description of the shortcomings of these Kirtika systems or Kirtika people. I'm not sure, I'll try to look up the word, but I think heresy applies to a member of a of a particular faith who disagrees with the orthodoxy. Yes? Actually, I was just somewhere where the heresy was looked up. Yes. And it was someone who doesn't have faith but isn't practicing it, who consciously is not practicing it. Okay. Something like that. Is anybody else there? But the heresy was referring to the faith which they profess. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, in relation to that. It's in relation to the faith. So an outsider is not a heretic within that tradition.

[01:02]

Is that correct? So these people are sometimes referred to as heretics, but I don't know if they're actually heretics. They'd be heretics if they professed to be students of the Buddha. but if they're just of another tradition, they're actually called sometimes outside ways, then I don't know if they'd be heretics. But anyway, these beings, I thought it might be just good to review the shortcomings that they have. Number one is being opinionated. Seated, three, exaggerated adherence, four, imputation, and five, argumentativeness. I've been accused of all of the... So, we have opinions.

[02:13]

That doesn't mean... That doesn't need to be a big problem. I think, again, it goes with this strong exaggerated adherence It's not just that you have opinions, or even if they're strong, it's more, I think, that you're opinionated, that you're clinging to them, I would say. And conceit, so kind of like an exaggerate, a conceit is the quality of exaggerating, exaggerating your own position, exaggerating other people's position. And again, then an exaggerated adherence, Imputation, you know, impute, but are you aware of the imputation? Are you, can you, yeah. To impose upon or superimpose, but I think it also has the quality of you superimpose, but then you, then you confuse the imposition.

[03:19]

So, you know, I impute something to you, But it isn't just that I say, I'm calling Linda a good person. When I impute it, I actually think it's actually there. I lose track of this being superimposition and think it's actually inherently connected to the being or thing that I've placed this upon. I think that's the meaning of imputation. It becomes a problem here. And argumentativeness In this sutra, bodhisattvas sometimes ask questions which could be seen as offering, you know, engaging the Buddha in an argument about something. But when they ask, not in this case, but in many of the later cases, when they ask the question, the Buddha appraises them and points out that these bodhisattvas are asking the question for the welfare of the world.

[04:25]

They're not asking it to cause trouble. They're not asking it out of doubt. They're asking it as a service. If they don't understand something, that's not the same as a doubt about their understanding. But they don't doubt the practice of bringing questions up for the welfare of all beings, for the happiness of all beings. And the Buddha says, that's why you're asking this question. You know, it's a great question and you ask this for the welfare of many, many beings. Excellent to ask questions in this way. And you're bringing up things that might look like inconsistencies in the presentation of the Buddha's teaching. And this is a service that you're offering which actually the bodhisattva may actually understand, but wish to have the bodhisattva respond to for the welfare of others. So all these points, I think, are things that we are, all of us sometimes get into

[05:32]

And if we're aware of these points of how we become closed in these different ways, we become closed to what's being offered, then these are ways which we are making it difficult or obstructing the realization of the ultimate. And then again, that goes very nicely because, so they bring up these people who have these habits which make it hard for them to understand the ultimate, and then the point of the text is that this thing that they're trying to understand is beyond, transcends all their arguments, which they get into and these exaggerations. Now, if they could hear that instruction, if this instruction could be brought to them, they could reform the way they discuss the teaching. They could reform the way they consider the ultimate.

[06:38]

Namely, they would be considering the ultimate, saying that it's beyond any of their deliberations, and it's beyond any of the reasonings which they're going back and forth about concerning it. Now, the instruction here is in the realm of reasoning and deliberation, but if you carefully receive this instruction and practice it in the realm of expression, deliberation, and argumentation, in the sense of going through and understanding an argument, to energetically, wholeheartedly study this teaching of this chapter, for example, in such a way that you open to what's beyond the things you're studying. So you're studying a teaching which is telling you that this ultimate is beyond and that's an argument which has just been given to you.

[07:44]

and you study that argument, and you're being told that the ultimate transcends all reasoned discussion. But that's another reasoned discussion. Not elaborate, but it's a reasonable and reasoned discussion. By attending to these teachings wholeheartedly, watching out for imputation, strongly adhering and so on, argumentativeness, to wholeheartedly, kindly receive and practice his teachings, you become open and ready to receive and that which is beyond them. Yes and yes? I was just thinking, Jack mentioned the Tibetan tradition of debate. In our culture we have a debate tradition ...college, which is, I think, comes from the Oxford Union style, but much like you're talking about, when you debate, it's a tool, but you have to, as I recall, you really need to understand your opponent's argument, the weaknesses and strengths, so you need to be able to debate either topic.

[08:58]

And so it becomes a tool of switching back and forth. Like you're saying, if you get opinionated or fall into a trap of being conceded by your argument, you lose essentially. So I'm just thinking about that position, much like what you're talking about. Yeah, and that relates also to a lot of people go from debate teams to become lawyers. So there too debating skills are find often some application to the courtroom drama. People learn these skills and hopefully we would like them to apply these skills of training the mind in order to open to that which transcends all these skills. And then with the inspiration of what they opened to by these skills, then come back and use these skills inspired by the ultimate truth.

[10:08]

And maybe teach others, demonstrate to others how to use these skills for the wealth affair of both sides of our... not just one side, because ultimate truth transcends the sides. the example you gave I've been thinking about the woman who was practicing people who adherence to violence and finding that she was you said clingy but I'm also wondering she found that she was clinging to her own side of the argument which made it harder actually for her to stand up for her argument I think it made her more her position because she was clinging to it Do you think that she would have to embrace the other side's argument as well and really have a deeper understanding of violence herself?

[11:15]

Was she also kind of repudiating that? I don't know if she was, but I think that's true, that you're a better advocate of nonviolence if you're familiar with violence. So again, we come back to martial arts. Martial artists, by being familiar with violence, that will be part of what they need to know in order to be non-violent in a violent situation. And I think, I wasn't sure whether she was willing to, in some sense, make the ultimate donation of herself to even learn the thing which she would like I think part of her, I think part of her, could you believe this? I think part of her would like to get rid of violence. Can you believe that somebody would want to do that? Of course you can. That's what some people are trying to do, is they're trying to get rid of violence.

[12:18]

Nonviolence. Nonviolence is, if there's no violence, hey, I can, you know, That's fine. If it's violence, hey, I'm here to play with you, rather than try to eliminate violence. Like, no volcanoes, no interactions over a certain gradient, no children, no tigers, no floods, no fires. I have to go. Yeah. Nonviolence is getting rid of violence. I think it is a response. It's a nonviolent response to whatever. People get violent towards people who are not being violent. Right? People get violent with people who are frightened. People just disagree with them.

[13:21]

But also people get violent with people who are violent. So we've got people who are violent and I do not see them being eliminated. We've got forces of nature. We've got forces of nature. We've got sunspots. You know, we have violent energies. We have forceful, cruel forces of human and natural forces which are cruel and forces which can be harmful. Brutal. We've got these things. Okay, now, we meet them nonviolently. And I think this woman would kind of admit she was actually trying to get rid of violence. And that, of course, then the violent people come at you and tell you you're ridiculous. And you're naive, blah, blah, blah. And then, attached to, like, nonviolence and or getting rid of violence, then you're not such a good spokesman for

[14:27]

the wonders of nonviolence. Violence is kind of amazing sometimes. It's amazing. But nonviolence, I think, is even more amazing. To me, it's more amazing. I think violence is pretty amazing. Pretty awesome. But to meet it with nonviolence, not just to be non-violent, but to be non-violent with violence. That is like the coolest to me. It takes all the skill of violence, which comes pretty easily to most people, plus a lot more. Yeah. To see kindness in a violent situation is totally moving. That when under attack, people can come back with kindness. Excuse me for saying so, but didn't that happen in Israel some time ago?

[15:33]

That somebody was being severely harassed, was being crucified, and came back with some kindness, some non-violence. Did that happen? I heard that. Huh? I heard that. There's some story about something like that. Sweet. Yeah, and it's a pretty moving thing. that that person could do that. And the Buddha wasn't crucified, but the Buddha attacked. And the Buddha came back with not just non-violence, but also non-violence, friendship, and love. But the Buddha didn't do that just by, you know, skill at non-violence. He realized the ultimate. which is the great empowerer of the non-violence. So you don't have to keep remembering non-violence, non-violence. You just, because of your realization of the ultimate, you just naturally come back with, oh, this is my close friend.

[16:37]

This is me. This is my life. I want to protect this person who is being violent. Until then, we just try to remember the teachings of non-violence and the examples of non-violence and also the teachings of the ultimate because that ultimate protection against violence is the ultimate. It's the final clearing away of obstructions to non-violence. So bodhisattvas do need to meditate on the ultimate in meditating on non-violence. They need to remember that they're meditating on the ultimate in order to realize nonviolence and teach it. So they wish to be nonviolent, teach nonviolence, and they also wish to understand the dharma so that they... They wish to understand the dharma so that the obstructions to unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment are removed, and then they can...

[17:51]

teach nonviolence when people are up for learning it. And sometimes they're not, so then they wait until they are. Like the Buddha. Sometimes people were not up to hear the teachings from the Buddha. And he waited until they were. Actually, at the beginning, he thought nobody would ever be ready. He just thought, this is like totally weird what I've discovered here. But people said, no, please. I see Jane's hand. Was there anybody else that had their hand up before Jane? Were you before? Okay. Then I guess it's Jane and Jim. The instruction to this study, this teaching, that the ultimate is beyond these realms. In particular, the ultimate is beyond argumentation and dispute. So that study... Is that just kind of repeating this concept over and over to oneself?

[19:04]

Is it related to faith? Can you say a little more about the study, studying it? It could be that you Meditate on this chapter for quite a while. The words of this chapter. Yeah. And then you have this clear in your mind so that when words come up and expressions come up and conventions come up and representations come up and signs come up, when these things come up, relate to them, as usual, but you remember the ultimate is beyond this. And this stuff And there's something which I can remember to be ready for which cannot be about. No reasoning is, you know, there's no argument about the ultimate.

[20:07]

If you're arguing about the ultimate, it's only to get ready to deal with something that there's no argument about once you have it. Argument and words do not apply to it. So you carry on your daily activity with other beings, but you realize that there is this very important truth which is beyond what you're doing. That's one way to study this, as in this chapter. But there's many other ways. For example, the ultimate could also be called the middle way. or the middle way could be called the ultimate. And there's lots of ways to study the middle way. So in the first chapter we had a related but different way of meditating on the ultimate. The next chapter we're going to

[21:09]

which I think is, I really love the next chapter. It's about how the middle way, I mean how the ultimate and the middle way transcend sameness and difference. So in the next chapter, after you hear that one, then you can look at how the practice and enlightenment the relationship between practice and enlightenment, is not entirely the same, and it's not entirely the same. So that's another way to watch how our practice is not entirely the same as a realization, and also it's not entirely different, and understand why it cannot be entirely the same, and why it cannot be entirely different. So that would be another way. And that way actually comes pretty naturally in Soto Zen, because we do practices which we say are enlightenment. But the sutra is saying, okay, yeah, they are enlightenment, but they're not entirely the same as enlightenment.

[22:18]

They're not entirely different. So that's another way which comes kind of naturally. when you're doing things like sitting still in a room for a long time. Now, what's the relationship between this and realization? And so on. Another way to meditate on it, which is similar to this, is the ultimate in terms of how it avoids extremes. So sometimes the Buddha presents the middle way or the ultimate in terms of the extremes that it avoids. So that's another way we could talk about it. and so on. So there's lots of different ways. Another way, instead of talking about what it isn't, you can look at what it is. How is it? Just look directly at it. So that will be coming up. We can keep bringing that up for the rest of our life. Yes? Until the next time we meet?

[23:22]

Okay. Yes, Julie? I'm sorry, I don't know what book you're talking about. You weren't here this morning? No. We're talking about a sutra, a Mahayana sutra, which in Sanskrit is called Arya Samginamuchana Sutra, or the noble scripture about revealing or untangling the intention, the deep mysterious intentions. in brackets, of the Buddha's teaching. That's the scripture we're studying. We did the first chapter a month ago, and today we're doing the second chapter. And next time we'll do the third chapter, and then next time we'll do the fourth chapter.

[24:23]

And then that will dovetail with the other chapters which I talked about before, which are being... No, from the same sutra. For several years we were studying the Nirmacana Sutra at Green Gulch. Okay? Yes and yes? I think this morning you said Vasavandi taught about the three kinds of ultimate objective, the attainment and the practice. Vasubandhu is… Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu. He's, among other things, he's Asanga's brother. You know Asanga? Asanga? So those are two brothers and they are… Asanga is the older brother. He is sometimes considered to be the founder of the Yogacara school or the mind-only school of Mahayana Buddhism.

[25:30]

And his brother was the author of one of the main texts of another school called the Abhidharma Kosha. So Vasubandha wrote the Abhidharma Kosha, which is one of the main scholastic presentations in the Buddhist tradition, where he comments from the of one school of philosophy, a non-Mahayana school, and another non-Mahayana school. So there's four schools of philosophy that are recognized by most Buddhists to our individual vehicle and two are Mahayana Universal Vehicle. Two individual vehicles are called Sarvastavan and Vaibhashika, excuse me, Sarvastavan and Satrantika. Those are individual vehicle schools, and the Mahayana Yogacara and Madhyamaka.

[26:39]

So Vasubandhu is a... He was an expert at the first school, And he then criticized the first school from the perspective of the second school. So that's Vasubandhu. But then he wrote Mahayana about his big brother, and then he wrote a whole bunch of Mahayana texts. This would have been maybe first century? About first century? No, like fourth century. fourth century. Vasubandhu and Sangha, fourth century. Nagarjuna, first century. Or second century. First and second centuries. Some traditions say Vasubandhu, I mean, Nagarjuna lived 900 years. So... Yeah.

[27:42]

I'm wondering, with this chapter, if part of it is in response to what had happened to the harmonic system, which is sort of related, but, you know, had developed this very elaborate and disputation. I wonder if it's partly commenting on that. Yeah, I think so. I think these Mahayana texts were, even before the Mahayana texts, the early scholastic Buddhist teaching is responding to philosophical schools that had co-existed with him. And it's partly his response to his native philosophical religious environment. And he had something new to say, basically this middle way. which he taught was the pentacle rising.

[28:45]

But also, he taught that the pentacle rising is emptiness. And then he taught that recognizing that emptiness is a conventional designation, then pentacle rising and emptiness are the middle way. and that's Nagarjuna's presentation of the Buddha's teaching of dependent core rising, is that its emptiness and its conventional designation. And his school, the school that Nagarjuna founded, which is one of these Mahayana philosophy schools, is called the Middle Way. So it's called the Middle Way, but it's the Middle Way in the Mahayana context rather than the Middle Way the way the Buddha first put it. where he seemed to be teaching individuals how to become free, rather than getting people to sign up to be bodhisattvas and find the middle way together with the vows to live for the welfare of all beings, not just to become personally free. At what point did that change?

[29:51]

At what point did it change from... It didn't really change, it's just that this new movement started. The old movement continued. The individual vehicle practitioners probably always dominated the Indian Buddhist Sangha. But this new wave of people who were actually aspiring to be Buddhas, starting with the Prajnaparamita texts and the Lotus Sutra, this new wave of wishing to become Buddha for the welfare of all beings rather than just wishing to be a sage, and becoming personally liberated, and also teaching others how to be sages and be personally liberated. The sages were still teaching, but they were more perspective of how you can be free. And the Buddha seemed to teach that way. He'd meet somebody and if they were ready, he would teach them and they would become free. He'd meet somebody else and teach them.

[30:52]

But his agenda was to free all beings, which all beings could use. But he didn't emphasize that bodhisattva spirit so much, literally, in his early teachings. But it seemed that after about 400 years, it seemed like the world was ready for Buddhism to emphasize compassion more. and then this bodhisattva thing, and compassion, including that you wish to become a Buddha in order to fully realize compassion. I sometimes thought, this is true, I sometimes thought that that is because just to help move us past the selfishness, kind of selfishness. If what's the technique? the wish to free all beings. Emphasizing that is partly a way to get us off of ourselves.

[31:57]

Definitely. As a matter of fact, it really is the only way to really get off yourself. You have to have a vow like that. So that's part of what Mahayana would say. Anybody who tries to attain personal liberation is not going to actually be able to get over personal self-concern completely. there's still some possibility of detachment to personal liberation. But, again, the early students had the advantage of having the Buddha in their face, so there was this transmission which was so strong that they could actually, like, even without the Bodhisattva Vows, maybe get over their self-concern. Yes. One more. What you just mentioned, the tendency to cling to the creative self and seeking individual salvation, was that a mistake of the arias mentioned in the first chapter?

[33:13]

Another term used rather than arias. The first chapter mentions three sets of sages, bodhisattvas... Oh, Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas. Yeah. So the Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas, yeah, they don't have this vow, so that's... That is the error. It's not so much an error, it's not really an error, it's more like they're not ready for that vow yet, and yet they're sages. And they have an understanding which is advanced to what some bodhisattvas have. But they don't have the bodhicitta. Right. They're not intending to become Buddhas. They're intending to become sages. And they do become sages. And we honor them. But we also realize that they have not signed up for this course.

[34:21]

And they're great. They're greater than us in a lot of ways. It's just that they don't have the same vows that the Buddha had, that the Buddhas have. But they're still part of our tradition and they're still disciples of Buddha. Some are hearing the Buddha and some understood what the ones who are heard understood without even hearing the Buddha. So they're still recipients of the Dharma. but they didn't even hear it from the Buddha. The idea is that probably in a past life they heard it. But they're actually Buddha's disciples, but they're just not signed up to become Buddhas. And the Buddha wanted to help some people become sages like that. Now the Lotus Sutra comes along and says, you people are actually going to become Buddhas. And the Lotus Sutra, they're very happy to hear that they're going to sign up for the Bodhisattva course too. The Lotus Sutra says everybody's going to become Buddha, even these people who attained sagehood but without wanting to be a Buddha.

[35:31]

Could you please speak about when Buddha said, I stop? Yeah. Yeah, he stopped greed, hate, and delusion. That's why the murderer couldn't catch him. That's why he could help him. He could help people because he was free of those forms of ignorance. I went and saw the movie Terminator last night. Yeah. And with all the violence. Yes. And there's tremendous amount of violence. Yeah.

[36:38]

It also speaks to my heart. Because you were there? Because you were there. Thanks for bringing your heart to be spoken to. Thanks for bringing your heart to be spoken to. Taking care of each other today. Thanks for ringing the bells so that they didn't sit too long without walking. Do you feel complete?

[37:45]

I'd like to read these chapters. You'd like to do what?

[37:57]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_86.17