands for Dependent Core Rising, Pratica Samutpada. The Chinese character is a character for emptiness. And MW means middle way. And Samyak Drishti is Sanskrit. To remind me that it can be translated as a right view. but also can be translated as comprehensive view. Now, I think for the Buddha and for Nagarjuna, dependent core arising is emptiness, and that being Ignation is the middle way.

[01:03]

And in the first sutra we studied and chanted in this practice period, we talked about avoiding extremes, and he said that he teaches, he has realized... middle path Buddha did realized a middle path he said what is the middle path and then he said the middle path is simply the eightfold noble path which is right view and so on so understand so the pinnacle arising is also right view but also emptiness is right view And also to understand that emptiness as a conventional designation is the middle way. So first of all, dependent co-arising is right view.

[02:25]

So in the second scripture, talking about what is right view, and Buddha says, to watch with right wisdom the arising of the world as it comes to be. To observe the arising of the world as it comes to be is to understand dependent core arising. Depending upon rising, one avoids extreme views, like the extreme view of non-existence and the extreme view of existence. And in that way, we have right view. And then he says, everything exists, this kacchiyana is one extreme.

[03:47]

Everything does not exist, this kacchiyana is the second extreme. Without approaching either extreme, the Tathagata teaches you a doctrine by the middle. Dependent on ignorance arises dispositions, and so on. So this is the, he's teaching you the middle now, okay? He's teaching the middle. Dependent on ignorance, dispositions arise. He's teaching you dependent co-arising as the middle path, and as right view. The middle path, of course, is a balanced path, but also dependent core rising is teaching the truth in a balanced way, in an upright way.

[04:58]

in an unbiased and unprejudiced way of teaching the truth. And when awareness is poised, upright, unbiased, unprejudiced, by any of these extreme views, emptiness, non-self, is accepted and established. Depending on what is teaching you how to poise yourself

[06:03]

in this balanced, unbiased way. And when body and mind are poised in this way, emptiness is realized. Emptiness is understood. Right view is realized. I'll say it many, many times, but not right now if you don't mind. I got to stay poised here. Don't want to indulge in myself here. So today I would like, I think it might be helpful to practice this balanced pose, this upright poise, to look at some of these extreme views that the middle way kind of cuts through.

[07:22]

I mean, that the middle way cuts through, that the teaching of defendant core arising cuts through, cuts between, relinquishes. Okay? Okay? So, these are kind of extremes. Some of which might seem quite reasonable to you. Others, maybe not. The first one is an extreme, which also can be called a school, because these extreme views are seeing and believing. So, view means Drishti is seeing and believing. It's a kind of a position. So the first two views are the school which upholds that everything really exists. Extreme realism. Everything exists. And this is called Atikavada.

[08:29]

And the other is the school which upholds that all things do not exist. This is nihilism. Natika Vada. And the example of these extreme views is put forth in the Kacchiyana Gota Sutra. Kacchiyana Gota Sutra puts forth the two views of extreme nihilism. The view is that everything really exists, all things really exist. That's one view, extreme realism. And the other view is all things do not exist, nihilism. And so those two extremes are out. And what are we left with? about things so Buddha refuses to say all things really exist and he don't exist at all well how how how are things huh yeah so what did he say no he said depending on ignorance dispositions arise that's his teaching

[09:58]

he refutes those two and then he gives you dependent co-arising. And I just wanted to say a little bit about the first link, the first conditionality of dependent co-arising, and that is dependent upon ignorance arise dispositions. Now, dispositions, I like that. That's a nice word. Often, ignorance arise karmic formations. Sometimes they say arise activities. Another one they sometimes say is arise volitional impulses arise. Dispositions, the English word dispositions means one's customary manner of response.

[11:10]

So another position is a tendency, an inclination, a bias, not being upright is my addition. So depending on ignorance arises not being upright. Yes? Getting disposed. Disposed. Dispoised. Yeah, dispoised, right. So, but if one were, if poise was rediscovered, then depending on the rediscovery of poise, depending on the rediscovery of being upright, there would be the ceasing of dispositions, and with the ceasing of dispositions there would be the ceasing of ignorance. But this would be quite a confrontation, a mighty confrontation between this basic, this disposed way of being,

[12:29]

this dispoised way of being and emptiness, if poise was rediscovered or discovered, it would have to then, I think, stand up to ignorance, which would keep challenging it to come off of its poise and bend and twist in some way or another. But if there could be this kind of poise, then no more ignorance. And in that poise, emptiness would be accepted and established. So, the ignorance is the conception and the belief in the conception of inherent existence. Based on the belief in the conception of inherent existence, then there is an inclination There's a leaning one way or another.

[13:31]

There's a bias one way or another. There's a orienting of consciousness. There's a putting in of value or preference. There's an introjection of a bias and a turning towards and biasing or orienting awareness towards or away. With inherent existence, based on the belief in inherent existence, arises a biasing or orienting or turning the awareness towards and away. And then there's the arising of consciousness.

[14:39]

And that. Now, without this kind of orientation towards or away, without this disposition... there is nothing to say and there would be no things to indicate. So in order for something to, in order for things to happen, there has to be this kind of dispositional mode. It arises dependent on belief in inherent existence. In the process we have feeling.

[15:42]

Feeling is evaluation. In feeling you draw value out of sense experience. In the earlier phase you put value in. Putting value in creates things. Once things are created, then we pull value out and have feeling. No dharma, no phenomena exists prior to this conceptual imputation of value. No dharma exists prior to the projection of, quotes, dharma.

[16:59]

And if there's no projection of, quotes, dharma, there is no dharma. Anything prior to disposition has no location, no name, no worth, no lack of worth, and so on. And I just want to mention that at the beginning of Vasubandhu's 30 verses he says, Whatever there is in terms of dharmas of self and other, they all come from the three transformations of consciousness. The first transformation of consciousness is called the resultant, the storehouse consciousness. And it has no location, no name, and so on.

[18:07]

But then when there's mental imputation on this no name, no location, no thing space. Phenomena are precipitated by this interjection of value based on the belief in inherent existence. So then there will be things and the things will be here and there. There will be a consciousness which will arise based on this creation up here and there. Now I'd like to go to the next extreme. That was just a little visit to the salad bar. The next two extremes are the school of eternalism and the school of annihilationism.

[19:19]

In the Kacchyanagoda Sutra, strictly speaking, eternalism and nihilism were not presented. But as I think I've said, and as Buddha has said, and as Nagarjuna has said, the position in that sutra of extreme realism those two positions imply eternalism and annihilationism. But there's a difference between saying everything exists and saying that everything exists eternally. And there's a difference between saying things do not exist at all and to say that they're annihilated. Annihilation, as Nargajuna says, is that which exists eternally or really exists eternally When it doesn't exist anymore, it's annihilated. So based on the view, there will be no annihilation if they don't exist at all.

[20:21]

But the things that really exist, once they exist, if they change at all, they're annihilated. So annihilation follows actually from the first extreme in the Kajiyanagota Sutra, Is that right? No. It should be, though. Based on that things really exist, you get annihilationism. Everything really exists is extreme realism. Once things really exist, having really exist, then if they change, they must be annihilated. So that's what Nagarjuna says. It isn't just regular things that get annihilated.

[21:28]

Impermanent things don't get annihilated. As I often mention that from T.S. Eliot, how can there be an end to a drifting wreckage? Like my mother, she's always been sick, but she never will die. She just always, you know, she doesn't know what it's like to be dead. She's always been sick since I was a little boy. She's always sick. Being alive and alive and alive, she doesn't, most of us were put in her bed, we put in her bed, in her body, we would think we were dead. Or we wish we were dead. But she's always felt this way, so she just doesn't know any better. although she is, you know, she would know better. The third set, another thing about these extremes I think is good is that they are, each one of them, non-ambiguous.

[22:43]

There's no ambiguity in the extremes. That make sense? These are unambiguous situations. Everything really exists. Everything lasts forever. Everything does not exist at all. Everything is completely annihilated once it changes. These are unambiguous situations. So the middle way is actually the ambiguous way. These things are ambiguous. And to embrace the middle way is to embrace ambiguity. Not to grasp these clear extremes. And part of the ambiguity is that, you know, It's not exactly us, and yet it is exactly us.

[23:48]

Everything is created by our mind, and yet things aren't just our mind. In other words, or like with a mother and a child. A child, but the child isn't the mother. But it isn't just the mother that creates the child. There's no mother without child. It's an ambiguous situation, especially if it's a girl. And to embrace, especially if you're a girl, is the middle way. So another of these unambiguous situations is a school which upholds that happiness and suffering are entirely self-determined. The Pali is easy for me to understand. Atta-kara-vada. Vada means, you know, school or whatever.

[24:51]

Atta is like self, atman. And kara is from. The school of from the self. And the other one is para. Para means like in parallel. Para means other. So it's a school of from the other. Para-kara. So one position is that all happiness and suffering comes from the self, are entirely self-determined. That all happiness and suffering are entirely caused by external factors or other actors, other agents. And in particular, self-determined means in a particular aspect of this, is that self-determined in terms of karma. The first one is your karma completely determines what will happen. So this is karmic determinism. And the other one is... I forgot what the way we would... It's karmic... Huh?

[26:05]

well, it's karmic heterogeneousism, but there's some other word for it that I think is better. Anyway, that your karma doesn't have anything to do with it. What happens? I think what Vicky said, but anyway, the point is that what you do has nothing to do with your happiness or sadness. It's due to other actors, other forces. So at the time of Buddha, there were actually, the giants were, you know, I think the Hindus were karma determinists. Maybe they still are. In other words, what you do completely determines your happiness and sadness. The Jains, I think, were maybe in the middle and the materialists are the other school. Not karmic determinism. And actually, I have a little book which has a picture of the Buddha inside of it and is published by some Chinese Buddhist organization and it's cartoons.

[27:16]

And then it has Chinese, but you can tell what the Chinese says even if you can't read Chinese. So it has a picture and it has like, this guy's being mean to his parents, you know, and then next life, he's like, you know, getting kicked down the street. by a bunch of people. Another picture, this lady's making donations to monks, and then in her next life, she's got a very nice car. Another one, somebody's screaming at her parents, and next life she's deaf. So, which is published by some Buddhists, is not Buddhism. This book is Karmic Determinism. It's an extreme view. So within some Buddhist temples or some Buddhist publication societies, they're publishing extreme views as Buddhist teaching.

[28:17]

Buddhist teaching is that karma is not deterministic. In other words, karma is not deterministic. The karma that the person does is not the cause, does not determine their happiness and sadness. The person doesn't make their happiness and sadness. This says actually entirely. Of course what you do has something to do with your happiness and sadness. So the other position that what your karma has nothing to do with it which is not the Buddhist position. And one of my favorite Pali suttas is about this. So, these two positions I just mentioned

[29:22]

The first one of that your suffering or your happiness is entirely due to yourself, entirely self-determined, entirely due to your karma, that position goes with a previous position, which is? Huh? Right. Things exist, really exist, and what else? Eternalism. See? It's another version of eternalism. That what happens to you is entirely due to... Your suffering is self-determined. That's eternalism. And similarly, the other one goes with annihilationism. That what you do has nothing to do with what happens to you. What happens to you is due to something other actors, other external conditions to you.

[30:23]

That goes with annihilationism. Okay, so this story, this story, which is also, I think it would be called the Suje, it's in the Kindred Sayings. By the way, Kindred Sayings has a section, Kindred means sayings that are similar, together, sayings and stories are grouped together, and there's a section called Kindred Sayings on Cause. So, I think this one's in Kindred Sayings on Cause. Yeah. Volume 2. of the kindred sayings on call. So this is a story about the unclothed is one name of it. And the person's name is Kasapa. Kasapa or Kashapa in Sanskrit. A naked ascetic, right? One of these guys walking around naked that came to Buddha.

[31:26]

So he was a practitioner of another way, and he came to the Buddha and he said, you know, Master Gautama, or Venerable Gautama, is suffering rot? Is suffering made, created by the self? And the Buddha says, question misput, or don't ask like that. And then he says, is suffering caused by another person? or external factors?

[32:30]

Buddha says, misput. He says, is suffering caused by self and actor? Buddha says, misput. He says, is suffering caused by neither self nor other? Buddha said, don't talk like that. Don't ask like that. And then... And then, well, then is it that there's no such thing as suffering? Is it that suffering doesn't exist? And the Buddha said, no, it's not that suffering doesn't exist. Suffering does exist. And he says, Master Gautama, is it then the case that you don't see and know? Can you see why I would ask that question? You don't? Well, if suffering does exist and he saw and knew it, then how come he can't see?

[33:33]

How come all these different ways of asking don't make sense to him? And the Buddha says, no, it's not the case that I don't know and see suffering. I do. I am the one who knows and sees suffering. And then it's kind of one of the nice things about the... for me about the scripture is then he says he's been saying Master Gautama or Venerable Gautama and then he says may the blessed one please teach me please instruct me about suffering he shifts his form of address from Master Gautama to blessed one or exalted one after the series of questions he starts to see who is there And I was talking to some people the other day about, you know, if you walk around something for a long time, like it can even be sand, if you circumambulate a pile of sand for a long time, or if you bow to a pile of sand for a long time,

[34:48]

you finally, by that devotion to this pile of sand, you finally see the emptiness of the pile of sand. You finally see the Dharma through this form. So your devotion to this, whatever it is, you gradually come to see the relationship between this form and the middle way, or the ultimate truth. So here he is, he's paying his respects to this teacher, but he doesn't see who it is for a while. What it is, is the Buddha. And now he's ready to see more deeply. So he says, would you teach me? So the Buddha says, suffering caused by the self, or suffering your own karma, this is the same as the view of eternalism.

[36:06]

Suffering caused by another, This is the view of annihilationism. And I think many of you know that a lot of people, when they hear about karma, they think what Buddhist teaching of karma means is karmic determinism, right? And they get upset. They say, well, how come this little baby is born in Bangladesh? How can that be karma. How can you say that this poor darling little creature, it's their fault? Buddhism doesn't say that their suffering, this little baby's suffering, is caused by the little baby. Okay? It doesn't say that, right? Buddhism does not say that. But also, Buddhism doesn't say that the baby's suffering is entirely due to somebody else. To say that the baby's suffering is due to the baby, that the baby's causing her own suffering, is the extreme view, is an extreme view, and it's the famous extreme view of eternalism, which is the same as the extreme view of everything really exists.

[37:27]

So based on inherent existence, then you would say, based on the belief in inherent existence, then you would say, this baby is... This baby is entirely responsible for her own suffering. Okay? Or, based on the belief in inherent existence, you would say, this baby is not at all responsible for her suffering. She has nothing to do with it. It's all due to somebody else. She's a pure victim. So, these are the issues which come from basic ignorance. Okay? Buddhism does not say either one of them. We don't say that this baby has nothing to do with where she was born, and we don't say it's all her fault. Those are extreme views coming together with a whole bunch of extreme views. So what do you say? So what do you say? So what do you say? Please teach me, Buddha. So what do you say? Conditioned by ignorance, karmic dispositions.

[38:32]

Conditioned by karmic dispositions, consciousness, and so on. This is the way that this mass of suffering which you now see has arisen. But in that story there is no self which did that. But also there is no self which didn't do that. It is through this process that you will see how the suffering for this person over there arose and how the suffering for this person here arose. This is a Buddhist teaching. this is the middle way to those two positions of it's not your fault, you deserve it. And it's not just in India that people think that, you know? Like I remember one time I saw this play. I might have read the story too, but before the play, but anyway, I saw this play, it's called The Elephant Man.

[39:39]

It's about this person who had this disease, you know, where your skin starts growing all over the place and you start to look sort of like an elephant. You have all this loose skin drooping all over you, you know? And so there he was with this terrible disease And all the skin gets so loose, you know, it starts to fold in on itself. And then where it folds in on itself, of course, things start happening in those little crevices. So you smell really bad, too. And so he lived in London, I think. And people hated him. Not only was he ugly, but they said, you must have done something really bad to be like you are. And he also felt like, I must have done something really bad to be like I am. Buddhism doesn't say, yes, you did. Buddhism doesn't say, no, you didn't.

[40:43]

This is not how this happened. This is not some person's fault who's you, and it's not somebody else's fault who's somebody else, like your mother or your uncle. How does this happen? How does it happen? Dependent on ignorance, karmic formations arise. That's our answer. And if someone will walk around this dependent core rising again and again, [...] one's eyes will open and see the emptiness. In other words, there will be the end of ignorance, which is the source of all this misery. There will be a cessation of suffering. And then there will be the continuation, hopefully, which is the end of suffering. And so after Buddha teaches this dependent core rising, the naked ascetic, who is still naked, is very, very, very, very happy to get this teaching.

[41:54]

And he goes into this thing which you've heard over and over. I don't know. But a lot of people say, it's like, you know, the lights got turned on. Thank you so much. It's like a person who is lost who's found his home. It's like a person who is starving who got lunch. It's like a person who is dying of thirst who got some water. This is like really, this is great. Thank you so much. I found my teacher. I found the Buddha. I found the Dharma. I found the Sangha. And then I want to join your group. And can I have, can I join your group? this is so many of these stories on this time this is when they want to join the order when they have some kind of enlightenment actually which is part of the reason why I think the name for the ordination ceremony both for lay people and for priests is the ceremony of the ceremony of tokudo means attaining the middle way

[43:04]

Tokudo means enlightenment. It's a ceremony of enlightenment. And it's coming, I think, because a lot of these people, when they were enlightened, then they said, can I join your group now? So he got enlightened to join the group. Just like in the first sutra, this first sutra here, turning the wheel, these guys were enlightened. Then he gave them further teaching on no-self, and they became arhats, and then they asked to join the order. So, the Buddha says, well, you can join, but for somebody who used to be in another group, we have a probationary period of four months, during which time the other The community can check you out and see if they feel okay about you joining.

[44:05]

I used to visit San Quentin in a maximum security ward, and so there was these guys all there together, packed together, and then they had like a probationary area next to Where people coming from other cell blocks had to be for a week or so. They had to sit in this little cage. And then anybody who was in the cell block could go and talk to them and ask them, you know, well, where are you from, you know? from hurting anybody else, but also to keep other people from hurting them. So if a person was in danger to be killed by some gang, they put them in this section.

[45:10]

So when people came in to the group, they could be like gang members from the gang who was trying to wipe them out, trying to get in there to kill them. So you could invite people to see if maybe they were in this gang that's chasing you. And if you thought they were, you could say, don't let this person in here. I don't feel good about him. So the Buddhist Sangha was like that too, and it still is to some extent. We do not interview the Sangha before the lay, the staying at home precept ceremony, but for priests we do ask the community now if they will support this person becoming a priest. We interview other priests and ask around. feel okay about letting them in. So anyway, he asked for that. And he said, a Buddha said, you have to have four months for the people to check you out. And Kasyapa said, well, if you usually require four months, you can have four years for me.

[46:14]

And so, after the probationary period, he was they did feel good about him. He became a monk. And I wanted to finish the story because after he became a monk, he went off and practiced by himself. Not long after his ordination, venerable, remaining alone and separate, earnest, ardent, strenuous, attained, ere, after not long, the supreme goal of divine life became in our heart. And I just want to point out there that there's the Indian situation where You go off and practice by yourself at a crucial time. And I think, again, that this is a big difference between the Indian way of practice and the Zen. Yes? I just want to say that I'm not with people, but the way I've always heard this is when you're practicing and you're not practicing, I mean,

[47:25]

Yeah. Right. Right. What you're saying is that although you're practicing physically in somewhat... There's no people nearby. You understand that actually you're practicing together with all beings. Oh. You're practicing together with somebody. Right. But you're practicing with other people. even though they're not around? Oh, I see. You have... Right, right. Okay. Right. But you're away from the people. Is that your understanding? So... So... What I heard, another description I heard this is that in the Indian picture of this kind of work, it looks like the person's in touch with society and ought to touch with community.

[48:44]

But still, even the hermits are actually supported by the community. But when they talk about the practice, it sounds like they're in isolation. But actually, they are being supported by the whole cultural situation. They are being brought food and other things. But they may or may not think, I am not practicing alone, I am practicing together with all beings. But I think one of the things about Chinese Buddhism is that They wanted to make sure that people in China didn't think that the Indians practicing alone meant that they were alone. So the Chinese strongly emphasized that you're practicing together with all beings.

[49:46]

But there may be some tendency in Indian culture to think you're not practicing together with all beings. However, although there's a tendency in Indian culture, and descriptions of Indian monks may sound like that, My personal feeling is that that's not Buddha's teaching, that Buddha was not sitting alone, that Buddha was always sitting together with all beings, that he was an exception. He went beyond Indian culture and became Chinese. but rather that he understood his practice as not being alone. However, in the story here, it sounds like Kasyapa was alone and separate. It says, alone and separate. And that kind of language makes some people think that a crucial part of... ...alone and separate. But you're never alone and separate. He wasn't alone and separate. The Buddha didn't teach being alone and separate.

[50:49]

But in fact, the Buddha was sitting under the bow tree and there weren't a bunch of other people sitting next to him, according to the story. But he was sitting under the bow tree. Did you have more to say? Right. Right. Maybe so. So, you're suggesting that because it's already implied in insubstantialities implied that they can speak in a substantialistic way. Maybe so. But in Buddha's time... He didn't think that Indian culture was implying insubstantiality. That's why he had all these other schools that were implying, all these schools we're talking about here. He was saying these schools are all implying substantiality.

[51:52]

Extreme, unambiguous, substantial positions. This is not the middle way. So maybe Buddhism has affected Indian culture for so long that now Hindus are now... you know, understand emptiness. Yes? There was a conscious response to Buddhist teaching that was so influential among Hindus that Hinduism changed a lot. So, and maybe the Indian culture of 2,500 years ago that made people talk about practicing alone and separate, and that today If Indians are practicing on retreat alone, they don't understand it that way. Yes? Mm-hmm.

[53:01]

When I say something like insubstantial, I mean in an understanding of conventional nature. I mean just how I feel. Uh-huh. Not like a full understanding of conventional nature. Okay. Conventional reality, which most people accept that there's some insubstantiality. Uh-huh. Like what do people accept in conventional reality that's insubstantial? Right. Yeah, much more subtle, right. You're equating insubstantiality with conventional truth?

[54:09]

Mm-hmm. Okay. Now the kitchen's left. I'll do one more of these extremes. Tremendously different, but anyway, it's the belief that... The doer of karma and the experiencer of the fruits of karma, the Buddha taught that karmic action bears fruit. The Buddha believed that karmic action bears fruit. He taught that as a basic teaching. Part of conventional right view or mundane right view is karmic activity bears fruit.

[55:29]

That's one of the key ingredients of mundane right view. So, this one extreme view is that maybe even to see and believe that the doer of karma and the experiencer of the fruit of karma are one and the same. Okay? That the person who does the karma and the person who experiences it are one and the same person. The other is... that the doer of the karma and the experiencing the fruit of the action of the karma are separate things. The person who does the karma is separate from the person who receives the fruit of the karma. So this is pretty simple. Somebody comes to the Buddha and says, Are the doer and the receiver one and the same thing?

[56:31]

Buddha says, saying that the doer and the receiver are one and the same thing, is one extreme. And the question is, are then the doer or the actor one thing and the receiver another? And the Buddha said, to say that the doer or actor is one thing and the receiver is another, is another extreme. The Tathagata, avoiding these extremes, teaches you a doctrine of the middle, which is what? Conditioned on ignorance arise karmic dispositions. Now, again, this is an extreme which perhaps isn't that super difficult for you to get into a little bit. Our ordinary mind could kind of like

[57:32]

lean towards, if you do something, you do a karmic act, and the Buddha said that fruit, you might think that the fruit will come to the same person who did it. Or you might think, oh no, I did it, but I'm going to change, so I won't be there to get the result, because that won't be the same person. So these two extremes are actually not that hard for most people to get on if you think about it, because basically they're just two unambiguous ways of dealing with this teaching that karma bears fruit. Right? So you can't say that exactly the same person who does it is the one who receives it. Well, good. Then you're avoiding that extreme. And I'm not going to say that the one who did it is not, that one is not going to receive it. I'm not going to say that.

[58:33]

In other words, the one who receives it is going to be a different person because I'm going to change. I'm going to change or not. It's going to be a different person. These are unambiguous possibilities of how this thing works. But how it actually works is not in this unambiguous way. It happens in an ambiguous way. Namely, belief in inherent existence. And that's how the karma comes to fruit. And the person is in there as part of that process in terms of the person is what's born. There is a conventionally existing person, but the person is not the one who... and being the same one who receives, or the person is not one who does, and is a different one from the one who receives. The person conventionally does do stuff. But how that comes to fruit is not these unambiguous ways.

[59:36]

How it comes to fruit is... ...karmic dispositions arise. That's a Buddha's response. And now there seems to be some questions before we do the next sutra. Yes? Actually, I think you had your hand for other people. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Exact. So you wouldn't necessarily sign up for this extreme, but in fact, you act that way. If somebody asked you, do you subscribe to this extreme?

[60:38]

You'd say, well, no. I know I'm not supposed to anyway. But then, when you're out of the class, you act like that. In fact, you are of that school on certain circumstances. And if you get in too much trouble, you switch to the other one. And in fact, your trouble is because of being in one school. And if you're in one school, instead of going to the middle, you go to the other extreme. But the middle is where you're actually safe. But the middle, although it's where you're safe, is a radical change. Switching from one side to the other is pretty easy to imagine. But switching to the middle, it's a big switch. Switching to being balanced, this is like, whoa. And you said about parents, you know? Watch this. You're the daddy, right? You're in America. You're You're the daddy. You've been away at work, and you get home, and mommy says, well, Ralphie was a bad boy today.

[61:39]

That's what they do in some families. They make the father beat the kid up when he gets home, you know? But the father then says, of course I would be happy to beat this kid up because, of course, he's exactly the same person. The one who did that thing earlier this morning is the same person that we have here now, so I'll beat that person up this morning. Ralphie, do you understand? You're the same person who did that bad thing this morning, so now I'm going to beat you up. But then Ralphie says, no, Daddy, I'm actually a different person. I've changed. I'm a new boy. I've turned over a new leaf. I'm not the same person at all. So don't beat me up. Beat that boy up, but he's gone. If you can find him, beat me up, Daddy. So you have these two extremes. And then, you know, mother comes in and says, well, actually, I take back, you know, let's look at this thing from the middle way. Well, then who's going to get beat up? Well, nobody's going to get beat up. Everybody's going to meditate. And in this poised situation, they realize the meaning of karma bearing fruit.

[62:48]

The karma is bearing fruit. It is bearing fruit. Then they can understand how that happened by getting into the middle position rather than... or not beating the kid up based on their kids not being the kid up based based on his story or beating the kid up on the story that the same kid that it was there this morning which again you see they had they do that now in prison too right they say this person killed somebody 17 years ago it's a completely different person kill the same it's not the same person that's an extreme view Or it is the same person, and we should kill that murderer. That's an extreme view. But to switch to the middle, everybody's afraid to switch to the middle. Well, then what are we going to do with these murderers? Well, wait a second. Are they murdering somebody now? No, now they're actually practicing meditation right now.

[63:49]

Now they're practicing loving kindness right now. Well, then maybe we shouldn't kill this person, this person right here, because this isn't a murderer. coming to fruit, always. And what's the middle way to meet this thing? Yes? No self who's self-causing those things. It's not that there's no self, it's just that there's no self mentioned. It doesn't say self anyplace, right? But when I say literally there's no self mentioned, I don't mean that there's no self. There is the self there all the way through. The self's there all the time.

[64:50]

The conventional self, except for certain special times like, you know, there's not really, well, there's a belief in inherent existence is there all the way through. And the conventional self is there most of the time. But, The inherently existing self doesn't do this stuff, although it's imagined so. And the conventionally existing self is doing these things. But that's not the perspective of this thing. The perspective of this thing is to see how the conventionally existing person arises in conjunction with the belief in the inherently existing person. Yes? If you're talking about one conventionally existing person, I didn't quite... I'm probably not that far from understanding, but I didn't quite get what you're saying.

[65:58]

If you're talking about... Yes? Yes. Yes. This person's ignorance, this person's distribution of life. And then all of a sudden, where it's switched, and it seems like, no, I'm being dependent on all people's traditions, all people's traditions of life. Then that myth that creates, what happens? Sometimes it happens. Mm-hmm. What I was saying in the last class is, this person's ignorance is that their ignorance, which they imagine to be truth, is separate from another person's truth, or actually more, in their case, ignorance. My truth is separate from your ignorance.

[66:59]

That's attitude. So, inherently existing people have their own views, which are not, which are localized in time and space, and that's part of ignorance. If I realize that my view, whatever my view is, even including my view of inherent existence, is a relational event, and my dispositions, of course, depend on my ignorance, so my ignorance actually arises, dependently co-arises, And my dispositions and karmic formations, which depend on ignorance, they also not just on ignorance, but on other things. But we're just mentioning the ignorance, because that's a key factor. Because without that, it won't happen. It's a key condition. But still, when my karmic dispositions arise, they're still part of a relational person. So here I am with ignorance and karmic dispositions.

[67:59]

I have ignorance and karmic dispositions together, and I am a relational being. If I understand that I'm a relational being, then that is the cessation of karmic formations and ignorance. But in that case, I understand that the cessation of ignorance is not localized. In fact, it never... And in fact, it is not localized. But when I think that my view of inherent existence is true and I believe it, then I think it's localized, I'm wrong. But that's the definition of my ignorance. In fact, my ignorance is not located. When I understand, or if you look, when the Buddha looks at me and sees me feeling isolated, Buddha sees me as caught up in ignorance. But the Buddha doesn't see me as actually isolated. The Buddha understands that my isolation and my suffering is shared by all beings, by those who are not caught by ignorance and those who are caught by ignorance.

[69:07]

All suffering beings share my suffering, and all bodhisattvas share my suffering, and all Buddhas share my suffering. That's what the Buddha sees. I see that me and a few other people share my suffering. Me and my friends share my suffering. And maybe I even think Buddha shares my suffering. But if I think Buddha shares my suffering and I actually think all the Buddhas are sharing my suffering, my ignorance is starting to get shaken up a little bit, is loosening up. Because I don't feel so isolated anymore. And ladies and gentlemen, is there something isolated anymore? Is it okay to give up ignorance? Do you mind dropping it and realizing that you're actually practicing together with all living beings and all Buddhas? Is it okay to open up to the fact that everybody is supporting you right now in their own way. And sentient beings support you in a different way than Buddhas do. They tend to reinforce your ignorance if you talk to them about what's going on.

[70:07]

But they're still supporting you. And bodhisattvas tend to set you free of it. But everybody's supporting you. And sometimes even ignorant sentient beings tell you exactly what a bodhisattva would tell you. They give you exactly the same teaching. And sometimes they support you even more helpfully than a bodhisattva would. Sometimes a sentient being is super helpful. So, again, independent co-arising, if you're caught up by ignorance, then it will naturally be the idea that the conventional existing person is, you know, one thing, Actually, the innate way will be that the existing person is the same as the five aggregates and the same as the ignorance. This conventionally existing person is the same as the teaching on dependent core arising, which appears to me as a five skandhas event.

[71:17]

When the study of the dependent core arising, this is the five skandhas event, for bringing you the teaching of dependent core arising. But if there's a belief in inherently existing self, there will be feeling of me and the five skandhas are together here doing this study. I'm studying dependent core arising. I'm meditating on ignorance. And I'm pretty good that I am meditating on ignorance, by the way. I mean, and I bet all the Buddhas agree, and they do. This is wonderful that you're doing this. And they're wonderful that you're starting to see how you see. Now we also can learn a more artificial kind of view that we're separate from the aggregates. But this is not our innate view. So we have both of these attitudes towards, one is I'm one thing, the five skandhas are the other. The other is I'm the same as the five skandhas and I'm studying the five skandhas that are now represent bringing me Buddha's teaching.

[72:19]

So, are my dispositions influenced? This is another extreme view. My and dispositions. Me and my dispositions. Me and those dispositions which belong to me. This is another extreme view. Which you can have when you're trying to study the middle way. So you bring a non-middle way to the study of the middle way. And there's various extremes in the study of freedom from extremes.

[73:23]

But you can notice these extremes, just like these people did, by, you know, you can have this dialogue with yourself that Buddha had with the person. When you hear yourself saying what these monks said, then you can say, misput. Then you can ask it another way, and then you can say, misput. You realize, well, what... You go back to the study. But if you then notice that yourself, again, separating yourself or saying there's me and my body, there's me and my feelings, then okay. Now in the list though, the me and this dependent core rising, so then you go back to the teaching. And as you keep discovering that, you keep catching yourself at these extremes. And as you catch yourself at these extremes, you drop the extremes and go back to the teaching. In other words, you stop the leaning into these ways that you do the practice, how you are separate from the practice, the same as the practice, you catch yourself at that, and then maybe you find this poise, this balance in the middle of the arising of your practice, of the teaching, whatever you're studying.

[74:38]

Shall we stop? It's 10.30. That's kind of a nice time to stop. Don't you think? And I just want to say one more time, now we have teachings about dependent glory risings, teachings about the middle way, teachings about right view. They're all working together. they're not completely synonymous until you have some certain kind of understanding. But basically, they're all working together. You're working together with them. We're working together. And I like this way of just walk around them. Just walk around them. Don't grab them. You know, don't reject them. Don't run away from them. Don't run towards them. Just walk around them. And as you walk around them and walk around them, walk around them, pretty soon, not pretty soon, but anyway, someday, some moment, the devotion to these teachings of dependent core rising and emptiness and right view and middle way, the devotion to it, where you were just being devoted to it.

[75:55]

You were studying it, but you weren't trying to get it. And also, you weren't getting fed up with it. You stay with it. You stay with it. You're always with this teaching of the middle way. You just keep walking around it. You don't get it. You don't not get it. You don't understand it. You don't not understand it. Those things arise, you know, but those are just, you know, stubbings your toes as you walk around. They're not really the practice of the middle way. Just keep walking around and the time will come when you will see these teachings right before you. When you get balanced, you will see them. They're right there all the time. So try to keep that grasping attitude to these teachings. And that attitude is the attitude, that's the unbiased, non-dispositional response to ignorance, if there is any.

[77:06]

And if that attitude becomes strong, then those dispositional, those inclinations towards things and teachings drop away, and then the ignorance drops away, and the reality opens for you. And one other difference in presentation between the, it's not exactly between the Indian and Chinese, or the Indian and the Indo-Tibetan and the Chinese, because it's actually in Indian Buddhism, is the Lotus Sutra. Somebody was teaching a class on the Lotus Sutra, And one of the students in the class was a Tibetan Geshe. He was respectfully listening to the teachings for, I don't know, a while, you know, I don't know how long, whether it was a week or a month or whatever, listening to these teachings on the Lotus Sutra.

[78:12]

Lotus Sutra is an Indian sutra, but he had not heard much of it before. seen the Lotus Sutra cited in Tibetan texts, but it doesn't seem to be as cited as much as the Avatamsaka Sutra, which has these incredibly wonderful descriptions of the progress of the Bodhisattva. Just so beautiful to see this Bodhisattva going up. Each one of which is like, so inspiring. Lotus Sutra doesn't have any problem with this fabulous bodhisattvas. But the Lotus Sutra has this other teaching which is kind of like like that. You can wake up today. Not in three eons, but right now. Anyway, the Geshe was sitting in the class and he finally just said, you know, I just can't keep quiet any longer.

[79:13]

I just got to say, I just can't believe that the Buddha would say this. That the Buddha would talk like this. It's evil to me that Buddha would teach that you can attain the way the Lotus Sutra talks about it. And whether the Buddha, you know, did the Buddha write the Lotus Sutra? The Lotus Sutra wasn't written while Buddha was alive, so you can say, well, no, the Buddha didn't say that stuff. But the fact that the Lotus Sutra wasn't written while Buddha was alive, somebody could say, well, the Buddha did say it, and people were repeating the Buddha's teachings all those years, and finally they wrote it down. hundreds of years after the Buddha died. Like they wrote the other ones down, hundreds of years after the Buddha died. Did the Buddha actually say the Lotus Sutra? Some people can just not believe it. But some people did believe it. And some of the people who believed it lived in India because that's where the Lotus Sutra was written. It was written by Indian people in the suburbs of... It's written by Indian people.

[80:17]

And Lotus Sutra is written by lay people because Lotus Sutra in Sanskrit is low-quality literature. It's not like Shantideva, you know, the Bodhicaryavatara, very high-quality poetry. The Lotus Sutra is low-quality poetry. People who write it didn't know Sanskrit very well. It's sort of crooked out there. And then it got translated into Chinese, the Lotus Sutra. But when it got translated into Chinese, it got translated into very, very good Chinese. So Lotus Sutra in Chinese is this beautiful literary masterpiece. So the Chinese read it, and they liked it a lot. All those millions of Chinese people, for them, the Buddha talked like the Lotus Sutra. It was the main sutra in China. whereas in India it was not such a big sutra. So the sutra that teaches this incredibly fast possibility.

[81:19]

A woman can instantly turn into a Buddha. A young woman, an eight-year-old woman can immediately turn into a Buddha. It's in the Lotus Sutra. So, that's another difference between, not between Indian Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism, but, yeah, it's different between Indian Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism. The Lotus Sutra was not very influential in India, but very influential in China. And Dogen is a devotee of the Lotus Sutra, so... We have these differences in approach to the teaching, but still, I go back now to these early teachings, these Pali texts, and look at what Buddha said, and I'm very happy about what the Pali texts say Buddha said.

[82:34]

very happy, but I see some differences in the presentation of the Buddha. Pardon? Their hearsay as well, that's right. And one scholar, what did he say, if I can remember, he said there's different levels of bullshit in Buddhist scholarship. One level is, I'm not sure if I got this right, but it's something like this. First level of bullshit is, Buddha said X. That's the first level of bullshit, that Buddha said X. You know, this is what Buddha said. Buddha didn't say, you know, good morning, John. He never said that, I don't think. But some texts, they say, you know, Buddha said good morning, John, right? So, that's the first level.

[83:37]

The next level of bullshit is, when Buddha said, you know, good morning, John, he meant such and such. That's the next level of bullshit. And the next level of bullshit is, when Buddha said that, this is what he really meant. That's bullshit, right? You know that. But yet you read books that say Buddha said this and Buddha really meant that and we like to read books like that. It's nice to hear, oh wow, he really meant that? That's what he meant? In other words, our unambiguous extreme mind wants to grasp. Why read a book if you can't get anything out of it? What's the point? I have better things to do than read a book and not grasp anything. I spend all my time reading a book and not getting stuff out of it. Well, because that's the middle way. The middle way is to read these books and not get anything out of them. Just read them.

[84:41]

And be so balanced that you're not the least bit trying to grasp anything and also not the least bit rejecting anything. Just respectful of the Dharma which is now being presented to you in this moment. May our intention

[85:17]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_86.94