For many years, during that chant, I had my hands in gassho from the beginning of when we started to do it. And then at some point, some people stopped having their hands in gassho during the chant. And that came to be timed with hitting of bells like during a regular sutra. And I myself feel uncomfortable standing like this during the chants. So I keep my hands up, but then I notice that the dolans are kind of like waiting for me to put my hands down, and I don't. So I just wanted to continue to baffle the dolans. But I would also be worried that I'm just to, like, not expect me to put my hands down. And I don't require everybody else to keep their hands up, but I just wanted to say that I, is it all right if I hit my hands and got a show during that? Okay. Well, it's finished. I just got back from the end of the heart surgery, right? So I don't sit down for that and then stand up again for the thing that follows myself.

[01:13]

Is that all right? He keeps his hands down. He keeps his hands like this the whole time. I think it's the different works of service, and that we don't have a service. Well, also, if I go to other places, I would do the same thing. That would be the thing. So I wondered where that came from. What were they? Yeah, it just sort of like, I just watched it sort of evolve, and then somebody gave instructions, and bells were put in, and originally they weren't there. As you know, originally it was an echo. Because that's where I got used to having my hands, like, during the echo. And then it was moved from being an echo to this other position. So I kept my hands down. Some people started to put their hands down, and then bells were put in. It had a whole evolution. So I don't know. If you bring it to that group, and then they want to talk about that, and if everybody really agrees that we want to, like, make this thing we made up a form,

[02:19]

I don't feel that bad about it. But I just felt like... Yes? From the position of Doan or Kokyo, if you stay like this, should the Doan and Kokyo also stay in pressure? Well, usually what they do is they don't ring the bell. Because they're waiting for... Yeah, and then they, sometimes they do, but usually they just don't, they're just waiting for me, and then they just sort of give up and put it down. And then they wait, which isn't that long, so then they ring the bell for the next thing. So that seems... But I just thought I would point out that this is my feeling. I hesitate to go along with something that I don't even understand where it came from. Yeah. There's another idea to throw out. is what about eliminating that chat completely since it's not a sort of any kind of, I guess... Like, could you say that?

[03:26]

What about eliminating that chat and adding in the rest of the lineage ancestors? It's probably about the same time. It comes from the 8000... It was added by Norman as in spirit of women ancestors, but I don't know if people, if it doesn't function. It's not really a woman, it's a female, a female deity. It's a feminine deity. I don't know if that's the same as a woman. Yeah, so... It's female. And I don't know if it has that function for people of bringing up the feminine. Well, it sort of does. It says she. It says she. There's quite a few she's there. It says she, [...] she. Lovely. Yeah. She's lovely. She's holy. I mean, you know.

[04:27]

She's a she. Personally, I like to pay homage to the Christman. It's nice to, yeah, and also it's nice for people just to put that sh, just to sort of say she. Right? Practice saying she is good. I'm in favor of keeping it because of that of the feminine, rather than... I think the feminine is more the point than men or women, myself. Because it's not like the women and the men, it's more like the male-female, right? It's more bigger than that. For me, that has a deeper feeling than men and women, that prajna primary thing. It's just like, there's something feminine about prajna, right? Kansa was always talking about that. Prajna is very feminine. And so I think I like to keep a heat and... Avoid any more names of those men. You don't think we should try to have any more names?

[05:29]

Well, we could try it, I suppose, maybe sometime if we wanted to experience what that was like, just for, you know, as an experiment. I'd be happy to try it, but I think it's a big deal to make an amendment that we could have a longer chant for a long time. We could try it for a while, maybe during some practice period. Just try it for a few weeks or during a session. You can go to City Center. You can go to City Center and do service there. They do it. They do the whole thing? I don't think so. There's a rotation. Yeah. Not every day. Not every day, but they do go through all the ancestors. But do they repent? They go through all the ancestors some days? Yes. Oh, I see. Some days. Some days. You need to know all of them. Toss a heart in the ear. Yeah. Toss a heart in the ear. Or what about also having it be a diamond sutra echoed? I think the whole purpose of adding it was for this reason that it brings up, too. It's balancing something that needs some kind of balance in an externalized way for the time being.

[06:33]

So it's not about the timing of the service. It's so to renounce the traits. It was in order to meet service classes. Somehow I never got... I understand how it does mean that to us, but the way the Kansa translated it, like we could have made up something with she in it too. Tommy doesn't originally even say she, maybe. I do not know. Yeah. It seems like... I think it's great, the feminine part, but... Maybe somebody could ask Myo if he could see. But it's pretty hard to find that text in Sanskrit. Yeah, it's hard. It's not an easy text to find, so we can't necessarily give him the Sanskrit and ask him if there's a she in there. But I personally, I think it's a good text for us to learn, actually. It's a nice short Prajnaparamita text, which has a different, less Abhidharmic feeling, not quite as Abhidharmic as the Heart Sutra, which is a success.

[07:41]

And then that And then that... Aum is to prajnaparamita, right? One is... There's a little bit of Aum in the Heart Sutra. The title and then in the text. This is really focused... What about saying, instead of Aum is to the perfection of wisdom, Aum is to prajnaparamita. That's like the deity, the name. I have no problem with that. How do you think of it as deity, or do you think of it as the perfection of wisdom? How do you separate those? Well, I guess the word is something, it's a concept, how much to get perfection of wisdom, and then there's how much the Prajnaparamita is... Yeah, and that's, I don't know if it's actually supposed to be the Prajnaparamita, the deity,

[08:43]

or the wisdom? I don't know. I'm proud to distinguish between them. That's an interesting question to try to research. So wisdom, what would he say? Hmm? She... Well, he's saying, does it say in Sanskrit? Maybe it doesn't. Yeah, I don't know. Well, Constance talks so much about the feminine and the actual practice figure as feminine. So Fiat as feminine. Anyway, he goes into it in those essays quite a bit, so. Do you? Well, I was just, in the esoteric stuff, the wisdom of the door is feminine, right? Compassion is masculine. Even though it feels like the other way around. The text itself says the perfection of wisdom all the time. I mean, not as a deity, but as... And I don't see why you would think that the concept or what you're calling the abstract, you know, the perfection of wisdom is any more a the than a deity is a the, or less.

[09:58]

The, to say perfection of wisdom. Right. I just, I think if our function is to create this kind of feminine archetypal deity, which I think that's how I kind of see it, in a way, then wouldn't it make more sense to say, I'm just a project, I'm part of it. It might be helpful for people to know that it's also a perfection of wisdom. And, I mean, wait, didn't we just regularize a chant book for all three centers completely and totally? Well, the thing about, the thing about, we don't say, you know, we didn't, there's not, there's not a deity of emptiness, but there is a deity of Prajnaparamita. And it works better than you announce it that way, too. What I'm trying to say is that Prajnaparamita is a divine thing, whereas emptiness isn't a divine thing. Emptiness is what a divine thing knows. So the deity and the wisdom are the same thing.

[11:05]

It's not two different things. Usually when we say prajnaparamita, we just say that. We don't necessarily mention that that's a divine thing. So you can actually worship. It makes sense to worship. We don't worship emptiness, although there is that... There is that playboy cartoon about worshipping emptiness. But usually we don't worship emptiness except by association. Well, there's this cartoon in Playboy many years ago, and it had this big, like a juggernaut or a big float. with all kinds of decorations and lots of people around with a big band and so on and people beating drums and blowing horns and so on and so forth. And the emperor on the float said nothing. And this one guy in the crowd said, Is nothing holy? So there's some tendency to think that we worship in Zen emptiness because we talk about it so much.

[12:18]

Religion is a sort of religion focusing on emptiness, but emptiness isn't really holy. It's the understanding of emptiness that's holy, which is prajnaparamita. So the deity and the wisdom are, in some sense, the same thing. We don't usually personify wisdom, but somehow we personify the deity. But you can personify wisdom through its divine aspect. Anyway, I think it's kind of nice. It's a nice chant. And the thing is, it started out as this kind of creative way of a sutra being an echo, which is kind of creative and unusual to use a sutra as an echo. And... So that was an innovation. And I remember we actually chanted the whole 25,000 lines in morning service.

[13:29]

And we could do that again if we wanted to. It took us a long time, maybe five years. I don't know. We chanted the whole 25,000 lines little by little. And at Rinzai, we had a visit here at Green Gulch and gave a series of talks. His name was Taitsu Konoroshi. And he heard that as I was doing that. And I went to Japan and visited him one time. In his Rinzai Zen temple, they now chant the 25,000-line Prajnaparamita in morning service, which never occurred. They also do the Heart Sutra, and they're going through it in Chinese, the whole thing. So that was kind of innovation back to them. So anyway, this is an innovation. And so, yes? Just a few minutes, but I did want to register again. I kind of unease that I feel all the different ways that we do service.

[14:34]

And I actually realized that on-board San Francisco Center . Anyway, it's not happening. And I think we tried to talk about it at the Abbott's group, and it's no one seems to be... Everyone likes the way they do it and how they were trained. So there it is. But I do feel this longing that we just, this is how we train people, this is how we do it. And if you go to another chapter, you change. So, just that. Okay. Excuse me. Yes. I have to excuse myself again. Sorry. I'm sorry, Raji. Yes. This does come up. I don't know why we stuck.

[15:36]

Because the whole song is the Bianca show. What? Yeah, maybe that's why we stopped doing that. But there were announcements, it was a conscious thing. I don't remember when that happened. Everybody just doing that. Anyway, you'd like to see a little more, I don't know what the word you'd use would be, but uniformity or something in the style of the doshas? just a transmitted way that we could transmit, rather than kind of Doshi's choice or you. Same with like putting on the upkisa, I found it extremely, you have a way, and I have a way that was transmitted, and then there were other ways that are innovations. There's probably gazillion ways you could take it on and put it off, but I do appreciate a transmitted way, not just And I also appreciate doing different things in the service that aren't in common, so it's a kind of balance.

[16:47]

Yeah, okay. Before you leave, would you like to say anything about certain types of emptinesses? Well, it's all of our assignment. But are you sort of in the mood to, like, launch into a discourse on the types of emptiness that remove certain types of signs? No? Do you remember your assignment? I have it in my mind. Okay. We'll meet next time. We have plenty of emptinesses here, so you can stay here until next week, if you like. Shall we launch into the sutra? Can we chant? Yeah, we can chant.

[17:48]

Do you want to chant? Letting it to see and listen to, to remember and accept, by the Bible to taste the truth of love, to talk of those words. Did you hear me say one time that something like the condition of being a sentient being is determined by Buddha? By waking. By waking? That would just say it five times. Pardon?

[18:48]

Say it to sixth. A sixth? Well, for him, a sixth. For me, more than a sixth. The condition of being a sentient being is meant by awakening. Do you know where that's going? I asked you about that. You told me that this is from the Manjushri Sutra. I tried looking for it in the Manjushri Sutra. Well, would you like me to help you pray? I think it's like, yes, Manjushri Sutra on the on the immobility of dharmas or something like that. I actually can find it. I have found it. So we're on the back of the street around about

[19:51]

in 1991 or something like that. And you were talking about the external allure and the inner happiness in that part of the text, right? Is that right? We actually skipped over, I think, Susan's assignment, right? That's one of them we skipped. Did you skip any other ones? Would you like to discuss yours at this time? Yours is the signs of the continuum of production. I shared this with Nea, so I just took parts of it.

[20:56]

There's a lot of pieces of this. I'll read what it says. It says, The signs that are a continuum of production, destruction, abiding and transformation, through which the meaning of the suchness of abiding is comprehended, are eliminated by the emptiness of character and the emptiness of what is beginningless and endless. So one of the reasons I responded to this one is that the week before we started discussing this, what was coming up for me in meditation was a question about the validity of the now, so returning but sort of noticing that that place is empty. And since that was coming up kind of naturally, I thought, oh, well, there's something to be looking at time.

[22:01]

And so the word, what I did is I started looking at What are my perceptions? What are the signs of time? What is it that makes concrete that could be emptied? And this instruction of the emptiness of what's beginningless and endless is like a step beyond. Sort of first I have to look at what I think is... and endlessness, before looking at the emptiness of beginninglessness and endlessness. That seems like a... I was listening to the talk from last week, and it sort of, I think, makes it, it's like throwing the raft away, that last step. But there are many steps before that for me to clarify how this belief in time substantiates the belief in self.

[23:07]

So the relationship of... how continuity is a piece of the sense of self. And so the signs that I was able to focus on in this last period of time, which has been a little erratic for me because I've been traveling, but looking at, for instance, the words and symbols of time have something to do with the past tense. When I say something happened, the past tenseness of it makes it seem real. That E-D on the end of something, on the word, that quality of the word seems to be absolute and concrete. It gives past time as opposed to future time somehow. It's easier to believe, to loosen my belief in future as being insubstantial, essenceless.

[24:17]

But past seems to be good. And so that sense of the word itself having a tense to it, and that structure of words of past and present, is when I look at that, I just feel a kind of non-moving belief in past tense. It's like if I were to go there and if that past tense were to be emptied, too much would fall away. So there's a firm self more than, for instance, looking at characteristics of the body for me. You know, just something about this time element is very concrete. And another piece of it has to do with memory, which when investigated, I can see where it's empty, but it's the persistence, the continuity that memory seems to...

[25:31]

give to self is that one has been very hard for me to how to look at that persistence and memory I'm not quite sure how to unlock the grab on the reality of memory the words I can approach a little bit I can approach past tense And then the other thing, the other one thing I saw was that one thing associated with past and present and memory even is difference, differentiation. Like I was that way yesterday, today. So that piece of it is approachable through Maybe through the emptiness of character. I'm not sure. I didn't really go into that.

[26:35]

I was looking more at the idea of timelessness and endlessness. So it did seem, again, when I was listening to the tape from last week, it did seem that there are levels of difficulty of removing beliefs. There are more because I've approached some of these other aspects all along in my practice, the emptiness of the skandhas, et cetera. That's more familiar to me, and it's sort of broken down a little bit more than actually approaching the sense of time, which so much is based on in terms of self. How do you understand the meaning of the emptiness of character?

[27:37]

Well, I would say characteristics. The emptiness of characteristics. Right, that's what occurs to me right now. not going back over everything. What was the question? Did I understand the emptiness of character? Because I mentioned that maybe the removal of the sense of difference might be approached by the emptiness of character. But I kind of threw that in without having really gone down that road in meditation. He used a couple of different ways in the sutra. I was thinking of the characteristics, identifying identity characteristics. Like, I didn't have wrinkles, and now I have wrinkles. So, therefore, time must have happened. Time must have happened. Even if this thought comes up, like, time must have happened. Even if I'm not a continual self, time is real.

[28:48]

Time is like a given for the rest of the organization of all of everything we know. The piece of knowing that if we moved it, the whole thing would fall apart. So time is basically real. Right. That's the feeling. I've been dancing around that to try to find ways in the door to that seemingly really high wall. Okay.

[29:51]

The signs that there are a continuum. Can I say that again? Just say it again. The signs that there are a continuum of... What? The signs that are a continuum. Oh, excuse me. The signs that are a continuum of production... destruction, abiding, and transformation, through which the meaning of suchness of abiding is comprehended. So the suchness of abiding, the suchness of abiding is that the abiding is empty of imputation, of the invitational character.

[30:56]

That's a suchness of abiding. The comprehension of that depends on the appearance of a continuum. Does that make sense? No. Does it? It doesn't make sense that that's how this is seen. It seems like the appearance of the continuum is in the way of... grasping the meaning of the suchness of abiding. The belief in the sun. So you disagree with the sutra? Well, I'm not sure it's... I'm not sure that... Yeah, I do. Because I think it's taking us a step further than I'm... I'm not to the emptying of emptiness yet. I'm still looking at... You don't have to be there. We're up here looking at signs. We're saying that the signs that are a continuum, those signs through which the meaning of suchness is comprehended, are eliminated by something.

[32:12]

But first of all, do you see the signs of a continuum? You see signs that are a continuum. In the other translation, like before, it kind of turns it around. This says the signs that are a continuum through which you comprehend something. The other one says they discern and know the meaning of suchness. That's comprehending suchness. of the given, they have images. So the Chinese say, because they know the meaning of suchness, they have images of horizons. And then the other Chinese says, there is an appearance of birth and death because of knowing the

[33:13]

I guess, do you have suchness? It should say suchness. It says such, knowing the such. Does anybody have Chinese? Does it say the suchness of setups? Yes. This is a suchness. So, Cedar did a really good job of doing this, but this is one mistake. She wrote such, the such of setups. There's two ways. One way is... There is a knowing of the appearances of birth and death because of knowing the suchness of setups, because of knowing the suchness of the given. Given and setups. Interesting, huh? So, given and setups goes with abiding. Abiding, given, and setups. It's very strange. I think my question is about, it says the knowing of the appearances of birth and death, is that different from believing in them?

[34:33]

The knowing of what? Of the appearances of birth and death. So there are appearances of birth and death, but there's the ability to not believe in them. as real or as substantial? There's the ability, first of all, there's the ability to see them as empty of the imputation of substance. Right. And then you don't believe. First there's the ability to see the suchness of the abiding. to see the suchness of the given, to see the suchness of the setups. When you see that, then the signs are eliminated. When the signs are eliminated, you don't believe the signs anymore. Does that make sense? The place to enter, though, is to get a feeling for...

[35:35]

Signs that are a continuum, or another way to put it is the images of arising, passing away and abiding, and the appearances of continuous succession. Translation is different from keynotes, right? It probably said, does it say abiding, does it say arising, passing away, does it say arising, passing away, abiding, and differentiation? No, in the Chinese original. Kenan says abiding, passing away, Excuse me, arising, passing away, abiding, differentiation. The Sanskrit, the Tibetan says, production, destruction, abiding, and transformation. Cleary says, which is not incorrect, it's just not literal, continuous succession.

[36:45]

By saying these words, we see a succession, right? But I would think the Chinese probably says the individual words. Yeah, being, birth, cessation, abiding. Being birth? Being birth? That's surprising. Being, then birth, or life. Why is it, yeah? And then cessation. Being birth, not being destruction? It's part of something else. So it's like birth, cessation, avoiding, destruction. Okay. Transformation. Transformation. Okay, so it seems to me that the key place to start is being able to see the... being able to see the... the... where is it? The images.

[37:52]

The appearances. Of what? The appearance of birth and death, subsistence, change. The appearance. Those are the signs. And you use those signs to comprehend of the suchness of this abiding. But the abiding, again, I don't know if the abiding here is the same abiding that there was earlier. In Chinese, it's not the same abiding, the given and the setups. Abiding is, in a sense, that something is given to us somehow.

[38:57]

Given all the causes and conditions of our life, there's the appearance of abiding. That make sense? That's why I'm sort of segueing over to given and set up. It's kind of a set up that we see this continuum. It's a gift, it's a setup. It's a gift, it's a setup. So we need to find this image or this appearance, this sign. Sign, appearance, image, three different translations of this issue. We need to find the sign, image, appearance of abiding. No, of samsara, of these things. birth, destruction, change, and transformation.

[39:59]

I think that's part of what we have to do. That's a regular old ancient early Buddhist meditation. So here we see this is being built. Now the early Buddhist meditation was supposed to be helpful to look at this of all phenomena. But now, the emphasis here is a little different because we're trying to find these things, but we're being told that what we're looking for, this sense of appearance or this sign, is actually something we want to remove. Before, you just wanted to find these things, and that was in itself salutary, which it is. But now, we're going to try to find this thing which is a traditional Buddhist meditation, And we're going to use this with the knowledge that the way we find these things is something that's going to help us find the suchness of this thing.

[41:04]

And when we find the suchness of this thing, we're going to remove the signs by which people have always done this meditation. People have always used these appearances to find these things. So in order to practice this particular aspect of the teaching, We have to just do the same thing that is a traditional thing, is try to find the signs of birth, destruction, change, and transformation. And where I'm standing now, this is the beginning of the process by which we're going to see that we're going to use to find these things. You said destruction, change, and transformation. What do you mean transformation? Oh, abiding, yeah. I do mean abiding. abiding, and abiding, and abiding. Yes? the signs that are these things, are supposed to be of these things.

[42:04]

And you were just saying, of, but I think, because the other translations say of, and there's a habit to think that the signs are of something, but I think the implication in saying that they are is actually, there's nothing there but the signs. It's not like there actually is birth, destruction, you know, it's only because of these things that the signs, so it's not that the signs aren't of something else, the signs themselves are what make this, appear this way. And the of makes it sound like there's something other than the signs. Right. Good point. It's funny you used to take out the other of, but it's kind of jarring to say the appearance, birth and death, subsistence and change are the appearances. But you put a colon there. Yeah. It would be an interesting way to do it. The images arising, passing away, abiding, differentiation, continuity and development, which we are able to abandon through cultivation of meditation and emptiness.

[43:28]

There it is. Who wants to practice this? So, again, this is a traditional meditation, actually a abhidharmic meditation, to meditate on these four phases. But we now have this much more sophisticated context in which to do it. So, Susan took this assignment, but I don't know if she wants to do this meditation. Yeah, I do. I don't know if Maya wants to join you, but there is this actual basic meditation, but now you can actually start to see that what you're looking at, you've got actually something that we experience, right? Birth, destruction, abiding, and transformation. And then there's a continuity in that story. And that's going to be the basis by which you're going to realize... that there's no imputational in this appearance here. But this thing is given to you.

[44:34]

It's a dependent core horizon that we have these experiences. Yes? I just went back to what you were saying. So we have this list of the ten different kinds of signs, but the question that precedes the list is, Bhagavan how many kinds of signs do you speak of for bodhisattvas who comprehend doctrines and comprehend objects and are engaged in eliminating so this is at a stage where we've already studied these in terms of doctrine we've already comprehended them in terms of doctrine and I think so what the sign that we're looking at is the sign that we've already in some sense mastered in terms of doctrine and I think if we don't keep that in mind, we tend to think of it in some other way that's not as specific as this is defined. Right. That's a good point, especially if... Now I tell you what I think you said and I agree with you.

[45:37]

Okay. And that is that... If we haven't already been doing the meditation which is described at the beginning of each section, we need to do that meditation before the practice spoken of in these ten phases will work for us. So I think that I, in some sense, you know, share responses. I'm not pointing out that, but I think we're discovering as we study it that we actually have to do what is said at the beginning in each case We have to master the meditation on these signs, which is the meditation and the teaching about all these different things, in order to eliminate the signs. We can't immediately start eliminating the signs until we get into these ten meditations, actually. So there's ten kinds of signs, but there's actually ten meditations that use these signs in order to understand these meditations. But in fact, as we study these emptinesses, we find out

[46:39]

...do this study of the conventional in each case, going back and master the conventional teaching in these ten areas which have these 17 kinds of emptiness antidote. And, pardon? The ten meditations would be meditations in each case on the ten types of signs. We're actually going to meditate on the... We have to meditate on the signs first. But meditating on the signs means actually we're going to do ten types... We're also going to be doing... In some sense, before we meditate on the signs, we have to understand what the signs are about. The signs are about things which are traditional things for people to meditate on, like the four phases of phenomena, and also meditating on the characteristics of samsara, and the characteristics of samsara is that samsara phenomena have these four phases, and also samsara phenomena are beginningless and endless.

[47:41]

So we need to meditate on the characteristics of samsara, which are these four phases, and also the beginningless and endlessness of this process. So we're meditating on samsara in the way it appears. And then we notice that there's a sign there. And also we even use the sign then to finally realize the suchness of this appearance of samsara abiding. And then actually we will be actually using emptinesses of these two types. So the emptinesses are really realized at the end of the beginning of each paragraph. but it's good to have some feeling for this. And that's why it's nice for each of you, if you wish, to see if you can actually have some sense of meditating on what you're doing and see if you can find signs there in your meditation. You get a foothold in the meditation by using signs.

[48:45]

When we started this book many years ago, this class, and he wrote a definition of signing equals concept designation. Now, I'm wondering if you still feel that way, or as you studied this three, four years later, that you're not making that a definition of science anymore. Signing? Signing, he said, it's his writing, and it's a quote of signing signs, and it's on this page, equals concept designation. Do I agree with that definition of signing as concept designation? I don't know if I do. But don't cross it out. I'm just not sure. Okay, so, and then the other thing I'd like to ask you about that he wrote in here from the first time we were there is on signing three, he writes page 171 to 178.

[49:59]

It overlined as suchness and then true personhood as DCA. And that's from the very first, when we first started this book. Yeah. 178? 171 to 172, or the third. Yeah, all of these things go through that passage. Yeah. You know, they're in here, and I didn't mean to ask you, because then I would check with my tutor at home to see if you changed. Well, we just checked. And it turns out that on those pages, there's a discussion of these phases. And all the substances. There's a discussion of substances. And there's also a discussion of these phases. So that's a correct reference. The part that's not clear about whether I would say signing... Yeah. So just let me know, okay?

[51:07]

Let you know? I think that signing is necessary for concept designation. It's not necessary for conventional designation. Just concept designation, you could designate concepts without signing, perhaps. Just throw them around the room. But to do it in a conventional way... I think we need to feel like we're putting it on something. Like we're doing it in the conventional way is you put the name Catherine on this person, not anybody. As though there was something there about Catherine that justifies putting Catherine on her and not on the people on either side of her, or this particular person on her left. Is your name Catherine? Is this plain old Kathy? Kathleen. Kathleen. Kathleen. How would you designate, and this is backtracking, but what would be a designation without signs?

[52:19]

I mean, like using names but not imputing their connection to whatever you're... So I would say, I would say Bumblebee, and then, and... I would say bumblebee like this, but would I use a sign to do that? Well, it's backtracking because there's... Do I think that there's something about her that led me to, you know, say bumblebee over in this way? I can designate this as bumblebee, but I don't really think there's something that justifies bumblebee more than there. So it's not a conventional designation, even though I say... This is Bumblebee. Is there a sign there? Well, Bumblebee is a sign. Any word is a sign. So even if it's not being used as a sign in relation to Susan and this sign involves... We've had this discussion before.

[53:23]

Yeah, that's what I said. This is backtracking. Oh, you're saying that the words are signs. Yeah, she said... I'm not alone in this. But you are a proponent of this. Yeah, it doesn't matter, it's backtracking. I just was confused by the idea of designation without a sign, and what you mean is when you're not intending to assert the connection between the word that you're using and the referent. Okay, thank you. Anybody else have an assignment that they have not yet reported on, would like to do so at this time? Yeah. Did you? Kathleen? Kathleen. Oh, we're not fixed. For the two of you, are you? We're on eight, actually. We're eight. We can skip to eight.

[54:24]

We don't have to tell her. She's part of eight. Oh, it's a three-person thing? We can do it. Okay. Well, maybe it's okay to wait if somebody else is ready. So we focused on the first half of two, but we didn't... Did we talk so much about the emptiness of character? Yes. Oh, I see. So we're waiting for May to do that. I see. You were doing the first half, and she was doing the second half. Yeah. Well, also... Taking the first part of the first half with the second part of the second half. Oh, I see. Okay. Because I noticed that the translations are different. This is beginningless and endless. Some of the other translations say beginnings and endings. Yeah. This not only says beginningless and endless, but it says what is beginningless and endless. So in the Tibetan Psalms, it is taught that which is beginningless and endless. So, when it says emptiness of what it is that way, you say it's the emptiness of samsara.

[55:31]

Whereas the emptiness of beginnings... I guess it works either way. The emptiness of the beginnings is also the emptiness of the place where beginnings happen. That's samsara. And endings. So, in one case, you're more focusing on what is beginningless, or what is the place that has beginnings, which is beginningless. So, samsara is the place where you have beginnings, and the place you have beginnings is beginningless. Is that right? I think that makes sense. Yeah. That's the way it is, is that we live in a place that has beginnings and that place doesn't have a beginning. The actual realm in which we have beginnings and endings, samsara, it's beginningless samsara, but samsara is the place you have beginnings.

[56:35]

So the two different translations are just picking up. They're talking about the same place. What is beginningless is the place where there are beginnings. We live in a place that has the appearance of beginnings. We live in a place that has the appearance of beginnings. We live in a place that has the appearance of beginnings, but is beginningless. And the Chinese sort of point out that there's emptiness of beginnings because there's only appearance of beginnings. But the emptiness of beginnings is the emptiness of the place where there's beginnings, which is the emptiness. But also the other one, it says... So we won't say anything about character, just in case Maya has some startling comments. I won't say anything about character at this time. Okay, Maya? We're waiting for you to come and startle us about...

[57:38]

character of something. Yes? Someone asked me recently, when did you begin studying Zen? And I think they thought, like, well, Zen Center is what they were referring to. Yes. And what came out of me with, you know, wasn't thinking, was when I was a little girl and I went to a Chinese restaurant. Buddha. Bigger than I was. And you prostrated yourself. And I said that to this person. And I haven't thought of it even for years. So it's like that was an experience of me. It was something that's... Yeah, I had that experience too. When they first asked me, I said, you know, whatever. Sometime in the 60s. But now I say, well, I moved to Zen Center. I became a resident of Zen Center in 1968, where I first visited Tassajara in the summer of 1967. But I don't know when I started practicing Buddhism.

[58:43]

But the longer I go forward from 1967, the farther back the beginning goes. I see earlier and earlier examples, which leads us to that it just keeps going back. There's no end to it. So it goes, that's why we can't, you're not going to stop. I'm not going to stop in 1943. It's going to go back before that. The more I go forward, the farther back it will go. I don't, I just, I would be surprised. It stops in 1943 and said, that's when I was conceived, that's when it started. You know, halfway through my embryological... phase, I suddenly started practicing. Or, you know, I started practicing halfway through kindergarten. You know? Or I started practicing the day I went back to school at eight. You know? Because really, the thing I realized is that being conscious was, you know, to be conscious was like, I was practicing.

[59:57]

You know, like, I often think, you know, Colors of the clothes on the line, you know, the wash on the line, to be there and be aware of the colors, that was practice, you know. And I often feel like, would I, if that's all I would ever get, is that moment of awareness, I'd make it worth being alive, just that one moment. It's almost like those moments are so great. And so I think that's part of the way you can meditate on past lives, is just go back like that. But there's a question through reasoning, probably. Someone just called me, somebody was really troubled by this discussion of the Buddha's teaching that there is rebirth, really troubled by that. I referred him to this book called, Is Enlightenment Possible?

[60:59]

And so Dharmakirti did a logical analysis of the issue of rebirth. And so that really helped this particular person. It didn't completely overcome all his doubts about rebirth. And even the person who wrote the book, Roger Jackson, in the end of his study of all this, he still has some doubts, but he also still has faith, and he's still devoted to the teaching that there is rebirth, even though he still has some doubts. And part of the reason why he's still practicing is because he wrote that book about dharma rebirth. So that way, for people who, in a relatively short period of time, several hours maybe or a few months of study of this thing, you could settle your doubts about rebirth rather than having to practice a really long time like Uddha did and get to such a developed practice that you can see actually, you can actually verify for yourself that you can see your past lives and that you're practicing.

[62:12]

You can settle some doubts about that by reasoning more quickly. So you might, if you have doubts about that, you might check that book out. Is enlightenment possible? I don't think so. It was out a while ago. What in the class did she put it? Recognizing reality. I think recognizing reality. Recognizing reality. And then the other one is recognizing reality as Dreyfus. So those are both guys that try to approach these teachings. with their Western perspective, without tossing their Western philosophical perspectives. And as you'll hear me say in the class at some point, that and his later disciple, Dignaga and his later disciple, Dhammakirti, if you read them, although if you forget about the

[63:31]

them paying homage to Buddha, when they don't sound like they're like... They don't sound like devotees. They're really... They're teaching and dealing with it without some kind of prejudice that a Buddhist would have in studying Buddhism. There are Buddhists who don't seem to be prejudiced towards Buddhism in a way. And so it has this very modern quality. Logic? Yeah. And I think that they really feel that, in a sense, they're like these critical Buddhists that we have now in modern scholarship who think that Buddhism is criticism. That's basically the reason. And it was just analytical. Well, not just analytical, but questioning. You know, don't accept the teaching just because the Buddha said it.

[64:36]

Verify. Razi. Razi. No. No, Razi. No, Razi. Wow. It's just right about genes, isn't it? It's about genes. They haven't heard that bark in a long time. Sensory wounds. I think that if they had realized complete perfect enlightenment, then they would have taken that experience as they would have accepted that experience.

[66:01]

Prior to that, they studied and reasoned about the teachings of the Buddha. And Dharmakirti, I don't think he claims to have actually realized this pre-perfect enlightenment. But he has proved the teachings of the Supreme Perfect Enlightened One in a number of cases. And now he has proved them, but he's proved his understanding of them. And also he proposes that his critical approach is the approach which Buddha has encouraged. That he thinks that Buddha has encouraged him to be critical of the Buddha's teachings. Yeah, it's just that I wonder if it's all intellectual research or if they take some basis as a valid... There must be some valid basis there in order to... His great teaching is the teaching of what is the basis of valid conception, valid cognition.

[67:07]

That is his teaching. I mean, that is the part of Buddha's teaching which he... what he made the great contribution about was actually what is a valid, reliable source of cognition. That is what he's about. But he's also critical about the teaching he's offering, too. He doesn't just say, well, Buddha said this, or the sutra says this. The sutra says this, and this is what is true. This is why it's true. Because some other people read the sutra and saw something else was true, but they didn't analyze it. Therefore, they can't prove it. Except by their experience or because Buddha said it. He received what Buddha said and proved it. Even though some other people didn't have the same understanding, he got a certain understanding of what the Buddha said, but then he proved it.

[68:12]

Proved it with logic. You can't use your experience to prove something. You can't use your own experience to prove something to someone else. You can't. It wouldn't be proof. You can use their experience to prove something to them. You might be scoffful at that. You couldn't use your own. Yeah, well, actually, yeah, but... You have to use theirs. So actually, those teachers, they can use... They actually worked with people who weren't Buddhists. And then you can convert people who aren't Buddhists to Buddhism without yourself even taking Buddhism beforehand to be true. Discover it with the other person. through their experience. But I was thinking that maybe we can go to, some of us might be able to go to new service today.

[69:19]

Go to new service? New service, yeah. We could go, if you like. Would you like to go, some of you? How completely do we have to change? How completely? I think if you don't have time to change completely, you could just put your okesa on over what you have. It's okay to change him. I really don't want to work with him. It's okay to change him too, yes. If you'd like to. There's maybe time. Is it on a timer? Well, I don't think that they did. But it's on. Shall we go to Mr. Rustin, those of us who can go? We shall come with Yoshi. May our attention uniquely expand into every man's place with a true and clear hope.

[70:33]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_79.84