Something that struck me again was that the dedication or the invocation of this text in that place, Nagarjuna highlights and pays the most respect to the Buddha or teaching dependent co-arising. Nagarjuna is kind of famous or well known as kind of like Mr. Emptiness of Buddhism. The main thing he wants to say in this text anyway is how much he appreciates the teacher Buddha for the teaching of dependent co-arising. His first chapter is about causation

[01:02]

and how causation is empty of inherent existence. So he's saying, isn't he, that he thinks the Buddha's teaching of dependent co-arising is supremely wonderful and also lacks inherent existence. The highest teaching of the Buddha that he seems to praise the most in this text, he shows in chapter 1 that it's self is empty. And it is the process which he uses and the Buddha uses too to empty the process of suffering. A couple of things I wanted to mention. I do not want to convert anybody to some wholesome doctrine as I will express more

[02:13]

strenuously later. I'm not saying anybody does want to do that, although some people look like they do, I'm not saying they do. I'm not trying to convert you to any doctrine to get you to hold to any doctrine. For example, I'm not trying to get you to hold to the doctrine of rebirth. One person was a little shy to receive the precepts because he thought maybe that if he did receive the precept that he was joining this movement that held a belief in rebirth. But still, to oppose, to hold an opposite position, to hold a position that says not rebirth, would also be something which I do not want to convert someone to.

[03:14]

I also don't want to convert someone to the doctrine of criticizing people who hold or don't hold to that. But still, the thought occurred to me, and I could have had another thought, but among the thoughts that did happen to occur to me was, I was looking at some younger people. Now, there are a few people here who are older than me. One, two, three, four, and five, and die gone. But they weren't in the cut. I was looking at these youngsters. I inquired as to their age. When I was a little boy, I was just a baby. Still, I was walking around talking to this guy, shaking hands with people,

[04:15]

kissing babies. I asked these people in the car, I said, when I was a little baby, where were you? He just sort of struck me. Now, where were they? Here they are, sitting in the car with me. They look like regular people, right? I mean, I know, I am. Anyway, I'm a living being. They seemed like living beings too, but when I was alive, where were they? When I was little, where were they? I asked them. They made some comments. I'm not sure if they were serious or not. They said they were watching me and contemplating a revisit. But anyway, I started to think, well, where were they? It didn't exactly make me believe in rebirth, but kind of like, well, where did they come from? Nowhere. I was walking around, they were nowhere, like they were nothing, like zero, you know, they were just like me

[05:17]

and the rest of the people, and then some of them came from nowhere. It didn't make sense. Also, for some reason or other, oh, I know, something in some magazine made me think of this because the editor of the magazine, I had interaction with her, and I was talking to her and some other woman, and I think I made some comment about women. And this other woman made some comment back to me, and then the editor said, good for you. You know, kind of like, you got him for making that comment about women. And I was thinking now, what can a man, but I won't mention what a woman can say, but what can a man say about women? I mean, after he gets over various multiple reactions to being put in this place. You mean the word or the concept? The word and the concept? Yeah. To me, they're the same thing, word, concept, idea.

[06:19]

So I thought, well, how about saying, I think just for fun, how about saying women are feminine. Well, that's not going to work. How about saying women are concerned for the welfare of others? Well, some are, some aren't. How about saying women are masculine? Well, that's not going to work. How about saying women are kind? How about saying women are only interested in penetrating insight? How about saying women are only interested in reproducing? How about saying women are fertile? How about saying, you know, there's other things. I couldn't actually think of anything that I could say about women. Maybe it's okay to say women are people. Anyway, I thought maybe I could say

[07:36]

women conventionally exist. And then I thought, well, I think one thing I could say about all women is that they're not women. That's all I could say, really. I thought, what about a woman? That's what the question was. I said, well, some women are feminine, some women are not. But really to say that woman is feminine, that doesn't quite work either, necessarily, easier than all of them. Anyway, I just thought I'd really have trouble saying anything about women. Well, you know, some women have operations, right? They stop being women. Women largely, for the most part, have double-X chromosomes. Some don't. Yeah, some don't. Well, you could say, you know, but then some people who say they're women don't have them, right? I mean, they've got everything else but the double-X chromosomes. So that doesn't quite work. But you know, these are all nice, nice attempts, you know.

[08:40]

But I felt like, anyway, I couldn't say anything except the only thing I felt best was to say they conventionally exist and that women are ultimately not women. That's about all I could say. I thought, well, that's pretty, like, I like that. Maybe women can talk about each other more freely. But being a man, that's about all I could come up with that seemed like the whole. How would you describe men? Well, I think I'd, to tell you the truth, I would have come to the same, I couldn't say men were masculine, you know. Now, I guess some people would say, well, let's just take the non-masculine ones and let's just get rid of them. They would have all just masculine ones. That's what some people would do. But then still, there would be like, well, these guys are more masculine than men, so these guys aren't really men, so they would have to really pop up real big, you know, to like really prove it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be men, right?

[09:42]

Actually, some people do that, don't they? Just to make sure. Um, there was this, you know, these three bulls, you know this story? These three bulls, they were, they lived in, I think they lived in Mississippi. Should I tell this or not? Most probably. Well, they lived in Mississippi, and there was like, there was a seniority thing. Now, the oldest bull had, he possessed like 30 cows, you know, and so on. And then the next one had less, and the next one had none. And so, a big truck, they were sitting there, you know, they were in a pen, you know? A big truck drove up with a new bull in it.

[10:45]

And these people had a conversation prior to the appearance of the bull, while he was doing the truck, and one bull said, the senior bull said, well, you know, I've got 30 cows, who do I give? You know, he's not going to give any of my cows. No, what do you call it? No mating access for him. I don't care what the owner says. I worked hard for my, my herd. The next one said, well, I've got 10, and same for me. I'm not sharing. The other one said, well, I've got none, but he's going to have to, you know, wait up until after me. So, then the bull came up, you know, cut down the ramp, and it was kind of a big one, real big. And the first bull said, well, you know, I've got 30.

[11:55]

That's, that's quite a few, actually. I don't know what got into me. I just thought it was all selfish there for a while. But now that I see him, he's like a good guy. I think I'll share. Maybe I'll give him like about 29. And the second one said, no, you're right. I feel ashamed. He's hogging like that. Here he is. Nice big guy. I've got 10. I'll give him nine. I feel good being generous. This is the Bodhisattva way, after all. And then the other one started charging around the pen very ferociously. Smashing into the fence, you know, knocking it down, breaking through, smashing into the truck, probably knocking it over. You know, digging up the ground, you know, ripping, ripping, ripping, charging, butting.

[12:58]

I've been done that for a while. He's cooled off. And his friend said, what are you doing? What's the matter with you? I just want to make sure he knew I was a boy. Boys, boys do this because they're, you know, they're afraid of how they're going to get categorized. Girls do a different thing. You know, girls do. Have you ever heard a story about what girls do? Anybody ever heard about what girls do? How they make that clear? You know, this is how we, this is called the pinnacle arising of conventional existence of a bull. When things change, you know, when certain other new ingredients come in, you got to do some other ingredients to make sure things stay nice and clearly defined conventionally. So you don't lose your conventional existence as a bull and become something unclear.

[14:00]

Then you have what you call the conventional, the pinnacle arising of a conventionally existing unclear animal. Some of us do not want to be like certain other animals are around. I just want to make sure you know what kind I am. Also, I just wanted to say that I think you all know this, but what is it? Dolly Parton has a new, what do you call it? Cosmetic line. One of her main policies of this is, she says, you know, there are already quite a few charities dedicated to the welfare of homeless people. But somebody has to, you know, take care of the homeless. So she has this new cosmetic line, which is to, you know, help out the homeless.

[15:10]

You know, you can order it by mail and it comes in what is called discrete envelopes. Repair kit for the ugly. Just get it and you know, you go in your room and put it on and you're okay. And you know, uh, and you can wear hair like hers. As long as you tie it up. So I mentioned to somebody that, you know, I felt that in religion, sense of humor is very important.

[16:33]

And she argued me a little bit and she said that she was reading William James and he said that really the primary tone, something like this, the primary tone of religion generally is one of solemnity, of solemnness, which means seriousness or, you know, um, to be deeply earnest. And I think that's great. I once was talking to Kali Girish and I asked him what kind of a guy he thought Dogen's was and he said, I think pretty serious. I said, you know, I said, I read it for a while and I found almost no jokes. Pretty serious. And, uh, when I give talks, especially like, you know, the Greenwatch, people talk to me afterwards sometimes and they say, you know, I really liked you. Your talk, it was, you know, it was funny.

[17:41]

Or they say, that's a great talk, you have a good sense of humor. It's not, you know, I don't, they don't really, they got, they walk into Zen Center and they know, okay, it's heavy, okay, this is a serious situation. Now, how can I get relief? So we got that thing down fairly well. If we don't, we should get it down. But then, after that thing, as Suzuki Roshi said, what we're doing is so important, too, too important to be taken seriously. Or you might say, what we're doing is too serious to be taken seriously. And he was, you know, people, he was a serious guy, actually. His son, uh, I wouldn't say exactly less serious, but looks less serious. Suzuki Roshi was generally kind of serious, very gentle, but serious. And he was always laughing, not always, you know, but he was laughing, but it worked because he was really a serious person, kind of like Dogen. And the Dalai Lama has got a serious, some serious problems, but he, uh, he laughs a lot.

[18:53]

Maybe Dalai Lamas in the past, you know, when things were real peaceful in Tibet, maybe they didn't laugh so much. I heard on the radio, uh, not really on TV, no, it was on the radio, yeah, I was interviewing a filmmaker from Sarajevo. They had a Sarajevo film festival in New York City, and this guy was visiting New York to do, to show some of his films. And I think it was Terry Gross on National Public Radio was interviewing him, and she, uh, she said, well, what's, he said, you know, what's it like for you to be in New York? It must kind of, must be kind of a relief, huh? Yeah, it's different, huh? He said, yeah, it's not that just different, it's like in another eon, it's like Sarajevo is like in the Middle Ages, it's like not just a different place, it's like in another, another world system. It's just completely, unbelievably different. And I, I don't know, I forgot how it came up, but he said, is there any sense of humor

[20:02]

among the people there? And he said, a lot. You're usually thinking, well, Sarajevo, no jokes about Sarajevo, folks, no jokes about Sarajevo, this is not something to joke about. Well, those who are in Sarajevo, anyway, don't have to worry about that. They don't have to worry about not being serious enough. So they can tell jokes. Maybe we can't tell jokes, but they can tell jokes. So they have Sarajevo jokes. And she said, well, would you mind sharing one? And actually the joke was, I hate to tell it, it was so, it was so kind of like twisted and so much, so big, so, so rooted in the suffering that only a Sarajevo person could tell it. And Terry Gross kind of laughed at it. But almost only a Sarajevo person could laugh at it.

[21:05]

I don't even dare tell it. It's so, it's so down there, you know. So down there, and in it, you know. So it reminded me of just, again, somebody gave me a newspaper today, and I looked in the movie section, there's a new Jack Nicholson movie out, and they say he did a good job. And they got Marlon Brando and said something like, I can't believe what a great job he did. And then he had a little thing underneath it, which I don't know if he said right after that. And then he said that, that I stopped acting because I can't stand to go down into the place where I can come up with that kind of a performance. And I think you know Marlon Brando's story, you can imagine why, he can't go down into that place in his heart, with all that suffering, his family, you probably can't go down there

[22:09]

anymore. I'm not saying you can't, but he's decided he's not going to go down to that place where his genius is born. He can't do it anymore. And the only one he was, I don't know what, I hope he goes down there again. If he does, and comes back up, it would be a great thing for all of us, to see what he does. But I can certainly understand, you know, that he doesn't want to go down there, to that place where all his heart is born. And part of getting down there is a sense of humor. You kind of got to sometimes tickle yourself down there. You sometimes can fall down there when you're laughing. I ought to get here. But you know, also, this thing, you know, there's a sense of humor, but not too far.

[23:17]

You know, like the Buddha, there's a category of, look at that guy, isn't he handsome? Actually, this is my first guest tonight. Say hello to Steven Miloski. He is a Zen monk from California. He's been studying Nagarjuna now for a while. And he consented to come on the show and share with us some of his studies on these ancient

[24:21]

texts, which he's become famous all over the great state of California for. Just as a little introduction, I might tell you that one of the most important texts for the Zen Buddhists, and you know everybody in California is a Zen Buddhist, and it's a place called Castajara, which is the headquarters of it. And they're studying this text, and he's an expert on it. He thought he came to share with us, we can't get into the whole text, because actually one verse of this text takes five years to understand. He's just going to share with us his favorite verse. So are you ready to do that? Can we have some of the dogs?

[25:24]

Did you say there's a dog here? Mr. Miloski, so yeah, this is the one. He's got these notes here written. Is that Sanskrit that you have written? He's an expert on Kali. For those of you who aren't familiar with Zen Buddhists, before they disclose the inner secret of a text, they go into a deep trance. He's doing that right now. He will soon speak. And only those of you who have wisdom will be able to understand. Well, I actually did look at this this afternoon, and it shows my favorite, from between the

[26:39]

Karkas number 2424 through 2440, and I thought my favorite one was Karka 2440. The last one, by God. Get ready for this, folks. It's a good one. Well, I felt that first, 2424 through 2439, Nagarjuna was refuting substantialism, rather than bringing forth his own teaching. And I thought the last one he was actually just bringing forth his own teaching, which actually, as you stated earlier, is the importance of relational origination. One who rightly discerns relational origination will, indeed, rightly discern universal suffering,

[27:47]

its origin, extinction, and the way to enlightenment. I actually don't know much more to say. I just appreciate that Karka, because it did come forth with an instruction. And I have a question about the other one, but in general about what Nagarjuna was doing. It seems that he, like in the previous, like in 2424 through 2439, he's sort of refuting substantialism, and I don't really understand why there would be Buddhist substantialists. I guess this is the second century AD, and like, you know, like we all have read the

[28:51]

Heart Sutra, and we all know form is emptiness. We say that emptiness is form, and we say that every single day. I'm just kind of curious why Nagarjuna has to say this to these people. I mean, because you would assume that Buddhists wouldn't need to be told that. Yeah. Especially if they read the Heart Sutra. Yeah. Which hadn't been written yet, but that doesn't matter, because there's other scriptures, Mahayana scriptures, that have been written prior to that, that state that case, that all dharmas are empty and so on. But, you know, Mahayana at this time was a small movement, at the time of Nagarjuna. And most Buddhists, most Buddhist teachers anyway, were of the, the Abhidharma schools were, they were the big institutions in India. You look at the universities and stuff, they were strongholds of Abhidharma.

[29:55]

And they, they didn't actually have a teaching going that we can seem to find there that would sort of clearly uproot certain tendencies to metaphysical existence. No, they would never say that self exists. And it's not, there were the school however that got into that. They wouldn't go that far. But the way they talked, you could tell that they thought that way. The way they described, the way they described causation, for example, you can see the way they talked about causes. You can see that they talked about causes as though they had an inherent causal power in them. So if you look at the Abhidharma discussions of that, even though they were Buddhists, you can see that actually they thought causes had in themselves the power to have an effect.

[30:58]

That a cause, they thought in terms of a cause having an effect. That's, in fact, as we've seen by studying, shows that there's an inherently existing causal power in the cause. So he saw that, and actually you can find texts that actually, we talk like that, of people who hold to Buddhist teaching, who say, I believe in the lack of inherent existence of a person. I think the person lacks inherent existence, doesn't have a real self, and then they go ahead and talk about causation as though causation has self. So in a way, there's two kinds of lack of self in Buddhism. Particularly one is called purgala nairatnya. Purgala means person. Nairatnya, instead of saying anatma, you can say nairatnya. So purgala nairatnya, or also dharma nairatnya. So the emptiness is not just of the person, and the person doesn't have a self, but dharmas

[32:03]

don't have a self. And it's possible to have the insight of the person not having a self, but then attribute self to dharma. However, if you do that, attributing self to dharma just creeps back into the way we see people. Unless you uproot not only the belief in the self of the person, but also the self of the whole thing, you haven't gone to the Buddhist teaching. And so that would seem to be the case, and it isn't just that you could imagine it, because Narayana wrote this, but if you look at the text, you can see that in them, you can see that in the Abhidharma. And even Vasubandhu, who had his problems, too, he didn't go far enough in a way, but you can see he was criticizing this, what's called sarvas-pravadans, where they're saying sarvas-pravadans means all things exist. Sarva, aspi means exist. Lada, pat, pat, all dharmas exist. So they were actually saying that dharmas exist. So if you analyze your experience, or analyze any sense of personal self into dharmas, then

[33:08]

your belief in the person, the selfhood of the person, will drop away. And if you believe dharmas exist, then you're still holding to substantial existence. And Vasubandhu criticized that in the Agama Kosha, and he still held to some metaphysical realities. But Vasubandhu came after Nagarjuna, so Nagarjuna actually wrote, and he evaporated the self-existence of the sarvas-pravadana system before Nagarjuna came in to do his work. So that's why they did that. Do you see some, is this teaching of Nagarjuna having some effect in your Buddhist community who's out there in California? Have you seen some change in the community as a result of studying this material? Which I understand is kind of a rage out there. Yes.

[34:10]

Can you tell us a little bit about it? What you've observed? Well, it's hard actually to say because I'm not a Buddhist. Because it's not just that we heard this teaching, but that a lot of other things are going on also. Like we're coming together and leaving together to study this. It's hard to isolate exactly how it affects people.

[35:23]

Do you feel that the teaching in some sense was of some benefit to your community? Studying the teaching? Yeah. Well, thank you. Well, I think people are happier, I don't know.

[36:43]

Yeah. The first thing I was going to ask these people here tonight, because it's kind of a strange situation and you people are the people they're talking about, but anyway. When I came in here I was going to ask, are you people happy? Are you happy? Any other? Yeah, I think so. I think happier. Happier? Anything else? Did you notice? Any problems came up in the process of studying this material? To help people grow? Well, it's certainly been much of a confusion. Being in confusion gives you a place to leave from. People have been frustrated.

[37:44]

People have had understanding after being frustrated. I felt that the focus of the teaching in chapter one of causality really encouraged me to pay attention to how I explain what my experience was like. It continues to challenge me in ways that I attributed my experience to. Anybody else notice that something like that happened? I noticed in writing my book. That's a first.

[38:46]

I caught Vicki with a curved sleeve. What are you laughing about? In writing the book, I was looking at the first parts of the book I'm writing. I've changed most of the causes to conditions. I've changed the language to make it less mechanistic. In some ways, the argument loosens up a little bit and becomes powerful in a certain way. But also less linear and more multidimensional. I've changed quite a bit myself in the process of studying this text as you may have noticed.

[39:56]

Can I comment on that question? One of the things that I think I've noticed the most is that when I think that something is a certain way, I have a fixed opinion, that there's a physical and chemical change in my body. It's usually not pleasant. When I'm willing to give it up or suspend for a moment, there's a sense of ease in my body. Is it this teaching? Yes, it points to the subtleties of seeing things as substantial. Holding on to my view of reality as substantial. It gets into the workings of that. For me, it was a pretty big experience too. In the beginning, when I first came in touch with the first chapter,

[41:02]

it was like a room that I was in. I was tilted and shaken around and I couldn't find all of my ideas of how things are, how things should be, how I saw things. My basic beliefs about existence got shaken. Totally shaken. Then all of a sudden, I started looking from space. It's very different. Can I get back to the topic of coding? Sure, it still concerns me. Because I still, every time I get a question on the issue of chemical biology, I'm still very blank. My mind is limited. It's a little bit more than I can apply it. I still don't have any right to say anything. I don't have any decision at all. Maybe I do. Maybe you can say what the chemical arising is, but I'll just forget it anyway.

[42:18]

I've heard it tried to talk about it over and over again. Did you just say that? Did you just say, maybe you can say what the chemical arising is, but I'll just forget it. I will probably forget it. Now, if I say what the chemical arising is, or even if he says what the chemical arising is, it's fine if he forgets it. Because if I say what the chemical arising is, that's not what the chemical arising is. So it's fine if he forgets it. How do you recognize it? How do you recognize the chemical arising? Well, by watching it happen. And when you watch it happen, you'll notice that the way it happens, is that it doesn't sit there and stay there for five minutes. The description of it doesn't last. If you're seeing the chemical arising, as soon as you see the description of it, the chemical arising, immediately you lose it. So if that happens to you, that's fine.

[43:19]

And if you watch that happen, you might be discerning the chemical arising, but you just might notice that you're discerning it, because you didn't expect the chemical arising to be like that. Yeah, exactly. So now it's time for our next guest, Gloria. Can I sit next to your husband? Okay. I have something I'd like to say. I was really impressed with during the June, everybody in 2410 kept saying, ultimate truth. And I couldn't believe everybody knew that it was about the ultimate truth. I missed that caught happening. I read this.

[44:27]

Grammatically, it seemed like a word that would just throw. I noticed the books, when I got a book today, and it was changed, and I thought, oh, everyone had a changed book. Is that true? A little band of elves changed them yesterday, I think, the day before yesterday. They didn't change? They didn't change. They didn't change. We love forget. That's one thing we're holding on to, forget. I shouldn't be here. So this is kind of an unusual night, because I've invited several Zen Buddhists to come on the show. And our next guest is none other than whoever comes from Pennsylvania. I am from California. Do you know each other? Yes. Yes, I guess we do. It's great to be on your show.

[45:37]

I have to get my text, though. I came specially prepared to see me. Are you a Naga? No, I'm not a Naga. They weren't green. They weren't green. So my favorite karaka, I have to admit, although you've spoken about it in the past, is 2424. If the way to enlightenment possesses self-nature, then its practice will not be possible. But if the way is practiced, your assertion of a way involving self-nature is inadmissible. And the best commentary I've seen on this is by an American Buddhist in the 20th century, a great bodhisattva, and he wrote a book called Meditation in an Emergency. And this was his commentary on that karaka. Not you, lean quarterlies and swarthy periodicals, with your studious incursions toward the pomposity of ants,

[46:38]

nor you, experimental theater in which emotive fruition is wetting poetic insight perpetually, nor you, promenading grand opera, obvious as an ear, though you are close to my heart, but you, motion picture industry, it's you I love. In times of crisis, we must all decide again and again whom we love and give credit where it's due. Not to my starched nurse who taught me how to be bad and not bad, rather than good, and has lately availed herself of this information. Not to the Catholic Church, which is at best an over-solemn introduction to cosmic entertainment. Not to the American Legion, which hates everybody, but to you, glorious silver screen, tragic technicolor, amorous cinemascope, stretching vistavision, and startling stereophonic sound with all your heavenly dimensions and reverberations and iconoclasms. To Richard Barthelmes as the tolerable boy barefoot in pants. To Jeanette MacDonald of the flaming hair and lips and long, long neck. Sue Carroll as she sits for eternity on the damaged fender of a car and smiles.

[47:44]

Ginger Rogers with her pageboy bob like a sausage on her shuffling shoulders. Peach Melba-voiced Fred Astaire of the feet. Eric von Stroheim, the seducer of mountain climbers, gasping spouses. The Tarzans, each and every one of you. I cannot bring myself to refer Johnny Weissmuller to Lex Barker. I cannot. Mae West in a fury sled, her bordello radiance in bland remarks. Rudolph Valentino of the moon, its crushing passions. And moon-like, too, the gentle Norma Shearer. Miriam Hopkins dropping her champagne glass off Joel McRae's yacht and crying into the dappled sea. Clark Gable rescuing Gene Tierney from Russia. And Alan Jones rescuing Kitty Carlisle from Harpo Marks. Colonel Wilde coughing blood on the piano keys while Merle Oberon berates. Marilyn Monroe in her little spike heels, reeling through Niagara Falls. Joseph Cotton puzzling an Orson Welles puzzle. And Dolores Del Rio eating orchids for lunch and breaking mirrors.

[48:45]

Gloria Swanson reclining and Jean Harlow reclining and wiggling. And Alice Faye reclining and wiggling and singing. Myrna Loy being calm and wise. William Powell in his stunning urbanity. Elizabeth Taylor blossoming. Yes, to you. And to all you others, the great, the near-great, the featured, the extras, who pass quickly and return in dreams, saying your one or two lines. My love, long may you illumine space with your marvelous appearances, delays and annunciations. And may the money of the world glitteringly cover you as you rest after a long day under the clag lights with your faces in packs for ratification. The way the clouds come often at night, but the heavens operate on the star system. It is a divine precedent you perpetuate. Roll on, reels of celluloid, as the great Earth rolls on. Thank you. John? Yes, I'm glad you could come. I didn't know. This is John Verlo, also from Gallaudet.

[49:58]

I came up because when I heard this wonderful poem, I had a great revelation. And I think I really saw into it. Well, I actually had this revelation today when I heard this poem read to me by Gerald. And what I realized was that if the way to enlightenment possessed self-nature, it never could comprehend the movie of mystery. And if it didn't comprehend the movie of mystery, how could it include happiness? For how can happiness be true? And who would be interested in enlightenment if it didn't have anything to do with happiness? So enlightenment has to do something with the movie industry. But if it had self-nature, when Norgard June was writing, when there were no movies?

[51:04]

No movies, no enlightenment. Therefore, it must. Because otherwise, it's reduced to absurdity. So this was... Yeah, thank you. A commercial. A commercial. Come on, Jennifer, let's have a little circle break here. I'll help you. I'll help you. You don't get the kick of it. You don't get the kick of it.

[52:08]

Can I be with you? What? Oh. Oh. What did you say? I am talking to myself. Okay. Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way. Oh what fun it is to ride in a one horse open sleigh. Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way. Oh what fun it is to ride in a one horse open sleigh. Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way. Oh what fun it is to ride in a one horse open sleigh. Jingle all the way.

[53:11]

May you have a fun ride in your swing of life. Oh, jingle bells. I also wanted to follow up on a question. We're on the show, we can't get off now. I'm going to say this person's quote, so I'm going to have to look on this comment on the first quote.

[54:17]

If the past had self-nature, then the cultivation would not be possible. And if you were cultivating the past, then the self-nature of it, the self-nature associated with the past would not be possible. If the past had self-nature, you couldn't cultivate it. Now, what was interesting, the word cultivation, the community of it, is bhavana. Bhavana means, the word bhava, bhava means existence. Bhavana, often translated as cultivation of meditation.

[55:24]

Bhavana means to make, to exist, to bring into existence. So the cultivation of practice of something is to bring the thing into existence. So if something has self-existence, you can't bhavana it. You can't bring it into existence because it already exists. So if the practice was a certain thing, and it's existence, you couldn't bring it into existence. Or, if somebody was like, practicing, like you had some Buddhist, some bodhisattva or some buddha, and they were practicing away, like going around, like, helping people, or teaching people, like inviting people, like inviting plants and animals, or doing anything like that, some kind of bodhisattva to do it, then there would be some suffering. If that was happening, then the existence of the practice, you couldn't see it.

[56:30]

I don't follow. Why not? Or, how not? Well, because, if it had an existence, okay, what would its existence be? If it had an existence, what would its existence be? Whatever it was, okay, that would be it. Unless you did that, which is a fixed thing, all these other things couldn't happen. Because if these things were happening, there would be no evidence for the nature of the path. Because all these different things are happening. I'll have to think about it. I'm sure I can get it if I think about it. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. So, another way to put it was, if there isn't some kind of quality of the path, if the path has self-existence, all you've got to do is take the self-existence out, and use that to figure out what to do. What you'd do then, would you do that?

[57:33]

You'd do it self-existent. You'd do it self-existent. You'd do it self-existent, that would be it. That would make it so you couldn't practice anything but that. Anything else would be not allowed. But anyway, that doesn't make sense, right? Are you following this now? Somewhat, it'd be like that character that says... For example, let's say the self-existence of the path is just like you are right now. Where Mark is, that's it. But we're all out of it, right? At least Mark wasn't out of it. Right? Right. But you can't move now. Right, frozen. You can't do anything, you've got to be like this forever. Right. You can't change, you can't develop. If the way you are now is the way the path is, if the way you're practicing right now, standing or whatever, sitting or maybe sitting and talking or something real cute, if that was the way the path was, then you'd have to be like that, because you couldn't change. All of us would be out of it, because we'd have to be like him, or we can't be.

[58:36]

Now, if he was practicing there for a little while and said, okay, the way he's practicing now is the path, and then he changed into something else, and that was practice, and he changed into something else, and that was practice, that still is not so good. It hurts that way, but still in a way, there's some possibility that we all could enter into the practice. We could just change, it could be different things. Now, if we allow that, if there is practice, then there's no self-management. You can come up with evidences, and then there's nothing you can say. Well, that's it, because there's going to be changes in what happens to us. So, anyway, that's... Can I say one thing? You know, that's... That ties right in with 2438, which says, from the standpoint of self-existence, the world will be removed from the various conditions, and it will be non-originative, non-destructive, and immovable. Okay. Did you get it now? Yeah. Did I get it now? I don't know. I don't know. Okay, so... But that's not the case, okay? That's obviously not the case.

[59:37]

But if it is the case, then, that the path doesn't have self-existence, because having self-existence is like total... It's all overland, right? You can't practice it all. And if we did practice, it wouldn't be the path. If self-existence was a path, it wouldn't be there. We'd be out of it. And in fact, sometimes we practice here at Tao Te Hai, and we wonder, is this practice? In other words, is this what we're doing? Does it have the self-existence of practice in it? And sometimes we act like either we're not sure we got it, or we're not sure somebody else has got it. And then we kind of like, well, never mind. It's like the deep world we're in. You know what I mean? There's certain... Sometimes, in a world like that, we're probably monsters. Now, we don't do that, right? So we're in a world where the practice, the path, is not something that has self-existence in it. So we can look for it in our kind of world. What might it be, right? Nagarjuna's text would say,

[60:41]

well, what might it be? It might be... Who knows? When this man read that poem, it might have been somewhere in the neighborhood every moment, while he was doing it, that might have been... Somewhere around there might have been... Or at least, that might have been the path to it. The way each of these people have behaved tonight, each of our guests, they might have been representing an attempt to practice the way to enlightenment. But how... My question at the end of that talk was, how would you tell? How would you be able to tell? There's not some kind of like self-nature that you can check with. How are you going to check whether it's the right path or not? Now this, Stephen, is part of the reason why Nagarjuna wrote this book. Because some Buddhist text books written, this chapter is saying, how do you tell the right path from the wrong path? They have little instructions there how you can tell. Little things you take out. But these qualities, this is the right path. These qualities, this is the wrong path. There are such texts, Buddhist texts. Now Nagarjuna is saying, what am I reading right now?

[61:43]

Is it a book? What are you talking about here? Is this just kind of like a conventional thing? This is called the chapter on the conventional truth of how to tell. Don't keep that in mind. This is kind of like we're going to have a little story time now. This is kid's kind of thing. Story time. Here's how you tell between the right path and the wrong path. Ah, ha, ha. This is kind of like Sunday morning at Greenville. They're not going to come to me. They're going to leave for a lecture in the Homo Nation. Maybe they'll take their muffins before they go. We're not going to tell them this stuff. This is Zazen. This is Zazen. This is it. You've got it. Then later, maybe he'd tell. Well, that wasn't exactly Zazen. Zazen is not actually the power of your breathing. I mean, that's not what it is.

[62:44]

So, like, if you stop following your breathing, it's almost kind of like you're not practicing. Or, like, you know, maybe you get the call from your person at the temple, and they want to stop following their breathing. They said, in 10 days, they're going to get this person off this thing. They won't eat. They won't poop. They won't hang out. They said, they learned Zazen in 10 days. You mean it's not? I mean, it's not that it's not. If you can't actually say that that's the self-nature of Buddhism, then how will we even tell what it is? How will we tell when people are on the path to the path of life? How are we going to tell when some of us are on the path to the path of life? Because we haven't been taught anything that some of us

[63:45]

probably haven't been taught, right? Anyway, how are we going to tell? How are we going to tell if Buddha hasn't answered the question? How are we going to tell? There's another chair here. Anyway, if Charlie won't speak, then I'll just say what the Buddha said. I mean, he didn't really say what the Buddha said. Do you know how you tell when people are on the path to the path of life? Do you know how you tell if they're under or not? Do you know how you tell? How do you tell? I'll give you a chance if you're wrong. If you're liberated. No. Thank you, Charlie! If we aren't sure

[64:52]

how do you tell if we're liberated or not? How do you tell if you're liberated or not? You're happy. So, there it is. So, that's how you can tell if you're on the right path if you're happy. Right? Do you even have that? It's the right drug. If you're not happy, there's another way to tell. Because in Zen Buddhism you have this also thing I've heard about going beyond enlightenment. So, first of all you can tell you're enlightened. So, first of all you can tell if you're on the right path because you're enlightened. And then, you're supposed to go beyond enlightenment. And then you're happy when you're enlightened. So, you're supposed to go beyond the enlightenment to pure enlightenment. And then, if you're sad that's how you can tell. If you're miserable then you can tell if you're miserable. If you're happy you're supposed to go beyond it if you're sad so that's how you can tell. These are the ways you can tell however that's in the situation where you don't have any other way to tell like the self-nature or the path to self-enlightenment. But actually

[65:56]

the Buddha had a little different answer. The answer the Buddha had was shit because the city was late I forget Margaret's answer but the answer the Buddha had was the way you can tell when you're on the right path is by being arrogant. That's how you can tell. Some of the people in the room are not arrogant so I'm sorry. We can tell what the right path is from the wrong path. God can tell us not only do we know what the right path is but we can tell the wrong path. We don't even need like an inherent nature of the path to tell we can just go right up and tell that's the wrong path that's the right path this guy's right

[66:56]

she's wrong she's pure he's impure that's all it takes. All you're going to need to do that is be arrogant or put it the other way I said this way they would have put it the other way if you say if a bodhisattva says if a baby Buddha says this is the right path and this is the wrong one if she says that she's arrogant that's all. So the people who get to say that are the arrogant ones those who do say it are the arrogant ones the people who don't say that also could be arrogant but when you do say that or think that then you're arrogant so if you want to be able to think this is the right path go right ahead but then you get to be arrogant to say the Buddha also said the Buddha also said if she says if a bodhisattva says only by depending on

[67:57]

according to Paramita does one become liberated from the world if she says that she is arrogant this is a quote from a scripture that may not be sure well the Heart Sutra said that the Heart Sutra said that but if you say it or if I say it if you have to think of it and say it then you're arrogant well you're basically saying I'm saying the Heart Sutra so I if you go around if you didn't say the Heart Sutra and some people have told you you didn't say the Heart Sutra and you know it didn't get you it didn't now

[69:00]

also sometimes people come up to me and quote me and say I believe that get arrogant to pick the lines in the Heart Sutra very good pick the lines in the Heart Sutra and say I believe that oh that's true this is what called to be arrogant bodhisattva to say I believe that whatever it is whatever it is yesterday arrogant he's free how does a bodhisattva become free of arrogance big dog big dog brother by not adhering to by not holding onto anywhere the doctrine that's all and not by adhering to the doctrine and not adhering to it so how do you differentiate

[70:04]

between believing and faith faith and believing faith faith is what for you for you for you yes for you faith is what is most important to you at the moment when you're ready to die that's faith what's most important is not what you believe in that's faith it is and what's most important to you is to adhere to it for very few people when they die what's important is what they believe in the most important thing is not what you believe in what you believe in is what you're holding to and you're about you're just now getting ready to let go have you let go just about ready to let go and what's most important to you

[71:05]

you get to say you get to say you get to say that's faith that's an abolition what is life for for you for you that's your heart that's your mind that's your life what is that that's faith that's why I ask you at the beginning about faith what is that because that's where we come from where we go that's the life that's the life there's nothing at all this is the path to come forth to go home to that path to come forth I think I guess I think I hope you come back again next week also we have a class tomorrow morning and a class the day after this you sow ceremony and tomorrow night we have a bodhisattva initiation ceremony so a lot of things

[72:05]

are happening and so all these things that are coming up I really welcome of course you sow ceremony I really welcome your participation okay and I really welcome your participation in the bodhisattva ceremony and I welcome your participation in this class if you have any suggestions to me beforehand you know I invited these guests beforehand if you have any suggestions for this class let me know I'll try to incorporate your suggestions and also I just want to end by reciting a little dedication for tomorrow night ceremony so you're familiar with it okay let's practice to end by this chant so I'll just tell you first and then we can do it but the first line is like a like a cloud in the sky like a lotus in muddy water

[73:06]

like a lotus in muddy water we live in the pure mind of Buddha we live in the pure mind of Buddha we do that three times and at the last after the last time after the last third time we say thus together with all beings we bow with Buddha we bow with the bodhisattva okay we'll do this at the end of the ceremony practice now post it on the golden board for me yeah like a cloud in the sky like a lotus in muddy water we live in the pure mind of Buddha thus we with all beings bow with the bodhisattva like a cloud in the sky like a lotus in muddy water

[74:06]

we live in the pure mind of Buddha like a cloud in the sky like a lotus in muddy water we live in the pure mind of Buddha like a cloud in the sky like a lotus in muddy water we live in the pure mind of Buddha thus we with all beings bow with I'll see you in the next video. Bye bye.

[74:35]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ