I wanted to begin by saying something about brief doksan, which I haven't offered yet since I've returned, because I feel that I need to give people a chance for the longer meetings first. I think it's too hard to go into brief doksan and really be brief when you have something else you want to talk about. So I'm trying to basically go through the doksan list once and then start the brief doksans. Sometimes even when I just saw the person a couple days before in a longer meeting, sometimes it's hard to keep the conversation two, five minutes.

[01:02]

And often it just naturally takes 10, 15, 20 minutes. Even in a brief context, sometimes the meetings have gone 20 minutes. And then when one goes 20 minutes, then the next person says, well. So in order to actually do them in one day, if they're five minutes, it can be done in one day. But if they're 10, then it takes two days. If they're 20, it takes four days. But then if they're taking four days and people think it's not going to be a great talk, so then it takes eight days. Okay. And it would take eight days or more to do the number of people that are involved. But if it's five minutes, it can be done in a day. But I guess it's just unrealistic to expect people to meet very briefly when they've been waiting to talk about something which is a little bit bigger than...

[02:10]

a brief meeting. So that's why I'm going through the doksan list first and haven't started the brief doksans yet. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's my rationale. Could you hear me? Today is two days before Sashin, so this is our last kind of class before Sashin. And I actually wanted to start picking up on what Mako brought up at the end of last class. She quoted Vasubandhu in the Thirty Verses on Mere Consciousness. And I don't know if she said, but anyway, one translation is, as long as consciousness does not terminate in mere concept, so long will the dispositions for the twofold grasping not cease. And I think she said, well, is that like Wang Bo saying, give up all conceptual thought?

[03:22]

Is that what you said? And I stopped for a minute and I thought, yes. And then I thought about it for another couple of days and I think, yes. I think that It sounds a little different, but I think it's basically saying the same thing. So I basically want to talk about this simple point, which is very difficult to attain, which in the 30 verses on mere concept, which I studied with people several years ago here for the whole practice period, There is that verse. It's verse number 26. And... I believe... Oh, yeah, and verse 25 is interesting because verse 25 says... It actually says, Thus it...

[04:29]

and by it we understand the ultimate or the thoroughly established character. Thus the thoroughly established character, if I may insert that term, which is not actually in the original, thus the thoroughly established character is the ultimate meaning of events. The thoroughly established character is the ultimate because it is suchness. and you know that too, a thoroughly established character is suchness, right? Then it says, since it remains such all the time, it is indeed mere concept. So the mind, the consciousness terminating in mere concept means the consciousness incriminates in the thoroughly established character. To say that consciousness terminates in mere concept is the same as saying the concept terminates in the thoroughly established character.

[05:51]

Mere concept means you look at a concept and you know it's just a concept, and that's all. So it means you understand that whatever you're conceptualizing is empty. It doesn't actually reach the thing you're conceptualizing. So for the mind to terminate a mere concept is the same as the mind to know, knowing or cognizing suchness. Yes? Does it even say this is mere concept or going too far? It's not going too far. It's just... What do you call it? How do you put it? It's a mistake. It's a big mistake. Because you're just going back to believing the concept again. To say this is mere concept, at that moment you say it's mere concept,

[07:01]

you don't understand that what you're looking at is mere concept. If you did understand it, you wouldn't say this is mere concept. But the sutra says... So I'm saying that I can rephrase this verse by saying, giving the instruction, let consciousness terminate in mere concept. It says as long as it doesn't terminate, then the dispositions towards the two-fold grasping will not cease. The two-fold grasping means the dispositions towards grasping subject, as separate from object. That's a twofold grasping.

[08:02]

To grasp the subject as a separate thing from the object. That's our tendency. We have that tendency. What do you mean, let the consciousness terminate? Let the consciousness terminate means give up conceptual thought. Letting the consciousness terminate in mere concept equals give up conceptual thought. Usually what you do is the consciousness goes to the concept and grasps it as the other dependent. When it terminates a mere concept, you go to the concept and you don't grasp it as the other dependent. You just say, it's a mere concept.

[09:03]

You go to, it's a mere concept. You go to, this is a pure fabrication. You go there and you say, this is a pure fabrication. And this is a pure fabrication. This is a pure fabrication. This is a pure fabrication. You go to that place and you do not grasp this concept as the other dependent. Can you grasp the other dependent? Aren't you grasping? Pardon? Well, I actually didn't say grasping the other dependent. I said grasping the concept. But you can't grasp the other dependent. You can't grasp the other dependent because that would be like trying to reach out to get somebody else and wind up with your own nose in your hand. Because the other dependent is all over the place. You can't grasp it. But you can adhere to the view that this phenomenon you're looking at is your idea of it. So one way the sutra is translated is strongly adhering to the other dependent as being the imputational.

[10:12]

That's one way you can do it. In other words, you hold that absorbable... The other dependent is like Dependently co-arising transient phenomena, right? In other words, people, animals, trees and stuff, okay? To hold to those things as being your idea of them is the source of affliction, okay? The other way to put it is to hold to the imputational as being the other dependent. But Power's translation is to hold to the other dependent as being the imputational character, right? But the other translations say it the other way. It's to conceptually, to cling to the conception superimposed on, to cling to the conception superimposed upon the other dependent. But mere concept means that when you see a concept, you understand that it's a mere concept.

[11:20]

You understand that there's no evidence for it being anything. It's just a concept. So understanding that concepts are mere concepts, letting the mind terminate at that point, is the same as letting go of involvement in that concept. So giving up conceptual thought equals the mind terminating in mere concept. So Wang Bo's instruction and Bodhidharma's instruction, I'm suggesting to you, is the same as the implied instruction in the 30 verses. It doesn't say it, but it's implied. let the mind terminate in mere concept. Because if it doesn't, then you're going to keep grasping subject and object as separate, which Vasubandhar thinks is the main form of self-clinging. He didn't put it positively by saying, Learn to let the mind terminate in mere concept, and the disposition towards the two-fold grasping will cease.

[12:24]

And I think Kalupahana makes a good point that it's the disposition towards it that's the problem. It's okay to grasp subject and object as separate, as long as you do it like, you know, as a free act of sin. But it's the compulsion, it's the automatic compulsion to do that, the innate tendency due to past karma of doing that, that drives us to do that even before we have a chance. We're like, we're already doing it before we even notice it. But to be able to like, do it voluntarily if you wish, and also give it up if you wished, that comes when you realize, when you give up involvement in conceptual thought, or when you cease, when you give your stories a rest and so on. So I'm suggesting that, yes, and I appreciate you bringing that up, because I think that draws together Vasubandhu with Bodhidharma and the sutra. And so I'm basically suggesting that Vasubandhu's instruction, the sutra is saying in these three different ways.

[13:29]

One way is independence upon an absence of strong adherence to the other dependent as being. It doesn't say you're actually grasping the other dependent. You're adhering to the other dependent as being the imputational character. In the absence of that strong adherence to the other dependent as being of the character, of the imputational character, the thoroughly established character is known. The other translation, which I think is easy to connect that to, is Cleary's, which says, the perfect character of reality can be known by not clinging to conceptions. superimposed on the other dependent, or superimposed on dependent existence. The third translation is a little different. The pattern of full perfection can be understood as caused by the absence of grasping of the imagined pattern upon the other dependent pattern.

[14:38]

So this is a basic instruction about a great attainment And I feel a little embarrassed to be teaching such so little, but then I remember they say there wasn't much to Wong Bo then. Okay, so already there's many questions, and I think Mako and Andre were sort of up there in the first wave. Oh, and down there too? Yes? So you said, well, if I'm able to notice that and possibly go there, that might be already pretty good. And my question would be, so how do I actually know the difference? First of all, when I'm fixed up and I walk down a path, sometimes I just hear a sound and think, well, I don't notice that I can shoot something on that.

[15:41]

Or I just see something and I don't really notice that I Well, basically, for example, if you see anything, okay, generally speaking, whatever, and whenever you see an appearance, that's the imputational. So you're doing it all the time, basically. So you have plenty of times to be fairly sure that you're involved in grasping the imputational when you have an appearance. So then we've got the imputational there. Now the question is, then the next step is, do you believe? Do you believe that this appearance actually corresponds to something? But when we say appearance, basically the appearance you're seeing is the impotential.

[16:47]

The appearance you're seeing is your imagination. You're seeing your imagination and you're hearing your imagination right now. Now, do you believe that what you're seeing and hearing corresponds to anything other than just your imagination? If you do, I shouldn't say corresponds, but I should say actually like is, what's happening. If you do, then you're clinging to the imputational as being something that's happening. I'm not quite sure if I completely understand. For example, I hear a sound. Yeah, you hear a sound. You say a sound, yeah. And... Can I give an example? And... Okay. What I... I noticed nothing in between. I just noticed these two things. Well, there wouldn't be a next if you didn't notice something in between.

[17:50]

He did notice something in between. You may not have noticed that you conceptualized it, but you did. Otherwise, the first one wouldn't have ended. You wouldn't have noticed the first one stopped and the next one started. So you noticed the ceasing of the first one in order to notice the next one. And you and I noticed it, but you conceptualized it. So you can say, okay, that one's done now. Another one comes and you can put next on that. So there actually is this transient thing happening, which we call sound. And this transient, dependently co-arising sound process in hearing, that's the other dependent. And we have a conceptual version of it by which it appears to us. You can hear things without conception, it's true, but in the realm of hearing things, there's no next.

[19:14]

When you're hearing things by direct perception, which you are doing, because first there's direct perception, which is the way your body is actually responding to mechanical waves in the air or water. there's actually, your body's like sensorily resonating with that, and you can actually have a consciousness arise about that, which is called direct sense perception of, for example, sound. That does happen. It is happening, it is affecting your life. Most people, however, do not notice that. However, in that realm, there's no words. There's no next. Next. There's no former and latter. That kind of experience is up in the realm of concepts. But the conceptual realm is based on the experiential realm. I mean, the basic, actually, where you're actually observing something directly.

[20:18]

The empirical realm is the realm of dependent core arising. The conceptual realm is the realm of the invitational and it's of the realm of the thoroughly established. They're both about. The thoroughly established is not empirical. It's not a transient, dependently co-arisen thing. It's dependently co-arisen, but it's not about transient dependent phenomena. I mean, it is about that, but it's not a transient dependent phenomena. And the imputational is not either. But the imputational, the conceptual version of sound process, for example, is the way that sound appears to us in terms of words.

[21:21]

and essences and so on. And if we believe that, this sutra says, if you believe that, then you're believing the self of things as being the essence which you projected onto the sound process by which you could name it. And that's the source of conventionality, which we need, but also it's the source of the afflictions. But if we can understand the absence of the imputational in the actual ongoing empirical process, which the actual sound process does not have first, second, and third, or before and after, or next. It doesn't have that. If we can understand how that stuff's absent there, then we start to see the thoroughly established, and then we're looking at suchness, but suchness is also mere concept.

[22:22]

So we're looking at a concept, actually, when we're meditating on it. And this is a great accomplishment to be able to see this concept clearly. And then we gradually go beyond it. It's just pure conceptuality. So the basic instruction is you're walking around here in this world and Basically having a tendency to hold to the imputational as being the other dependent, and you try not to learn how to give up strong adherence to your concept of things as being those things. Trying to train yourself to give up, to give this conceptual process a basically constant rest. Constant rest means it arises and give it a rest. It arises, give it a rest. So it isn't like give it a rest, like stop it. It's like every moment it's in your face and every moment let go of it.

[23:28]

Every moment it's in your face. So giving up conceptual thought means give up this onslaught of conceptual thought. Give up the way your mind's constantly conceptualizing, constantly grasping. Every time it happens, give it up. Learn to do it right along with the grasping, right along with the concept. Learn to give it up. Yes? Do I make a distinction between it? Yeah. Yeah. We sometimes say conceptuality is to be involved with conceptions. So most people are involved with conceptuality, which means they're entangled in the concepts. In other words, they're grasping the concepts. So conceptual clinging is different from conception. So when Bhagavad Gita says allow the consciousness to terminate in your concept, it doesn't sound to me like you're saying give up conceptual thinking and be, like don't ever have another thought.

[24:31]

It's more of a... I think he is saying, give up conceptual thinking, but it doesn't make any sense to give something up if it's not happening. Give up conceptual thinking. Give up the conceptual thinking that's going on. If conceptual thinking isn't going on, we don't have to tell you to give it up. Does that make, like, complete sense? How is the relationship between conceptual thought, having conceptual thought and adhering to the other being? What is the relationship between a conceptual thought and adhering to the other dependent being with conceptual thoughts?

[25:32]

No, they're not identical. The conceptual thought pertains to some dependable horizon, except in the case of... Well, actually, it always pertains to some conceptual arising, but the conception is not in the conceptual arising. So the self that we imagine of some dependent phenomena, like a person, is based on the person, but there's no self in the person. And the self refers to that person, yes, but there's no evidence of the self anyplace. But it is based on, it's stimulated by, you know, a person comes up to us and we defend ourselves against the person by coming up with a self of them.

[26:36]

And then we superimpose the self on them and we hold to them being that self. But it is not necessary to do that. We can stop believing that, even while we're doing it. In other words, the Buddha can talk about things, which means that there has to be some kind of imputation, there has to be some kind of grasping in order to apply the word to this appearance of this isolated thing. so you can put a word on it. You don't put the word dog on the entire landscape. You isolate the dog away from the cats, and then you put the word dog on there. So the mind still has to make this generic version, this class version of this thing, which is not the thing, it's this generalized image of it, and then put this image on the thing,

[27:48]

And then you can put a word on it. And you can learn to do that without believing that that device you use by which to make the conventional designation actually is the thing that you're using this operation on in order to be able to designate the situation. That's what we're trying to learn. Before we learn how to talk about things, from this new perspective, we're trying to get the new perspective. In other words, to get the perspective of suchness. And the first instruction to get that perspective directly is give up conceptual thought. But there's another step which I would suggest, which I have suggested a number of times, but which I'll suggest, if you remind me, before the class is over, which is actually a first step. I don't know who's next. Oh, Judith?

[28:52]

Can we train ourselves using language internally? You have to start that way. I mean, I know... You can use concepts to train yourself to give up grasping conceptions. That's the idea. So the Buddha does give instructions which are taken conceptually, which teach us to give up conceptions. As phrases, mentally, internally, when you come up, when Ray hears his sound? At first you use them as phrases, as verbal things. After a while you may be able to do it without saying a word anymore. You get into a mode. Like I mentioned this story. I don't know when I last did it to the group, but the Zen teaching of archery, the Zen archery teacher says, pull the bow back and just hold it until the string is released.

[30:05]

Do not release the string itself. Just hold it and wait for it to be released. In this situation where the bowstring is drawn, is called, I think it's either called ki or ki-kan. Ki is like in Zenki, my name. It's also in the Yulner Samadhi where it says, the pivotal opportunity. So you draw the bow, and this is the pivotal opportunity. In other words, this is the situation of this drawn bow, which offers you the opportunity to realize the relief of this string, which you don't do. and also called key-con in the sense that this is a pivotal barrier because we don't usually understand how the string could be released without us doing it. We just hurl this tension until it's released. So basically every moment is like draw this concept and hurl this concept until it's released.

[31:08]

Don't try to figure out how to do it. Just know that you're holding this concept of, I'm going to release this strain, or this strain is going to be released. And how can this strain be released without me releasing it and all that? You just hold that, and it will eventually be released. Any device you use to release it is still holding it. But cheating, actually. When you're holding it, you're hurling it and you're admitting it. But any way you would try to figure out how to promote that would be more holding it, but you wouldn't understand that. So you're using these concepts, these teachings, to admit that you're holding concepts, that you're grasping concepts, and the instruction is, you know, just hold them until they're released. Or, same as, give them a rest, but, you know, some people say, put them down or something like that. I don't, it's hard not to phrase it so you think you're doing it.

[32:12]

So that's why Bodhidharma gave that instruction and then Huayka spent years trying to understand how the instruction could be realized without him doing it. How do you give up conceptual thought without conceptually giving up conceptual thought? So again, look at Wang Bo, the way he taught Linji. Linji goes to see him and he hits him. Linji comes back to see him again and he hits him. Linji comes back to see him again and he hits him. Then he goes to see the other teacher and the other teacher says, Linji, you're so kind to you. And he understands. The spring was released. He didn't do it. But he did go back into the situation again and again where it was not possible to grasp how to give up your concept of what Zen practice is. And yet it was given up at one point. You have to pick up the dog. Yeah. In fact, every moment you do pick up the bow and pull it, but you have to sometimes take an archery class to sort of realize that this is what you're doing all the time.

[33:22]

Usually what you do is you pull the bow. Usually what happens is you think you pulled the bow. That is, here I am, a living being, and now I got my hands on bows and bow strings, or a bow and a bow string, and now the bow string is being pulled. This is my life. And I have a strong tendency to think I'm one thing and the bow is another and I can release it. This is my life too. And the instruction is, this is your life now. Give it a rest. But don't make this another manipulative moment. And the string won't go by your own power in the way we need. Yes, that's right. Well, I'm here to begin this discussion in terms of the language we use. Yes. So, like, the computational world is in the realm of noun, subject, synoptic, game, the things that we perceive as game.

[34:30]

Well, verbs, too. Yeah, but birds more as, um, birds without objects and subjects. It's the bird. It's like giver, receiver, and gift. It's a little thing. And when we cling to those things as bits, rather than for it. Yeah, but we make verbs into a concept, too. We can. You know, if there is just the giving, without the giver and the receiver, or the gift, It's not that there isn't giver, receiver, and gift. It's just that you can't find them separate from each other. But it's the verb that gives in any life at all. It's true that the verb gives in life, but the verb wouldn't give in life if it wasn't for them. The verb has no life without the things it gives life to. The bird doesn't give and think.

[35:33]

The bird doesn't stay and think. The bird is not moving, but the things are moving. Which is moving, the things or the bird, or the flag or the line? There may be a tendency there to, in two-fold grasping, maybe a three-fold grasping. To try to get one part of it. I don't think it's one part of it that's really where it's all at, because even the thoroughly established character is really just pertaining to the dynamic other-dependent process. And it's even about the fantasy process being absent. So I don't know, you know, if I wanted to make any more part of this special, cut off any part from the rest of the process.

[36:36]

Well, maybe this is going backwards, but I'm wondering how all this applies to the whole feedback issue. And when you're giving somebody feedback, doesn't that mean that you're making an amputation that you've done? on adherence and strongly adhering to some concept? You mean that? No, not necessarily. You can say to people, I have a fantasy about you. I often use the example of me saying to someone, I do not believe what I'm thinking of you. To remind myself... not to fall into what I'm... I never did tell the person what I was thinking of her. I just kept telling myself that she... because I was on the verge of believing that she was what I thought she was. So I might have a fantasy that

[37:43]

You don't quite understand what I'm talking about. I know. I have this fantasy that you're making me face, which I don't understand. But Delia seems to want to say something in midstream here, yes? Yes, well, this actually has to do with what Jen said. And think. Talk to yourself. This is your fantasy. So, I think I heard you say we defend ourselves against the person by coming up with a self for them. And I think maybe this has to do with the fact, I was actually going to ask you earlier, sort of the opposite is true, being vulnerable at Oakland for a setting. sort of almost by definition that we don't have a fixed sense of who they are, or that we're not clinging to some sort of fixed sense of who they are, but we're actually prepared to just sort of be there with them in whatever's going to happen in the interaction. So this might have to do with that.

[38:46]

Yep. You know, ultimately, Being vulnerable and open to somebody means that you drop your projections about them and meet them without projection defense equipment. And then you can be intimate with the dependent core rising person, with the transient. very rapidly changing interdependent creature that this person is, which is not separate from you. And you can also get to be intimate with yourself, which is not separate from them. And we defend against that for various reasons by concepts. And then our concepts, part of the reason why it's nice to tell people our fantasies about them is because sometimes when we tell them fantasies, then we can drop the fantasy and be with them. Once we do our job, we kind of have to sometimes express our fantasies in order to put them down.

[39:51]

Not always, but sometimes it helps just to say, I have this fantasy about you, and then the person says, hmm, or whatever, and then drop them, right? And then you feel closer to them. Yes? It seems to me that there are different ways of using the word imputation and imputational, and that those get confused by this discussion. And my understanding is that you can use it in a kind of psychological sense where, let's say, you frown, someone frowns, and I impute unhappiness. or anger to that person. And I think that's not the way that it's being used in this case. I don't think that that's the level. The level is that when you see someone's frown, even before you say what you said, when you just see frown, you think that in that frown, there is a frown there.

[41:03]

but that you think your image of the frown, that there's something in the frown that creates, that there's something about that frown that establishes these images by the nature of the frown. We think that. That's what the sutra is trying to get us to free ourselves from, which is the essence of the frown, which we imagine is in the frown, but the frown doesn't have an essence. We think it does. And you need to put that on there in order to feel justified to put the word frown on there. And then other things follow from that. But it's this basic imputation of clinging to that person's face as being our version of it, even though it's perfectly reasonable to use the word frown to refer to them. It works. very nicely, because every time that image appears on the person who is this thing, it works.

[42:05]

But there's nothing in the person which establishes this image. We think there is. We think there's something in the person's face which establishes this image in our mind. And also, I wanted to say one more thing about... And Andre was using an example of zazen. And I just want to say that since you're going to be sitting up there, that Dogen says that when we're practicing sitting Buddha, or when we're practicing sitting, it is not possible... to have a sitting Buddha, or to have sitting, it is not possible to have that without grasping the form of sitting. Without grasping the form of sitting.

[43:07]

However, grasping the form of sitting does not reach the principle of the sitting. So we have to we have to do this in order to get ourselves to a sitting posture. We can also remember the instruction that when we get ourselves to a sitting posture, by using our imagination to get there, that we haven't reached the very thing which we're trying to get to. And to keep these two together, and work with these together, is dropping off body and mind. So dropping off body and mind is another way of saying, when sitting, Dropping off body, mind, and sitting means that your mind terminates in mere concept when you're sitting. So your mind terminates in understanding that the sitting you're doing is mere concept. I mean, not the sitting you're doing, but your concept, your version of what you're doing there is a mere concept.

[44:11]

Then your sitting is dropping off body and mind, or then your sitting... will realize the ceasing of the tendency towards subject-object dualism. But in order to give up conceptual thought while sitting, you have to have the concept of sitting to give up. And you do have the concept of sitting, So that's fine. So you've got something to give up. So while sitting, give up the conceptual version of sitting that you have, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to sit. And giving up the conceptual version while having it is dropping your body and mind. So there's probably some people over here that I didn't see. Yes? Concepts dependently co-arise, even though... Concepts dependently co-arise, including the concept

[45:19]

of something that doesn't dependently co-arise. So we can have a concept of something that doesn't dependently co-arise, something that independently exists, can have that concept, but the arising of that concept, that concept arises. And you can also have a concept of the absence of the concept of self, of the concept of something that doesn't depend on the co-arise. You have the concept of that, and that's the concept of the clearly established. I think you said emptiness is a phenomenon. I think you're saying that? And a phenomenon for me to arise and feed. Do phenomena dependently co-arise and cease? Yeah. What is it? Emptiness, suchness, dependently co-arises, okay?

[46:50]

But it's said to be permanent because it's the way things always are. So it isn't like something that's composed of parts, like people and trees and the world. But it arises with things. It arises with dependent phenomena. It depends, because it's about transient phenomena. So it arises with them, but it's not transient. It's not impermanent. Because it's the way impermanent things always are. So in that sense, it's always, so in that sense, it's just a concept. Am I saying there's something beyond that? I don't think so. But there's something which can happen based on that, which is what? What can happen based on this emptiness?

[47:53]

Change? What? What? Invictation can happen. What? Yeah, to pass complete perfect enlightenment. Purification of all obstruction to enlightenment can occur by meditating on this concept. And then by meditating on this concept, okay, you can get to a place where you're not anymore seeing it as out there separate from yourself. And in a sense you become this concept. And then you have the deepest realization of this concept and you have perfect wisdom. But it's not really like a transient phenomenon. It's not the other dependent. It's the opposite of the imagination of self. It's what cures us of believing that there's self in things.

[48:57]

It's a medicine. It's conceptual medicine, just like the belief in self is conceptual poison. Or, you know, the belief in self or the self you believe is poison. Believing self is like ingesting poison. But the thought that you don't believe it applies to anything. It's okay. Did you want to say something? Did it pass? Okay. Yes, Roberta? So, you're saying that emptying out the special medicine so once the patient is cured, there's no more medicine? No more medicine? Right. Uh, well, I think you still might take medicine, sort of like vitamins or something. I don't know if Buddha, after training perfect enlightenment, had to look at emptiness anymore. I think it's kind of like Buddha doesn't have to, but... So why not? Right, what I'm getting at... In a way, you know.

[50:00]

But still you have to tell other people about it, so it's kind of like you're thinking about it and meditating on it. You may have to check, how do we do that again? Because you're saying that sensualism is a new concept. Jogo is what I'm exploring. It's the same as a concept, therefore emptiness is empty. Yeah, emptiness is empty, right. Emptiness is a conventional designation. That's why I was saying that it's empty, but it's like medicine and it's arising. I mean, there's a self arising for them too. So what does self arise as what? Emptiness is the medicine for that illness or realization. It's not the medicine for self, it's the medicine for believing yourself. That make sense?

[51:03]

No, but... Anyway, if you meditate on emptiness, if you meditate on suchness, if you actually can, like, keep your... think clearly and meditate on it, it cures you, it loosens your belief in the self of things. Ana? I was wondering if you could explain a little bit more about some of these grounds in the general essence. Yes? Your mind projects an essence, okay, but the essence is not in the thing. There is an imagined essence. Yeah, well, when I see you, could you give an example of projection of essence?

[52:11]

Well, I'll say, just see if this works. Your identity is nothing more than the word Anna. Is your name Anna or Anna? Your identity is nothing more than the word Anna. To say that is to say that you're empty of having some kind of essence that the word Anna refers to. It's not that you're nothing more than the word Anna. It's just your identity is nothing more than the word Anna. But we think there's more to her identity than the word Anna, don't we? That's the projection of that there's something there more than just the word Anna, that there's something there that Anna refers to other than referring to this person. And there is something more than the word Anna, but there's nothing more to her identity than the word Anna.

[53:19]

But we think that she has more of an identity, more of a self, we think she has more of a self than the word Anna. I'm not denying that she's much more than the word Anna. Yes. Well, like your identity is not your gender. Your self is not your gender. Your self is not your teeth. Your self is not your location. It's not your age. It's not your hair. It's not your weight. It's not your ideas. Those aren't your self. Those aren't your identity. Those are the things that make you up. And they're changing all the time. And they're the kind of things that give rise to you. Your self is not soren.

[54:22]

Your self is not barren. Your self is not Erin. But those are the things that your existence depends on. Right? But that's not your identity. But we think your identity is just Anne. But we think there's something more to your identity than just Anna. But we don't think your identity is Berndt. We might think a little bit your identity is sorry, but that's not true. Huh? Okay. So given that, I'm wondering how we meet people. I'm wondering how I can see a person and actually respect them and sort of honor how they feel when they're grounded or whatever and not give them an identity and not give them a result.

[55:23]

You know what I'm saying? That's my real question. It's okay to give them an identity. It's just giving them the right amount of identity. The right amount for me to you, the right amount of identity for me to you is Anna. That's it. I get it's enough identity, I got you identified, and stop there. Going beyond that, going beyond that, going beyond that is attributing an essence to the person, which you can't find. It's not evident. There's nothing more that you can find that is the person as their identity. There's more to the person But none of that's their identity. The identity ends with a word. You can make it long and say, Anamalo, or Anamalo the Great, or whatever you know. But basically it's just verbal designation. That's all there is for identity. But we think there's more to the identity, to the self.

[56:24]

We think the person's got more of a self than that. People do have a self, but how much of a self do they have? a word. The only evidence you have for the imputational is a word. The imputational is a projection of something in terms of words and essences. But there's no evidence for the essence, but there is evidence for the words, but we think there's more than the words, right? I see some hands raised, but I just want to briefly mention one big thing. I'm talking about the practice of giving up conceptuality or giving up conceptual thought and all that stuff. But I also want to remind you that in Chapter 7, the Buddha says that he starts teaching these different types of emptiness, these different types of lacks of own being, by teaching the lack of own being in terms of self-production, in terms of production. So, although I probably shouldn't have been teaching this way, but I did, because Bodhidharma did not teach, Bodhidharma and Wang Bo did not mention this thing that's mentioned in the sutra.

[57:40]

which is that the way the Buddha initially teaches people is he teaches them to meditate on the lack of own being in terms of production. In other words, he teaches people to meditate on how things are other-dependent. So in other words, every person you meet, every period of meditation you're practicing, your body, your breath, your thoughts, your feelings, everything that you're experiencing, all these transient phenomena that you're experiencing, even though there's a veil of conception overlaying them, you listen to the teaching that all these phenomena are actually other-dependent. So you always listen to that teaching first. That's your ongoing pedal point in your meditation. And then as a result of that, you come to a state of disconnection. towards things so that you don't become excessively involved with them.

[58:48]

And then in that state, you're better able to then start practicing giving up conceptual thought. That was a big thing. I just want you to understand that, because that's what it says in Chapter 7. Do you remember that part? To start with that, and then, and that leads to liberation, right? But then he said, but not complete liberation. It actually does lead to a considerable spiritual development, and it's a basic spiritual practice which you can continue always. And basically, that's meditating on conventional truth. Even though you may not be able to see how things are dependently co-arising, you listen to the teaching that they are dependent co-arisings, and you meditate on that all the time. You always remember that. That's the basic meditation. So as Nagarjuna says in the Mula Majamaka Karakas, chapter 24, verse 18, not verse 18, verse 10, I think he says, without being grounded,

[60:00]

In the conventional, the ultimate should not be taught. So you should first ground yourself in the conventional, which is dependently co-arising phenomena. Which means when you look at things, even though you don't see conventional, even though you don't think dependent co-arising, dependent co-arising naturally, you should listen to the teaching that these conventional things are dependent co-arisings. Then you become grounded in conventional truth. You're already starting to loosen up your belief that things are as they appear by reminding yourself that things are other-dependent. When you see a person and they appear to be a wonderful person or a terrible person, and you remember that they are not existing by their own power, It takes the charge off your vision.

[61:03]

And on the basis of that, you're ready to really let go of the appearance. So, I'm sorry I didn't express that more before, but finally I said it. Let's see, so I assume... Yes? Yes? Say louder, would you? No. We don't think that she is the word Anna. And we don't think the word Anna is her, do we? No, we don't. That's not it.

[62:26]

So it's not the word that's the identity. What's the identity? Identity is something about her, something that belongs to her. It's not the word Anna. So to what extent is there an identity over there? the word Anna. So we think her identity is something that's not her. But there is some correspondence between Anna and her. She has the reference of the word Anna, but there's nothing in her. There's no Anna over there in her, right? But we think there is something over there in her that Anna is corresponding to and that establishes her as Anna by her own character.

[63:28]

That's the identity. But when we realize that the identity is nothing more than the word Anna, you say, well, it's almost like no self, which is right. The identity is no more than the word Anna. Right, yeah. What? Aren't you making a difference between saying identity is the word and identity is no more than? Yeah, that's what you said, isn't it? Didn't you say the identity is no more than the word? I want you to understand what you mean by saying identity. Sometimes when I hear words over and over and over again, it loses all meaning. I can't even think of what identity means anymore. Well, it's something that identifies her. It's about her. It's like self. Her self is nothing more than the word Anna.

[64:31]

And we think it is. But the word self is not Anna. And Anna is not that person. The word Anna is not her, and she's not the word Anna. We know that. And what we think, when we say Anna, that that identifies this person and that something other than just the word is being identified by that word. But there's no evidence for that. That's just an imaginary thing. Let's see, are there some new people? Yes? Actually, I would like to learn more about the subtle relationship between the imputational and the other dependent. And it actually comes up because of the instruction we just gave, meditation, meditate on the other dependent.

[65:36]

I wonder what the reason is for the to conceptually differentiate both. Because I think in meditating on the other dependent, doesn't the imputational process come forth? Yes, you have to use the imputational process in order to hear. the instruction and apply it properly. And by the way, I did say probably meditate on the other dependent, but also the Buddha says meditate on the lack of own being in terms of production, which means not just meditate on the other dependent, but meditate on the teaching that because the other dependent depends on other things for its existence, it lacks self-production. So it can't keep itself going.

[66:42]

And that leads you to understand impermanence of transient phenomena, which helps you, which disenchants you about them. So I'm not just saying meditate on other dependent. I'm also saying meditate on the lack of own being in terms of production, so that you can actually understand the impermanence of phenomena. But in order to hear this instruction and apply it, you have to use the projection of essences in order to properly train your mind to pay attention in a certain way. Can I just clarify something? So would you say that what we usually call ignorance is a term for imputational process? Is what we call ignorance a term for the imputational process?

[67:48]

No. Ignorance is believing that the imputations superimposed on phenomena are justified by the phenomena. It's the actual hurling to the imputational as being the other dependent. That's ignorance. Just imagining things like selves or rocks and those and things like that, that's not ignorance, that's just imagination. But to think that your image of things is the thing, to believe that, is ignorance. Jared? I was wondering if there's a way to verify Well, I think you can see change to some extent captured.

[68:50]

So when we see change, some of the change you see is a conceptual version of the change, but it's based on actual dependently co-arising phenomena that are changing all the time. You have a conceptual version of it, but you're actually looking at the dependent co-arising at the same time, just that you're overlaying it conceptually. So when you're looking at change in phenomena, you're studying the pinnacle arising to some extent. When you look at the word Jared, that doesn't change. Concepts are permanent. They don't degenerate. But the person that we are using the word Jared to refer to, he's constantly arising and ceasing. And you kind of can see that. So meditating on that and also meditating on the teaching that he, every moment he exists, he exists in dependence on things other than himself. He exists by influences other than him.

[70:13]

And all of these influences create him and he's nothing in addition to those influences and he doesn't make himself happen. That's also meditating on mechanical rising. But you can't just suddenly see all these conditions. However, sometimes you start to see him a little bit. But the actuality of the pinnacle arising is not an appearance. So you can't actually see it as an appearance. But when you see it as an appearance, you're seeing the sort of concept imposed upon it. You're seeing the way the mind grasps it but the way the mind grasps it is based on its non-appearing mode, the totally dynamic, beautiful mode. But we're at the base of all your concepts of it, and we do, and it is real true, that is real true empirical phenomena.

[71:20]

Any other first-time people? Is that thoroughly established, then? What? Is that beauty that... No, that's the other dependent. When do you get to the thoroughly established? You know, there's this Carole King song, which is what is called, Love is all that's real, everything else is illusion. And I thought, well, but isn't the thoroughly established real, too? But in a way, the thoroughly established... is not exactly real. The third establish is more like it's the medicine which cures us of the illusion about what's real. So in some sense, the pinnacle of rising is love. That's what love actually is. Love is how your mother made you, whether she likes you or not. Love is how everything is making you every moment.

[72:30]

That's love. And that's beauty. The way you're made is actually beauty. But we defend against that with concepts. So you say, but isn't the... So is everything else illusion? Well, in a sense... Even if it's already established, even emptiness is a kind of illusion, but it's the most meaningful of all illusions. It's the illusion that purifies our attraction to enlightenment about love, about the pentacle arising, about the world. So even emptiness is not so wonderful. It's just that when you see emptiness, you have perfect wisdom. So in a sense it's wonderful because it cures you of obstructions to clear seeing. And then you can see the pentachlorizing, you're looking at it, and you can look at it directly, but you don't see an appearance. You're looking at

[73:32]

Love itself is looking at the way things actually appear and then when you see actually, but before you look at it and see it as it actually is, you also have to look and see that nothing arises and nothing ceases. When you can see nothing arising and nothing ceasing, then you're cured from your conceptual version of the arising and ceasing of things. So we usually think that things arise and cease by our concept of arising and ceasing. a self of arising and ceasing and arising and ceasing. When you see there's no arising and ceasing, then you can look directly at the way things are, which gives rise to concepts of arising and ceasing and concepts of no arising and ceasing, which gives rise... The way things are, the way our life really is, is our life allows The birth of ideas of things that don't exist.

[74:38]

Our life allows that. Our life allows the birth of the self. And then our life allows us to apply that birth of that thing that doesn't exist to what does exist. It's a free world. We can cause ourselves trouble. And our life also allows the arising of a medicine to cure this ills. And once the medicine is used, then you're living your life, you're in dependent core arising freely. And then dependent core arising is the end of suffering and the end of ignorance and the end of suffering. But also dependent core arising allows the arising of ignorance and the arising of suffering. The arising of ignorance means The arising of concepts about things and believing of them as the things. And then affliction arises. Yes?

[75:41]

Was that the same? Yeah. Yesterday you just briefly mentioned the analogy of... It's the imputation where it's like a degenerate component. Yes. And the other can look like hairs and sesame seeds. That's the way love looks through the imputation. Which is the only way we can look at it. No, it's the only way it can be grasped. You know? You can look at it in a way that's not an appearance. Love doesn't actually come in appearance packages. The way things really are, the way things are really interrelated, is that they don't really exist or not exist.

[76:49]

They don't really arise or cease, but they don't not arise and not cease because, in fact, they really don't arise and cease, but they allow the idea that they arise and cease. But the idea that they arise and cease is based on the way they are. And the idea that they don't arise and cease cures the medicine of believing that our version of the way they arise and cease is the way they're arising and ceasing. But the way they actually are is like a clear crystal. So it both says that they're like hairs, insects, sesame seeds, but it also says it's like a clear crystal. Yeah, the other dependent is also like a very, this is very clear crystal. So actually it's more like looking, you look straight through it. You don't see, it's not an appearance. Because also part of the reason why it's not an appearance is because it's not out there, because you're part of it. It's nonduality, really. Yes. You know, I was thinking about that, too, because when we contemplate that whether we put it in a generally, we think of one mistake thing operating on another mistake thing or thousands of mistake things operating on a distinct thing.

[78:23]

And that conception of it, I mean, it's really, there are not mistake things or separate things. So in a way, although it's helpful, you know, Well, it's just, again, it's just a conceptual instruction. You're not supposed to go over there and make those things, make those things. You can go over and make them out of a tendon, too. But you have sort of insubstantial things. You have things which are insubstantial because they depend on things other than themselves for existence. They don't make themselves happen. They do have a kind of existence, but not a self-existence. And they depend on other things which have not a self-existence. Yes?

[79:26]

Could you talk about meditating The sutra actually says, when they hear this teaching about the other dependent, or when they hear the teaching about the lack of own being, in terms of production. When they hear that teaching, they enter into this very nice process. So the way I would suggest that you meditate on that teaching is to listen to it. To listen to it means, of course, read it, but listen to it when you chant it, but also after a while you listen to it, it's in your head. So you actually have a little sounding system here which reminds you

[80:30]

that everything you see, every appearance, [...] okay, is based on, the basis of that appearance is this other dependent character, which is associated with a lack of self-production. So you listen to that when you look at appearances. And you also understand that these appearances are not it. but the appearances are based on it, based on the other dependent character of this phenomenon which you're coming up with a conceptual version of. But for now you emphasize, first of all, listening to the teaching that everything you see is a dependent co-arising, of course, and everything that's a dependent co-arising lacks own being in terms of self-production. And you listen to that, and you listen to that, and you listen to that, and gradually you start to understand that a lot of the things you expect from phenomena, of people or yourself, are unrealistic given the pentacle horizon.

[81:41]

And you start to have a more realistic relationship with things that are unstable, impermanent, and not worthy of confidence. When you forget that things are dependent on rising, you slip into having confidence in things being in accord with your conceptual version of them. Which sometimes isn't that terribly painful, but sometimes it's very painful when they turn around and become something totally unexpected and undermining your confidence in them. But the more you get used to that, the more when they manifest that, you kind of go, mm-hmm, okay. And that attitude makes you respond better to things and also ground you in conventional existence where you're naming these dependent core arisings, but you're getting in touch with remembering that these dependent core arisings

[82:50]

are not as they appear. They're not as stable as they appear. They're not as permanent as they appear. They're not independent as they appear. So when you see something independent, you can have confidence in it. But when you see something that's not, when you see something that's interdependent, it's hard to have confidence in it because it's connected to all these other things. So you realize you're working with something that's really kind of like Again, unpredictable, unstable, impermanent, and you can't really... There's nothing against the thing. It's just its nature is that, like, you know... Like, Maceo was looking at these spiders, you know. Well, we had this book called Miss Spider's Tea Party or something like that. But this very nice spider who's got a really nice tea set and lots of cakes and stuff, and she keeps inviting the insects to come... You know, she invites the beetles to come and say, no way, we're not going to, you eat us, you know.

[83:55]

I couldn't understand, you know, why they were afraid of Max. And we went on the porch and saw all the ladybugs in his web. And I said, spiders just, that's what they eat, insects. That's sort of the, you know, poor spiders can't, They have to eat insects, or they can't eat cakes. Now, Mrs. Thistle, they made this lady kind of a floral arrangement. She ate the flowers, and they were so happy to see her eating the flowers, you know. Oh, she doesn't just eat insects, huh? But, you know, I don't know if we have any vegetarian spiders out here. Maybe we do. But the thing is, it's like, is not under control, so some of the vegetarians here are also not under control. If we're dependent on various things, that's the way we are, these kind of creatures we are. The more we understand that, the better. And the more you understand that other people are that way, the better. The less you sort of expect them to be the way you think they are.

[84:59]

Like, huh? Emptiness. What? Emptiness. Emptiness what? It's all natural. It's all natural. Emptiness is unstable? No. Emptiness is stable. Self is stable. Emptiness is stable. That's why we like self. It's stable. This thing can be the same. It has an identity, and the identity is not just a word. More than just a word. The teaching of dependent core rising starts to loosen you up and get you used to not expecting so much from things. And then that sets the stage for you really to let go of your concepts of them. And if you stop adhering so strongly to these other dependent characters, you're meditating on the other dependent. You're meditating on the lack of own being in terms of self-production. You're meditating on an impermanent But you're starting to try to not strongly adhere to them as being this superimposition.

[86:17]

And then we start to study what the superimposition is like. And that will help you, as you start to understand the superimposition, that will help you be more and more convinced that it's okay to let go of it. And the more you feel okay about letting go of it, the more you feel okay about letting go of it, the more you start to see how it sticks. When you're willing to let go of it, you can see how it sticks and how it doesn't make sense and how it causes suffering. And the willingness to let go of it partly will come from meditating on dependent core rising, on the other dependent. And when we're really convinced we can let go of it, And we're vulnerable. Again, we make ourselves vulnerable and we dare to meet the thing without the self. But again, we have to get the fantasies out there first of all. And they are.

[87:20]

So we need to admit that we've got the fantasies that we're constantly fantasizing, constantly imagining everybody we meet. Admit that. And then meditate on the pinnacle of rising will help you admit it. And the more you admit it, the more you're ready to give it a rest. But if you don't see your stories and fantasies about what's going on as stories and fantasies, it's hard to let go of them because you feel like, well, that would be like letting go of what is rather than what I'm imagining. But this doesn't say let go of what is. It says just let go of holding to what is as being your imaginations. Let go of that part. Loosen that up. And then as you do that, you can start to know the medicinal side of things. Yes?

[88:21]

I wanted to put forth the idea that the lack of one being in terms of production is the lack of one being in terms of production and not just the lack of one being in terms of self-production. And that the lack of one being in terms of self-production. The lack of one being in terms of character of what he takes care of is what trashes the lack of, which is what trashes the idea of production in terms of character. Because if you say lack of being in terms of self-production, it's still controlled grasping. And I think that might be what Matthews kind of used to say. I don't know. But there's still subject and object if you say something is produced by things other than itself. Is that right, or does that seem... You're still involved in two-fold grasping if you say that things are produced by things other than itself?

[89:40]

Well, of course there could be, but does there have to be? I don't know if there has to be to say that. And even if they're still two-fold grasping, that may be okay, as long as you're free from the disposition to two-fold grasping. And we just need two-fold grasping in order to talk to people. Lots of good things. I said that it may be that two-fold grasping is necessary in order to make the statement she's referring to. However, the two-fold grasping might also be necessary in order to say that... the other dependent is associated with a lack of own being in terms of production. The two-fold grasping might be necessary there, too. In order to make that statement, you might have to have the two-fold grasping, too, because you have, like, this and this, the other dependent and what is associated with it.

[90:45]

So the two-fold grasping may be necessary, but the question is, is the person talking through a dependency the obsession, the compulsion and obsession towards two-fold grasping, and supposedly the person talking, in a sutra anyway, is free of this. So they can use two-fold grasping to talk to people. And throughout the conventional world, they're free of the compulsion. So we can tentatively say things like, lack of own being in terms of production and lack of own being in terms of self-production and the two-pole grasping operating in order to pull that off, but it's possible that we can learn to do that without being caught in that process. So when nobody else is around, and when you're not around either, you don't have to make any conventional designations. I tell you, you can totally cool it on the imputational.

[91:48]

And then there's no appearances. But it's not no appearances like you're just looking at emptiness. It's no appearances like you're looking at life without packaging it into appearances. You're interacting with the world very nicely, but there's not nothing and there's not something. And there's not self and there's not other, but you're like totally cooking. But for the time being, no conventional designations are necessary, so no two-fold grasping is necessary. And you're free of the compulsions, so you can, like, dance with somebody without making any conventional designations. But if somebody needs to, you say, who is who? And you can say, if it's help. But then you kick back into... the scratch pins and designations and all that. But just for the moment, because people are asking you to, would you please come and play the conventional rope game?

[92:56]

Fine, what do you want? When they stop, you can stop. Yes? I assume that doing the forms, for example, doing a ryoki, supports us in the meditation of the other dependent. But I can see how, especially when food is involved, especially in the form of ariyoki, it really cuts down on self-production. And I can't... I have difficulty to see... I don't understand how ariyoki cuts down on self-production. What do you mean by cuts down on self-production? On a very course level, I mean, I don't have to get involved with what my preferences are for food. I don't, I mean, there's a certain measurement. Okay, so she said on a course level, you say? Yeah. She doesn't have to get involved in her preferences, okay?

[93:58]

Do you hear that? However, the other side of the story is that when in Orioki, you do get involved in your preferences. It's more vivid than usual. Okay. So I think it's fine that when you're doing ordeoki you take a break from your preferences about food. I think that's fine. I have no problem with that. But in some ways the real virtue of ordeoki is to show you that you do have preferences and how they come up and see if then those things can be dropped. But that's also, I think, what I think cutting the self or seeing that, you know. Yeah, that is cutting the self, but the other one isn't necessarily because the self's not operating there. Okay. But that's fine. It's okay if it's not always causing you affliction. I don't mind. Affliction doesn't have to be nonstop. It's just that these fellows oftentimes make our self-cleaning, you know, stand up really, really strongly.

[95:05]

very vividly. And then we can see, oh yeah, that is really affliction, that concern over what I get for lunch is like really totally, amazingly embarrassing. So then you can see now, that concern is what I... I am really concerned about myself in this little, every little detail. Not always, but... Almost any little detail I can have. So then that's, there it is. That's the thing to stop believing in. What is that? There it is. So that's how to surface the self. I want to do that. That's not quite right. You know, that's too much, that's too little. Too much, too much, too much, too much. Move that serving stick over a little bit over that wing. Put that tofu. Those kind of things, that's ordinarily, you know, at a restaurant, you're not that concerned.

[96:15]

We are, but you don't notice it. It's not that kind of... You don't walk out totally humiliated. You know, by the way you were served, by what you got to eat, usually. I mean, sometimes you do. But it's, so it, it surfaces the imputational that farmers do. It makes you see that you really do hold to them. So it's really useful. And is that automatically, is that like meditating on the other dependent or you, you know, phrase that you use? I can't see that way. I think if you're meditating on the other dependent, you're going to be less likely to get such wonderful lessons as I just mentioned. So, like, you know, I often tell the story, you know, how many people heard the Jerome story, the Jerome serving story?

[97:25]

Two. Well, if you keep practicing long enough, most of the people we tell the stories to die. And then you can tell a new generation of stories. So in 1968, no, 1969, January... We never ran out of food, but we ran out of certain types of food. The road was basically just totally washed out for like two months of the practice period. So after a while, everything that we ate was very watery. We didn't have any bread for various reasons. Couldn't make bread. But sometimes somebody would go over the road and carry back some wheat. We didn't have grinders to grind them. We had grains, but we didn't have any grinders to make flour.

[98:29]

So we couldn't have bread. But sometimes people would carry in over the river, over the mountain, carry in some flour, and then we'd have some bread. But they wouldn't like to serve bread because that would be too much to put the bread out there. Sometimes they would put bread out there, and when we had bread, and people would like to have 19 pieces. And they would talk afterwards, how many did you eat? 19 pieces. Now those are half pieces, so it's actually only, you know, nine and a half. But anyway, one time when we didn't, we had very little bread. The bread was made into croutons and was put in the soup. So another soup, this watery soup, now had something like to bite on. And croutons sometimes sink to the bottom, right? When they soak for a while. So I was sitting there, and the server coming my way was a server who would go to the bottom and get the croutons and serve you.

[99:31]

You wouldn't just scoop the liquid off the top. And on the other side of the zendo, the old zendo, Jerome was serving. And you know how people serve, right? At times like this, you know serving people. And I knew that Jerome would always steam the top. because then the serving crew would get all the croutons. Is that an imputation? No, it's a joke. It's an imputation and it's a joke. Poor Joan would never do that. That's an imputation. But even though, I'd never do it for that reason. I'd just do it that way. So this person was coming up, almost ready to serve me, and I saw Jerome was finished his row on the other side of his envelope. And I was just, and I was like really hoping that that person would get to move before Jerome got to move. And Jerome, in those days Jerome moved very rapidly.

[100:34]

And he came sort of around the corner, as they say, like on two wheels. Around the corner of the divider comes a running up to me. This other person's getting really close, but he's going much faster. And Jerome got there first. And he served me this real thin stuff. 34 years later, you remember. And when I left the Zender that day, I cried, not because I didn't get my croutons... but because I had been reduced to awareness of what a petty person I was. I hadn't been reduced to a petty person. I was already a petty person. I had been reduced to realizing that. And I was just so embarrassed to be like, you know, be a Zen monk, you go to the mountains to practice and then you really get concerned about crew town.

[101:35]

So then what? Hmm? I don't know what to say, but I was embarrassed. And, but I did feel, you know, that it was, I felt it was helpful to notice that about myself because ordinarily you would never think that you would, I mean, if you're American anyway, in most parts of America, you would never think that you would be induced to be concerned about a crew town, especially when you, I wasn't starving. It wasn't like we had no food, it just we had no solid food. We're really starving, but still, this little consuming of it, getting a little bit more of something to crunch on, this kind of thing we get into, right? And we ordinarily wouldn't think that we're that petty. So that's what we have Tassajara for, is to become aware that we really can be very petty.

[102:36]

In other words, we can really grasp onto some small little distinction, and when we grasp it, it can be very, very embarrassing that we would care that much about where somebody puts down a spoon in a sit bowl. This is a big deal to us because we think that getting that crouton is going to really make our day. Of course, we know it won't, but we think so. And we're built to be that way. And R.D. Oki shows us the way we're built so that we know what it is that we need to get over. We know where it is we need to let go. And yet, when we know where to let go, we've got to just wait for it to happen and feel what it's like to hold and hold and hold and make no progress. and no progress, and no progress, and hold, and hold, and hold, and petty, and petty, and petty, with teaching that there will be release.

[103:47]

There will be release right at this point of holding. It will be right there that it will happen. But if you're not there, the holding will go on. You won't see it. You have to see it. You have to watch it, and feel it, and watch it, and feel it. And that's not easy for people to do. But there is the pivotal opportunity at that point of holding. And Orioki is a good place, sitting, schedule. Almost all these other forms, these guidelines, they're closely aligned. When you find a strickland point, that's the bow's pole. Just hold it there. Let it be there and just wait for it to be released. It may take hours, days, weeks, years. I guess you have faith, yeah, that you want to do that practice like the guy in the story, you know.

[104:54]

He tried a trick to release the string and then he had a teacher kick him out of the practice place. Because he didn't even get twirling it. He didn't trust it. So then he tried some other method. He wanted to accomplish this, but he wanted to find some other way to do it. He got kicked out. But then he wanted to, but he still wanted to practice, so he came back and did it. And I guess finally it did get released. He actually experienced the string going through his fingers, as the teacher said. And that was, you know, I guess one of the big incursions of his lifetime led him to write two books about Zen, which did a lot of service to the world and made it possible for people to write very many books about Zen and the art of X. Want to stop? It's time to think of croutons. Everybody now start thinking of croutons.

[105:55]

Are you thinking of croutons? Are you thinking of croutons? Are you following the instructions to meditate on croutons? That's your problem. Everybody needs to give Sherlock croutons. And when you're totally up to your eyeballs in croutons, you'll start caring about them. Don't be realistic, all right? Can you tell us what you wanted to tell us today? I think the first thing was meditate. the mindful of the teachings that everything I see is basically another dependent phenomenon.

[107:03]

The other dependent character is the most basic. The other two are about it. They're kind of like related to it. One says it's this concept. The other says that concept doesn't make it. So I wanted to say that before you start trying to let go of your concepts about things, keep them mindful that the thing that you're looking at is other-dependent and doesn't produce itself. That's the first thing. Then based on that, when you're grounded in that, then you'll be better able to let go of your concepts, because you don't want to let go of your concepts and then feel like there's nothing there. You want to feel grounded in other-dependent existence dependent existence, and then, as you're meditating on that, then notice that you have these separate positions, and then try to let go, not grasp those.

[108:07]

Get up grasping these concepts about your dependent existence. So first, listen to the teachings, be mindful of and ground yourself in meditation on dependent co-arising, which means ground yourself in dependent existence, because you are. Reiterate, celebrate that on an ongoing basis. Try to always listen to that teaching wherever you are. Then, based on that, listen to the teaching of letting go of conceptual bragging that is superimposed on that. And that will be a big study. But you can start now, I think, during Sashin. But ground that experimentation and letting go of concepts superimposed on dependent existence, ground that by being mindful of dependent existence, which has superimpositions on it.

[109:12]

That make sense? What would you say that the sort of main ingredient in our construction of the torpedo and ourselves also is that we ourselves show one of the... Yeah, yeah. Here's a little... Pairs of things. What we project on top of the image... that they're self-powered. The superposition is self-power, [...] self-power. Therefore, if people do good things, it's like, oh, you're so wonderful. To do bad things, it's, oh, you're so bad. Blame people. We praise and blame because we project self-power in things. But when you don't, you're grateful that people do good things. And you're not so happy when they do bad things. You don't give them credit for doing a good thing. Although you're grateful. And you don't blame them for doing the unstable thing until you realize they're not in charge of this behavior.

[110:18]

But you still relate to them and say, you know, I have a problem with that or whatever. Hopefully, meanwhile doing this meditation at that time, I was going to say, about oneself, if you reply. Well, you can see a lot about yourself, but you can't let yourself see. Right. And you can't suppress yourself. Right. Right. That's right. So meditating on other dependents and lack of of well-being in terms of production makes you more compassionate to other people. Like it says at the end of that chapter that Alicia was asking about, you know, where is it that we're supposed to be compassionate towards? We're compassionate towards people that have this to understand. So they're under the influence of not understanding this teaching.

[111:20]

They can't help that they don't understand it. I mean, they dropped the things they did because they didn't understand the teachings, so we have compassion for them. And to the extent that we don't understand, we have compassion for ourselves, you know? And I also want to show that, you know, I was meeting with a man just this time, and he told me that he had the community doing this kind of pulse, and that that pulse is like the pulse of, you know, spiritual life force, okay? And then he sort of sang this song of, you know, homage to the ancestors. That's kind of like, I thought of, you know, like, there's this pulse of urban independence, you know? And then there's this song of let go of your, you know, listen to the ancestors telling you to let go of your concepts. And then you can, like, let this pulse start to, like, really, not be obstructed, but if you hold to your ideas...

[112:24]

then somehow the pulse gets constricted. So the ancestors are saying, let go of your conceptual clinging superimposed on this pulse. Ancestors are saying, let go of it, let go of it, let go of it. And this pulse can start to really be realized in the world. So I thought there was a nice parallel there between that singing and this teaching. So now it looks like everybody's satisfied.

[112:55]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_82.83