discuss the second chapter, recite and discuss the second chapter of the Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra. When the bodhisattva, dharmad-gata, dharmad-gata can be translated as elevated through doctrine, elevated through dharma, or offspring of dharma, offspring of the teaching. Then Dharmadgata spoke to the Bhagavan. Bhagavan, in a distant epoch of ancient times, passing beyond this world system, through as many world systems as there are grains of sand, in 77 Ganges rivers,

[01:22]

I lived in a world system, in the world system, kirti-mat, which means renowned. I lived in the world system, renowned Buddha land of the Tathagata, great renowned. I left that Buddha's land to come here. This is a, to me, quite delightful example of ancient Buddhist texts that sort of understands, that deals with things in terms of light years. I used to live in this place, which was really far away, and I lived there a long time ago.

[02:32]

I left there and came here, but it took me a long time to get here. I lived there in ancient times, but it's so far away, it took me a long time to come here and be with you. It took many, many light years. So it was very, very far away and took a long time to get here, therefore. Looking back to when I used to be in that Buddha land, while I was there, I saw in this translation 7,700,000 teachers and others of the Tirthika systems. Tirthika is sometimes translated as outsider or sometimes in some Buddhist texts called philosophers.

[03:39]

But usually when they say philosophers, they mean philosophers of non-Buddha Dharma schools. There are Buddhist philosophers, but they're really students of the Dharma. But there are some other kinds of philosophers, and in this world system, in that Buddha land, it was a Buddha land, but in that Buddha land they had lots of philosophers who didn't actually open to being disciples of the Buddha in whose land they lived. In a sense, we are currently living in a Buddha land, which we are more or less open to. So back in that Buddha land, they, the philosophers, had gathered together at a certain place and began considering the ultimate character of phenomena.

[04:58]

They were considering the characteristics of the ultimate meaning of things, the final meaning of things. They were wondering what characteristics the final meaning of events has, have. These are the non-Buddha Dharma. These are the non-Buddha Dharma people. They're interested in the ultimate character of events But they're not really listening to the Buddha about what that would be. They have their own opinions which they're discussing. So this bodhisattva is watching them. And he sees them considering the ultimate character of events. although they contemplated, weighed, closely examined, and sought the ultimate character of phenomena, they did not realize the ultimate character of phenomena.

[06:11]

They had divergent opinions, doubts, misconceptions. They debated and quarreled They insulted each other with harsh words. They were abusive, deceitful, overbearing, and attacked one another. Having seen them so divided, Bhagavan, I thought, Alas! the Tathagatas arise in the world, and through their arising, the realization and actualization of the ultimate, whose character completely transcends argumentation. that the target is arise in the world and through their arising the realization and actualization of the ultimate, whose character completely transcends all argumentation, all objects of thought and deliberation, completely transcends the sphere of any reasoning,

[07:31]

It is indeed marvelous and astonishing." So the target is realized, they appear in the world, and through this appearance in the world there is realization and actualization of the ultimate. which completely transcends all reasoning, argument, argumentation and deliberation. And Dharmadgata thinks this is indeed marvelous and astonishing. And the Bhagavan replies to the Bodhisattva Dharmadgata, so it is Dharmadgata, so it is. I have fully and perfectly realized the ultimate whose character is completely beyond, completely transcends all argumentation, reasoning, deliberation, and so on.

[08:40]

I also thought I just might mention at this point that these non-Buddhist philosophical positions or these philosophical positions which don't open to Buddhism, you could say, they're not really non-Buddhists, they're just not open to the Buddhadharma, they have five faults which prevent them from understanding the ultimate. being opinionated, being conceited, exaggerated adherence to their position, imputation, and argumentativeness. What about questioning? I think questioning is the way of the bodhisattva. They ask questions, but they're not asking it out of argumentativeness, or they're not asking the question from the position of exaggerated adherence to their position, and they're not asking questions out of conceit or out of being opinionated.

[10:13]

They have opinions, but they wonder about them. They question their own opinions. They don't adhere to them. And they ask questions from that place. What does the entutation mean? that they impose upon things their conceptual processes. And that these ways of being prevent us from understanding the ultimate. And I also might at this point say something about the ultimate in addition to what it says in the text. The ultimate is, in the language of the previous chapter, uncompounded, unmade, uncreated. It lacks production and it lacks cessation.

[11:19]

The ultimate is an object of observation. for the purification of obstructions to unsurpassed, complete awakening. So here it's emphasized that the ultimate completely transcends the sphere of argumentation and reasoning, but it is still something that you can contemplate. And contemplating the ultimate purifies being of obstructions and resistance to unsurpassed awakening. And I also thought it might be nice just to point out this time that the ultimate is taught by Vasubandhu as being of three kinds.

[12:23]

the objective ultimate, the attainment ultimate, and the practice ultimate. The objective ultimate, artha paramartha, sounds nice, huh? Ultimate means paramartha. I mean, ultimate, the word for ultimate in Sanskrit is paramartha, para-artha, the ultimate object. And artha also means meaning. Artha means meaning and object. So paramartha means ultimate object, the final object. And also means the final meaning. So artha paramartha means looking at the ultimate and looking at the final meaning, the final object. objectively, considering as an object.

[13:28]

It's the last thing you need to look at before the big thing. It's the thing that we remove, which purifies us of the last or of all hindrance to awakening, to perfect awakening. And under this heading it's called suchness or ta-ta-ta. So that's the first kind of way that we deal with the ultimate in terms of meditating on it as an object. The object which is the final object. The next way is the ultimate in terms of attainment. And that's called nirvana. Nirvana. The next way is the ultimate in terms of practice, and that's called marga, or the path.

[14:36]

The middle path is the ultimate in practice. So it is, Dhammadgata, so it is. I have fully and perfectly realized the ultimate whose character completely transcends all argumentation, deliberation and reasoning. This final object on the path No argumentation applies to it. No argumentation is in it. No reasoning reaches it. No deliberation reaches it. Having fully and perfectly realized this, I have proclaimed it and made it clear, opened it up and systematized it

[15:48]

and taught it comprehensively. Taught what? This ultimate. So he's teaching this ultimate which is beyond argumentation for us to meditate on without, as the previous people did, trying to apply our opinions and views upon it or impose and then argue about what it is. You can argue about what it is, but remember, it transcends your arguments about it. So, why is this so? I have explained the ultimate. I have explained that the ultimate is realized individually by Aryas, by the sages. while the objects collectively known by ordinary beings belong to the realm of argumentation.

[16:51]

The objects collectively known by ordinary beings belong to the realm of argumentation, reasoning, and deliberation. Thus Dharmadgata, by this form of explanation, know that whatever has the character completely transcending argumentation, thought, deliberation and reasoning, is the ultimate. And now I'll go through about five different ways of talking about this. First, moreover, Dharmagata, I have explained that the ultimate belongs to the signless realm, the realm without signs.

[18:01]

The ultimate has no form by which to relate. While argumentation belongs to the realm of signs, argumentation and deliberation belongs to the realm of form. Thus Dharmagata, by this form of explanation, also know that whatever has the character of completely transcending all argumentation is the ultimate Moreover, Darmadgata, I have explained that the ultimate is inexpressible in words, while argumentation belongs to the realm of expression or words.

[19:12]

Thus Darmadgata. by this form of explanation, also know that whatever has the character of completely transcending all argumentation is the ultimate. Moreover, Dharmadhatu, I have explained that the ultimate is devoid of conventions or representations, while argumentation belongs to the realm of conventions and argumentation. Thus, Dharmadhatta, by this form of explanation, know that whatever has a character of completely transcending argumentation and deliberation is the ultimate. Moreover, Dharmadgata, I have explained that the ultimate is completely devoid of all dispute or controversy, while argumentation belongs to the realm of dispute and controversy.

[20:30]

Thus, Dharmadgata, by this form of explanation, also know that whatever has the character completely transcending argumentation and deliberation is the ultimate. As you know, the Buddha is said to be a person who, with a lot of energy and strength, recommended nonviolence in this world, in this world of patience.

[22:08]

Buddha strongly recommended non-violence and said that if you don't practice non-violence, you're really not a student of the Buddha. Yeah. And we have actually stories of our historical founder, Shakyamuni Buddha in India, who according to stories actually had direct personal contact with murderers. Even his cousin tried to murder him. But he also met, his cousin didn't succeed, but he also met a person who did succeed murdering lots of people. He met a mass murderer. He didn't walk around like the Dalai Lama with lots of security people around him.

[23:15]

He was his own security blanket. He met this person and talked to this person who was about to kill him. And somehow he got a word in and mentioned that he was he was this person's friend. He said, I am your friend. And he said this, and somehow this murderer let him say this and talk like this for quite a while. This mass murderer. Angulimala was his name. And they talked for quite a while, and according to one story, In the end, Angulimala just didn't seem to accept that Buddha was his friend. And Buddha walked away. And Angulimala decided it was time to kill the Buddha. To kill this monk.

[24:22]

So he ran after him to kill him. And the Buddha was walking away and he couldn't catch him. And... He yelled out to the Buddha, what's going on? Why can't I catch you? I'm running fast, you're walking. And the Buddha said, you can't catch me because I stopped. And Angulimala snapped out of his insanity. This is a story in the Buddhist tradition. And then I told this story recently and someone came up to me and she said she's really committed to nonviolence but when she practices a lot of people come up to her and tell her that, you know, disagree with her being, her having a nonviolent response to violence. They tell her how impractical she is. And it makes her doubt, you know, whether she's just being idealistic.

[25:27]

And then she noticed that actually in her commitment to non-violence that there's some clinging and lack of openness to that maybe violence would be good in certain circumstances. in the realm of common people is the realm of dispute, controversy, argumentation, and violence. Like these guys actually started beating up on each other. It was actually in India too, not just in this other world system called renown, but in India Debaters actually would sometimes get really violent with each other.

[26:36]

This is the realm of argumentation. The ultimate completely transcends this realm. The Buddha didn't argue with Angulimala. He wasn't opinionated and nasty. He was non-violent with this violent person. The Buddha, you know, as you may have heard, is another story about the Buddha. The Buddha has supernormal powers. The Buddha could have done lots of things by his powers, but the power he used, the power he preferred to use, was the power of nonviolence and friendship. He could have thrown Angulimala, you know, into another world system pretty easily. That wasn't what he's into. He's into waking people up from their insanity. In the same retreat, a woman came and talked to me and she is a defender of mass murderers.

[27:49]

She has actually a case right now where she's defending a mass murderer which some people would like to execute. Some prosecutors would like to execute this person who is insane in her view. She would like to meet this violence, this insane violence with non-violence and protect society from him and protect him from being executed. and protect the society from dealing with violence with violence. That's what she would like to do. However, in order to do this, she has to enter the realm of argumentation where people are going to fiercely attack her.

[28:52]

And then does she fiercely attack back? So I'm proposing that the ultimate, which is the final object, which is sitting there before us all the time, which transcends the realm of argumentation, the sages actually realize this and they use this in the realm of argumentation to be friendly and kind and to protect beings. So how can we meditate on the ultimate and realize it and then test it by expressing our realization of what completely transcends exploration?

[29:58]

To realize that which transcends convention, which transcends words, in the realm of argumentation. The Buddha's talking to the Bodhisattva here in the realm of words. They're talking about what transcends words. So I have an opinion that we seem to be living in the realm of words and conventions and argumentation, where there's forms and signs involved in our normal process of perception.

[31:15]

And with these signs and these words and these representations and conventions and controversies, all this material, we have now an opportunity to simultaneously consider the practice of contemplating the ultimate. and to realize it. Dhammagata, for example, Beings acquainted only with hot and bitter tastes for their entire lives would be unable to imagine, infer, or appreciate the sweet taste of honey or the taste of sugar.

[32:32]

Beings who have been engaged in passionate desire for a long time who have been utterly tormented by the pangs of desire are unable to imagine, infer or appreciate the happiness of inner solitude free from all signs of form, sound, smell, taste or touch. Because beings have been engaged in discursiveness for a long time, manifestly delighting in discursiveness, they are unable to imagine, infer or appreciate the inner non-discursive joy of the sages. Because beings have been engaged in the conventions of seeing, hearing, differentiating and perceiving for a long time, manifestly delighting in these conventions, they are unable to imagine, infer or appreciate nirvana, which is the cessation of belief in true personhood, the complete elimination of all conventions.

[33:45]

Dharmangatta, for instance, Because beings have devoted their energy to dispute for a long time, through strongly holding onto mine, in quotes, manifesting, manifestly delighting in dispute, they are unable to imagine, infer, or appreciate the absence of dispute or the absence of strongly holding onto, quotes, mine. Accordingly, Dharmadgata, all disputes, tense, are unable to imagine, infer, or appreciate the ultimate whose characteristics completely transcend all argumentation. Then the Bhagavan spoke this verse. The realm with an individually realized character is ineffable and devoid of conventions.

[34:57]

Ultimate reality is free from dispute. A character that transcends all argument. So we have some big topics here. One is nirvana. The other is suchness, the object that purifies all obstructions to enlightenment. And the practice. The practice which is nirvana. The practice which... contemplates that which completely transcends all argumentation. Keeping in mind that it might be possible for a bodhisattva like Dharmadgata to go into a situation where there's argumentation and perhaps help beings there.

[36:11]

but actually Dharmangatha saw these people fighting and he actually left that world system and went to talk to Shakyamuni Buddha. He didn't say that he was actually able to help those people who were fighting with each other, who were arguing. Maybe they aren't ready. to stop arguing and meditate on that which completely transcends all argumentation. Maybe they're not ready to let go of deliberation and contemplate that which completely transcends all deliberation. Something which deliberation doesn't apply to. Something which argument doesn't apply to. And that something which argument doesn't apply to or completely transcends it That's the thing that removes the obstructions to what everybody really wants.

[37:18]

Nirvana without any attachment to nirvana. We have successfully discussed Chapter 2, Questions of Dharmadgata. Now, can we speak? I heard you say that you contemplate just before, that the last thing to remove, how come you don't do it right now? The last can be now. The last can be now. Last is... There's no more like other time at the last, at the end.

[38:32]

There's no more time. If you're not the last, you think you have more time. Was that a laugh or a cough? It was both? Great. Did you have your paw raised? I did. I was in Tibet a few years ago and went to a monastery where part of the tradition and the training of the monks was for them to debate. They would all come out, hundreds of them, and just... argue with one another over the Dharma. Yeah. So for those of us who haven't reached those stages of sageshood, perhaps argument and debate are useful tools to learn the Dharma.

[39:41]

Yeah. Right. So argument and debate might be given opportunity to see if you can meditate on that which transcends argumentation while you're arguing. We argue in our head while we're sitting, right? We're supposed to be arguing in our head. That's the instruction, right? Sit and argue with yourself. Or argue with people who aren't even here who can't defend themselves. It's crazy, but it's a good deal because they can't fight back. But is there a technique for meditating on inner argumentation? Yeah, the technique... is to remember the teaching that the ultimate, we need to realize the ultimate if we really want to benefit all beings.

[40:50]

We need to realize the ultimate. And the ultimate is that which is transcending the arguments that are going on in your head and out in public. And the realm of most people is the realm of argumentation, so that's the realm of words and signs and conventions. So we're dramatically enacting that realm right now, you and me and our friends. But we're not arguing right now. But we could. You want to argue? Do I kind of? Yes. Yeah, so even if you don't want to argue, you're still in the realm of argumentation because someone might tell you that you should be arguing. And while you may not argue back, they may say that your lack of participating in the argument is your way of resisting and arguing with them. You're disputing the value of argumentation, which they think is really...

[41:56]

highly recommended. And you might disagree with that. And you might adhere to that position or not. And if you don't, they might say, well, you're not participating wholeheartedly. You're withholding your love because you're not disputing with us. I had that kind of an interaction with my son yesterday. Yeah, right. So this is the realm of argumentation and conflict and dispute where we can have these kinds of things. Now, can you, sitting in a meditation hall where nobody's talking to you, and it's nice and quiet... Isn't it quiet here this morning? Nice and quiet. Nobody's talking to you. Nobody's asking you to argue with them. And yet, you're still in the realm of argumentation because there's still conventions, signs, words, and so on. So we're in the realm of argumentation. And if you don't argue, okay, fine. I'm not going to tell you that you should be. I'm just saying that you're arguing anyway.

[43:00]

That there's an ongoing argument going on. Now, can you hear the teaching that there's something called the ultimate, which when attained is nirvana, which when practiced is the practice of the bodhisattva, and when meditated upon is suchness, that there's this ultimate to look at while we're arguing or while we're in an opinionated way refusing to argue. or whatever. While we're clinging to these, in the realm of argumentation, there's a possibility of simultaneously meditating on the teaching that there is an ultimate to concentrate on, and this is what it's like. It transcends the arguments which we're enacting. So, I pray for this woman who goes into the courtroom

[44:02]

like today, or not today, but, you know, yeah, actually maybe last, maybe a couple days ago, or maybe on Tuesday, she's going to go in the courtroom to defend a mass murderer, and she's going to, and these prosecutors are going to be argumentative, and she, can she act thirstless for the welfare of the world, to protect not just this one mass murderer, but to protect human beings from violence in the midst of defending an insanely violent person from other people who are almost insanely violent, but in a legal way. Can she do that? This is her spectacular opportunity as a bodhisattva. But you have to remember the teaching.

[45:08]

What is the ultimate again? You have to remember it. You have to be mindful of it. You have to listen to it over and over until you can remember the principle that the Buddha realizes to make it possible for the Buddhists to be non-violent in violent situations. And sometimes the non-violence in violent situations is to take a walk away from them. a non-violent walk away, a non-violent walk off, a non-violent walk out, a non-violent walk in. Because they realize the ultimate, they can be non-violent in the realm of argumentation because they've realized that which completely transcends it and now they come to offer it to whoever is ready to hear it and some people are not ready and they are non-violent with those who do not want to hear it yet but still they make their case like the prosecutors, the district attorneys representing the state they may not be ready to hear this teaching even if the Buddha was the lawyer

[46:35]

The Buddha might say, as to advance for me, I don't know. But the Buddha might say, but I have some bodhisattvas who I will send in my place to argue for nonviolence. And nonviolence comes from the ultimate. It doesn't come from the realm of argumentation. it goes into the realm of argumentation to teach people how to be non-violent there. So this is a big, what do you call it, this is a big praise of the ultimate, of its power, potential power, to be non-violent in violent situations. This great gift of this truth, this teaching about this quality of the truth, as a banner, as a great song of the possibility of being non-violent.

[47:44]

But we kind of need this ultimate because the ultimate is the only thing that I know of that makes compassion transcend this realm where violence usually occurs. What is the relationship between nirvana and the ultimate? Is it like the door? Nirvana is the attainment ultimate, according to Vasubandhu. The ultimate has three kinds. One kind of ultimate is the attainment ultimate. And the attainment ultimate is nirvana, is peace. Peace is the attainment of the ultimate. So, the Buddha's into the ultimate, so the Buddha's into peace.

[48:47]

Peace and non-violence. So, even when there's a war, the bodhisattvas are still trying to teach non-violence. And when beings realize the ultimate, which they're using as their focus while they're trying to teach nonviolence, when they realize it, they realize peace. But not everybody's ready to meditate on the ultimate, so they're not ready for nirvana. What does it mean when you say sometimes violence is necessary? Hmm? What? Did I hear it right? Did I hear it? You said sometimes violence is necessary? Did I say that? I said it, but what I said was that some people come to this woman who is dedicated to nonviolence and they tell her that she's unrealistic. They tell her that violence is necessary sometimes. in order to protect beings.

[49:49]

That's what they tell her. And she listens to them and it makes her doubt her conviction to practice non-violence. And when she was talking she realized that she actually was kind of like opinionated about non-violence. That she was kind of clinging to non-violence and she was like disputing the value and arguing against the possible value of violence, which is understandable. But then again, if you do that, are you losing track of that which transcends all argumentation about violence? And if you do, then you're losing the real resource to be able to be nonviolent. When people are telling you, that nonviolence is stupid or whatever. Yes?

[50:50]

In the world of argumentation, does argumentation always involve disagreement? No, no, it doesn't always involve disagreement. So... An argument can go along with no disagreement, you know. It's just kind of back and forth in a dualistic world. Yeah, it's back and forth. It can be back and forth in your own head. The back and forth that happens in the world can be called argumentation, but it can go into dispute, especially if people are strongly adhering to their positions in the back and forth. Then it can get more and more disruptive and disputive and finally violent. Well, I was thinking if people were in disputation or argumentation but not really disagreeing, that they could arrive at a synthesis of some kind.

[51:54]

Yeah, that's possible. Is that synthesis still in the realm of argumentation? Yes. Well, I think so. Usually it's like still words, signs, conventions. But something transcends that. Something transcends that synthesis or that dispute, and that's the ultimate. It completely transcends this. But transcend doesn't mean that it has to stay away from it. Because if you have to stay away from something, you haven't transcended it. So the ultimate is the ultimate character of all disputes. The ultimate character of all disputes completely transcends all disputes. The ultimate character of all argumentation, the ultimate character of all agreement, the ultimate character of love, completely transcends all forms and signs and words. And the realization of that ultimate is peace.

[52:56]

So, unless we realize that which transcends dispute, we won't have peace. if we realize what does transcend all dispute, all argumentation, if we realize that, we will have peace, even when there's argumentation. And we'll be able to induct others into the practice of realizing peace under the current circumstances, which we're doing right in this room now. We have, this is the realm of argumentation, And we're using the teaching to find a nonviolent way to discuss this teaching and realize peace right now, even though there's plenty of violence available without moving anyplace. There's plenty of violence in this room. plenty of argumentation, plenty of opinions, plenty of signs, plenty of conventions.

[54:07]

We got plenty of it here. We could have more, but we got plenty. This teaching of this chapter is to help us realize peace under these circumstances and in circumstances to come. So it's a short chapter, easy to remember these points, but at the same time also the first part of the chapter, nice simple teaching in a way, astounding, amazing, but simple. The second part is giving all these examples of how if you're not used to this kind of teaching, it's like hard to, you know, like if you haven't heard about this, it's like really like for somebody who's been living in war, or somebody who's been living in bitterness and spiciness, it's hard to imagine some simple sweet taste. So there's kind of a transition problem mentioned here.

[55:10]

To transition over to like meditating on the ultimate. It's not that easy. It's just pretty far out, actually. Let's see, who else next? Charlie and Elizabeth. How does this practice of mental violence relate to physical practice like martial arts or boxing? How does it relate? Well, like the Buddha was a martial artist, right? He's walking along, he sees this mass murderer, he walks over and he starts martial arting him. He says, hi, I'm your friend. And Bodhidharma was a martial artist. He went and sat and faced a wall. And all these martial arts schools, you know, sprouted up out of him sitting there facing the wall. So I think the art of martial arts, to me, it would be the art that would find peace in martial intensity.

[56:17]

Or Marshall Rosenberg. Right? It's Marshall Rosenberg, right? Is that his name? Marshall Rosenberg. So here's this Marshall guy teaching nonviolent communication, right? So in a Marshall setup, can you be nonviolent? And the answer is, well, we're trying to, but it's challenging. But you've got to exercise. If you wait and say, well, I'll try to be non-violent the next time I get marshaled. No, practice it now and go to places where that's what people are up to. Like Judah's called the gentle way. Aikido is called the way of loving energy. Go to these places which seem to be at least

[57:21]

The name of the game is to play and find peace together. So I used to box, but the word was not that we were doing that as a way to realize nonviolence together. Now looking back, I realize, geez, we really were nonviolent and we really were loving each other, but I didn't understand at the time. But then I played, after I boxed, I played judo. And one of the reasons why I switched from boxing to judo was that my coach, my boxing coach, beat somebody up in a bar. And I just thought, nah, I don't want to have this coach. That seems, for a boxer to beat people up in a bar doesn't seem right. It really seems worse than, you know, you shouldn't be, anyway. But then I went, and the kind of people I played judo with were like, um,

[58:22]

You know people who are trying to help people like one of the people that played judo with Was the first guy to do a liver transplant? To perform it You know the kind of people were playing were like people who are not trying to hurt people, but people were trying to engage intensely and do beautiful dances together where in where in which people would do these certain kind of throws and try to do them beautifully and One of my senior, one of my teachers was somebody who almost could never do a throw because his level of formal, his artistic requirements were such that he almost never saw a throw that he could do properly enough to do it. So these were artists. A lot of these guys were artists that I was playing with. And again, one of the main things I've mentioned before, the main thing, the first thing you learn in Judo, and I think Aikido too, is to learn how to fall so that you're not afraid to be thrown on the mat.

[59:38]

Because you know that under almost all circumstances, you're going to be able to fall and not get hurt. So then you can relax and play. So intense, playful, relaxed engagement with lots of energy. This hopefully would lead to situations where people who did not want to practice martial arts, who just wanted to hurt you and beat you and insult you, that that energy too which you've learned to handle in a playful, loving environment. Now, when it's not playful love anymore, maybe you could be friendly to that. So I told you before, right, that when I'm walking around sometimes people say, are you a martial artist? Are you into martial arts? I say, yes. Have I told you that before? Yeah, they ask me. They see this monk's outfit or this priest's outfit and they think it's martial arts.

[60:40]

So it's related, right? And I always say, yes. And they say, what kind? And I say, Zen Buddhism. And then they say, well, how is that martial arts? And I show them. Why do you show them? What? How do you show them? Come here, I'll show you. Elizabeth? You said the lawyer... it wasn't a lawyer it was another person these two people were in this retreat I just came back from one was somebody who had just basically committed to non-violence the lawyer who doesn't really speak so much in terms of non-violence she more wants to protect people from being executed and she said now we have like we're not executing were not executing minors now. For a while they were executing minors.

[61:43]

Now we're not doing that anymore. And there was some other category that weren't executing people. Retarded, yeah. So those two we've got. Now she would like to not execute insane people. That's the next step. She may have a next step and a next step, but the next step she'd like to do, the one she's got right now, is a really crazy person who murdered a lot of people. She would like this person She would like this person to be dealt with beneficially. That's her hope. And she has a reputation for being very fierce. So she's talking to me, how can I be fierce and nonviolent in my fierceness? How can that be a nonviolent fierceness? Or like Marshall Rosenblatt talks about, how can you use force? energy, intelligence. How can you make this a gift? Really respecting, no ill will, just intense, warm, powerful energy to wake people up.

[62:49]

How can you do that in a situation where people are attacking you and attacking the people you're trying to protect? That was her dilemma. I wanted to hear you that Pardon? Clinging, I would say, is a form of violence, yeah. Or it certainly makes you vulnerable to violence. Like, you know, I think, you know, you're afraid, you cling. Or you cling, you're afraid, and then you get angry because you're afraid of And then when you're angry, what some people do, one cycle is you cling, you get afraid, you get angry, and then you drink. And then you get angry. You drink to calm your anger and then you act out. So all these terrible patterns that come from clinging. Clinging is a subtle form of violence to reality.

[63:54]

Ultimately, there's nothing to cling to. It's completely beyond the realm of opinions and positions and dispute. We need to meditate on that and bring that into our life and give our life over to this ultimate truth. We need this to purify our compassion. And so that the fierceness that arises with no agenda would be a non-violent fierceness. The fierceness which arises from no personal fixed agenda. The fierceness that arises from the agenda of all beings, that's not hard, that's beneficial fierceness. That's the lion's roar of the Buddha. That's like walking in a way that people can't catch you because you've stopped. If you scare people because of your what?

[65:07]

If you scare people because of your fierceness, I don't know what to say, because you can also scare people when you're not fierce. People can be scared by almost anything you do. So I think that when you mention the ultimate fear, I think you don't take a position that limits your responsibility and attach to that. So if people are afraid, you accept that they're afraid. You don't have a fixed position about your causal relationship to it. You're open to a lot of possibilities here. But I think any, you know, like I don't know what, a water buffalo or a tiger they can be in the most compassionate mood and still frighten people. Or a mother, you know, a nice, loving mother can look like a giant to some people and her size can just be terrifying, her power, her energy.

[66:10]

Even though she's full of love, it can frighten people. So, I think whenever people are afraid, we're responsible for it. We're part of the causal thing. I think it's good to be open to that. Not like, well, I didn't do anything to make you afraid. Well, I'm still afraid of you. I'd say, you know, well, the ultimate transcends this little argument we just enacted and makes it possible to realize nirvana in that conversation. to realize peace when people are afraid of us. You know, to open to that people are afraid of us. But it's hard sometimes when people are afraid of us or beings are afraid of us. That we oftentimes get angry at. Why? You shouldn't be afraid of me. Because it hurts sometimes to see that someone's afraid of us. Because we didn't do anything. Well, I'm sorry that whatever I am or whatever our history is,

[67:13]

that you're afraid of me. I really am and I'm here to be your friend even though I understand that you're afraid of me. And I'm not saying I'm your friend so you have no reason, you're wrong to be afraid of me. I'm just saying I accept that you're afraid of me. And can we be friends? No. I'd like to be. And then sometimes the person says, I don't feel afraid anymore. And the next time they come to see you, they're afraid again. Some people I've known for a long time, for a long time, decades and decades, and they say to me, here we are again, and I'm still nervous. I'm still afraid. It's still there. And just recently someone said, why is that? I said, I know that you're my friend, blah, blah, blah. I still feel afraid when you look at me. And I said, well, I just thought the other day, it's kind of like an orchestra.

[68:19]

When they get together, they have tune-up. And that tuning is kind of irritating. And an irritation, you could get frightened, you know. Am I off and he's on and I'm off? Or I'm on and he's off, you know. It's his fault. That attunement, I think there's some nervousness maybe every time we get together. Unless we were together, you know, a few seconds before and then we don't notice that the going out of a tomb is so small that it doesn't bother us. But, like, I just thought, you know, at the inauguration they had these excellent musicians performing. It was Yo-Yo Ma and... Huh? Isak Perlman and... There's three of them, right?

[69:21]

Anyway, they had these three excellent musicians who know each other pretty well, I think, but they could not get attuned because it's so cold. So they tried to get attuned. I mean, they tried, but they weren't really in tune. They played the music, but what we heard was not the music they were playing. because they couldn't get attuned under the circumstances. And that's painful in a way. Sometimes it's just not time to get attuned. And sensitive people, you know, it's hard on them, that lack of attunement. And then you can get afraid of it, and you can get violent about it. It's nobody's fault, but everybody's contributing. Nobody to blame, but we have to deal with this. Yes?

[70:25]

In the story, the world where people are in dispute and argumentation and discursive interaction is very, very far away, very distant. it seems odd to me, because it seems very close to me. When you say, in what story are you talking about? The story you read in the chapter. In the sutra, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Dharma, Gatha and Buddha are like, you know, they're not disputing much. That's why I brought these stories up. Because ordinary people do live in the realm of dispute. That's where they live. This teaching is... been realized by non-ordinary people and it's being offered to ordinary people to meditate on so that they too can realize something that transcends the disputes in which they live. That hopefully this teaching, this amazing teaching, which is even more amazing that the Buddha has realized it supposedly, is being offered to us who live in the realm of argumentation

[71:38]

Hopefully, I hope it's going to help us. I hope it's going to help us now when we leave here, or even while we're still here, for the disputes we have for the rest of the day, for the arguments we have for the rest of the day, I hope this teaching will help us. Because it's supposed to be brought into the actual realm which it transcends. And the realization of it is tested by whether we can be at peace in the realm of conventions, words, expressions, opinions, and disputes, controversies. So we've seen glimmerings of, you know, have a country where not everybody agrees, and is it possible that people who don't agree could be friends? So like I was very pleased to hear the governor of California.

[72:40]

I remember when he got elected, Jim lives up in Sacramento and he said something when he got elected, Jim says, well, I like movie stars. I heard Arnold Schwarzenegger say, Oh yeah, he said, I sleep every night with somebody who I really disagree with politically. And he said, I want to completely support President Obama. I want to make him a successful, great president. And he disagrees with him, I think, doesn't he? Well, at least he's supposed to. But let's make the people we disagree with successful. Let's make them good at their job.

[73:41]

President Obama just said that as well when he went to Notre Dame. Yeah. So Arnold Schwarzenegger is teaching President Obama. They're helping each other out. This is the bodhisattva way, right? In the realm of dispute, to be friends. Yes. Yes. It also sounds a lot like marriage. Yeah, it's a teaching about marriage, right. I want to... Please clarify something for me, if you would. I have been thinking of non-violence as a technique. It's not a technique. Non-violence is what could be, but the non-violence you're talking about is like... Love is not the best policy and it's not learned through argumentation. It's more like...

[74:42]

For me, love, insofar as I know it, has been a gift. I've been way late, but I didn't learn it. I was pushed into it by sex or parenthood. It's an inclination of the heart. So the gift of nonviolence, if I understand you correctly, comes through meditation of the ultimate. Would you please speak of that so that I can try to be waylaid by that? So you can be waylaid by the teaching of the ultimate? Yes. Yes, Abhi, I will happily speak to you about the ultimate. for at least, you know, two more chapters.

[75:46]

And then, after the two more chapters are done and they get transcribed and James edits them, we'll make a whole book about the ultimate, which you can read and be forced into loving all beings. Okay? All right? So, I think it's lunchtime. Sorry to go on so long, but... Welcome to the land of dispute where somehow we've been given teachings to help us be non-violent.

[76:24]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_89.58