As I think I mentioned last week, these 16 great Bodhisattva precepts are, this particular presentation of the precepts is, I think, unprecedented and unique. The component parts of these precepts, the first three parts are not unique. I think almost all the schools of the usually what we call disciples of Buddha or those who aspire to be disciples of Buddha receive these three refuge precepts. And the next three are widely accepted and practiced within almost all Mahayana neighborhoods. And the last ten major precepts are the major precepts of the Bodhisattva precepts in China and Japan and Korea.

[01:10]

And now it's a little different in America, but anyway in East Asia the 58 precepts were widely and generally received among Mahayana practitioners and the first ten are these ten. But we don't formally receive the forty-eight minor precepts in this tradition anymore, although we do sometimes post them and maybe you can make them available on the internet or something if you want to see them. Interesting. I think one of them is not eating meat. And so that's part of the tradition too, but we don't formally receive those 48 minor precepts. But they are there to enjoy and contemplate.

[02:14]

I just want to say that in this class I welcome your feedback. And I understand that some people have trouble giving me feedback even after I welcome it. And by feedback I mean something that comes up in the process of the class which you would like to offer as an input to the class. But also, another meaning of feedback is if you have comments about how I'm practicing, you're welcome to offer them. And critical could be negative or positive. But not everyone in the class welcomes you to give them negative feedback or positive feedback.

[03:30]

There's a Dickensian, I guess, a Dickensian character named John Jarnese. who was a very kind man, but he couldn't stand to receive gratitude. He was grateful to everybody, but he couldn't stand for people to express gratitude. He shrunk from it. So some people in here might be like Mr. John Deese. They don't welcome your positive feedback. And some people here might not welcome your negative feedback. There's room up in the front if you'd like to come up. Oh, this is Brie. Brie. And this is Shana. Shana. And Douglas. Douglas. And? Charlie. Charlie. So, is there spaces up here? More Zafus? The space over here, if you want.

[04:43]

Okay, so, Jackie. I have a confession. I took two of these. Is that okay? You may have two. Thank you. You're welcome. Were there enough for everybody to have one? There were extras. There's extras? Okay. New people came in. Did you get them, the new people? There's a copy of the 16 Bodhisattva precepts. Extra one? I have an extra one. You got one, Douglas? Okay. All right. Okay, so we got a lot of extra. Yeah, there was a hundred. You made a hundred, right? Yeah, so there's plenty. Can I have those please, Marta? Yes. Or somebody takes 50? No. But if anybody wants some, I'll give you more, but please ask so I can give.

[05:53]

So last week I said something about the, I think I said the whole universe is going for refuge in Buddha. I said something like that. And now I'm saying it again. I said it again. And this is the same as saying, yeah, that going for refuge is reality, that it's real, that beings are going for refuge. That's a reality. And the whole universe is participating in the reality of going for refuge in supreme enlightenment. Yes, Alan? Did you say that is a reality or is reality? It's a reality. Yeah. Among other realities? Yeah, among other realities, right.

[06:59]

It's not... You know, like I said before, also I said that a kind of a knowledge that bears on reality has inexhaustible implications. which are also... For example, going for refuge in Buddha, I propose to you, is reality and is real, but it has implications which go beyond what you might expect. They don't really conflict with it, contained in it, and yet if you don't mention them, people might not understand. For example, going for refuge in Dharma is actually implied by going refuge in Buddha, but we don't stop, and we say, going for refuge in Dharma. It's another, in a sense, it's another aspect of reality, but if you... you will find that going for refuge in Dharma is already included in going for refuge in Buddha.

[08:07]

But you might not notice that at first, and most people don't, so we mention it. And then also going for refuge in Sangha is also implied by going for refuge in Buddha, but since people don't notice it, we mention it. After mentioning those three, we often stop and say, those three are sufficient, we don't have to and those three are a nice unfoldment. But then there's also the three pure precepts, which you might not realize are included in going refuge in Buddha. This list includes all the other ones, plus all other realities, because enlightenment embraces, supreme enlightenment embraces the reality of all things, but the implications of it are also aspects, are also reals, But, you know, and in a sense they're not so we articulate them. Does that make sense? Somewhat? Yeah. So again, koan, I'm using the word koan, you know, in the sense of a public example of reality, a public case of reality.

[09:22]

And I'm saying that going for refuge is an example of reality. The Bodhisattva precepts are examples of reality. And so, let's see, I don't know where to go next, but I think I'll just mention that I just, I just, I wrapped up this piece of paper. And this is a piece of paper which says on the bottom, I think it says, it looks like this is something I didn't get into, which someone suggested I recommend for this class. I don't usually recommend the book because of my possible conflict of interest. But it is kind of relevant to what we're talking about here. Fortunately, it did not get in the book. I'm kind of sad it didn't get in.

[10:26]

It's almost worth a new edition. And I feel blessed to have found this because it relates to something which is when I said, you know, that the whole universe is going for refuge in Buddha in reality. And Malvern said, well, what about extreme cruelty? Is that going for refuge in Buddha? Tonight is that the beings who are being cruel are going for refuge in Buddha, but they're completely deluded about how to do it. They're trying to go for refuge in Buddha, but they're so confused. ...going in the opposite direction or inside out or whatever. So I don't say that cruelty is going for refuge in Buddha in the sense that cruelty is not an example of Buddhadharma.

[11:34]

But in a sense, I'm saying cruelty is some kind of struggle toward refuge in Buddha. But it's not really accomplishing going for refuge in Buddha. And then the part that didn't get in the book was this quote from a text called the Definitive Vinaya on a scripture called the Definitive Vinaya or the definitive discussion of the precepts. And Manjushri, the prince of Dharma, that's Shakyamuni Buddha, world-honored one, all dharmas are ultimately the precepts. Why are So, for example, why do we have to have this first pure precept of embracing and sustaining regulations and ceremonies? Why do we need that if the whole universe is the Bodhisattva precepts?

[12:37]

And the Buddha said, if ordinary people understand that all dharmas are ultimately Bodhisattva precepts, the Tathagata would not teach them regulations. But because they do not understand that, the Patagata teaches them rules and regulations to guide them. The rules and regulations are not to guide the enlightened. They're the way the enlightened act. For unenlightened who don't understand that everything is the Bodhisattva precepts, who are not always looking at the Bodhisattva precepts, whatever they're doing and thinking, the Buddha teaches them regulations and ceremonies. Because sentient beings do not understand how it is that everything in the entire universe is the precepts, that all things animate and inanimate are refraining from evil and practicing good.

[13:39]

Because they don't understand that, the Buddha taught the precepts in an apparently regulatory form, or a form that can be interpreted as rules and regulations. Practicing the precepts in the conventional sense of rules is just practicing the conventional sense of the rule. That is to say, being good in the conventional sense of being good is the conventional sense and nothing more or less. Such conventional practices of good will not protect sentient beings from disastrous and endless Practicing good in the ultimate sense is realizing that all things are bodhisattva precepts and nothing is opposed to them. The way of practicing good does not protect sentient beings from endless suffering.

[14:46]

Excuse me, does. The way of practicing good does protect sentient beings from endless suffering. So once again, I'm suggesting going for refuge is real. Going for refuge is not real. Going for refuge, and therefore, if it's real, there's a possibility that we will be able to verify going for refuge. We'll be able to prove going for refuge. I want to discuss with you how to prove verify and realize going for refuge in Buddha. I would like to prove doing good. Doing good is real. Doing evil is unreal and cannot be established, cannot be proved, cannot be realized. However, it is also true that there is the constant production of unreal things.

[15:49]

There's a constant production of things that you can't establish or prove the existence of. For example, there's a constant production of evil which doesn't really offer itself to be verified. One second. Cruelty is the Buddha Dharma, but I am saying that sentient beings acting in cruel ways are in reality blindly struggling to go for revision Buddha. Bri? I don't understand what you mean by real or unreal. What I mean by real? I mean that which when understood brings freedom and protection from suffering.

[17:10]

I mean that which enables us to live for the well-being of beings, to live that kind of life, to live the life of a wise and kind being. That which, when realized, makes this possible. It seems like a different definition of real than what... What definition would you offer for real? I suppose that which exists or what? That which exists, yeah. But cruelty and things do exist. That which exists. But cruelty only exists conventionally. They don't exist ultimately. You cannot prove their existence.

[18:17]

They cannot be found. The reality... of the reality of evil and the reality of good is the same. Neither can be found. But you can prove the existence of good and you cannot prove the existence of evil. So they're different realities. They have different realities. I'm still not understanding this. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Listen. Yeah. I don't know who was next. These three people. Can you, is the production of Eve, like... The production of cruelty.

[19:22]

Is that production real or is that following the unreal? Yeah, you can establish the production as real, but again I'm also just suggesting that the proof of the production of unreal things also includes some indeterminacy. But I am proposing that the production of illusions, that that is real. That is conventionally real. There's not even a conventional reality. To what? To some of the things which are conventionally real. produced does not even conventional reality. There's realities in their production but not to them.

[20:27]

And there's other things which are conventionally produced which do have reality, like practicing good and avoiding evil. they have conventional reality. Yes? And how would you prove being real? How do you prove it? That's what this class is for. During this class we will attempt to prove the existence of these precepts. We'll try to prove that they're real. Mathematically? Mathematically, yeah. I feel like using the word real, if we're going to give a conventional sense of reality an ultimate sense of reality, I feel like we should almost stop using the word real.

[21:37]

I think it's causing us a lot of especially when you say that the production is real, but the things are not real. Because I take it to mean there that the production has some ultimate reality about choice or determination, but then the things that are produced are just conventional, they're not ultimate. If that's what you're saying, then I have some problem with what you're saying. I don't have any traction. Now, where do you get traction? If we have some clear definitions about... If we're going to use this word real about this conventional and ultimate sense, then maybe production could be an ultimate reality in terms of choice. Like, you know, we can choose to do certain things, but then the fruits of those choices, like cruelty, you're saying is unreal. And that would be unreal because it's only conventional. Then that kind of starts to make sense. Did I...

[22:39]

Did it start to make sense to other people? No. It seems that cruelty has some reality, because we can experience it. It must have some reality. But ultimate reality, maybe not so. Well, yeah, it doesn't. So it doesn't have ultimate reality. So what kind of condition does it have? What kind? It has a cruel kind, I guess. Well, it appears, right? Well, there's the whole reality of suffering, of cruelty and suffering. Well, suffering is a little different from cruelty. But don't we call something cruelty? Like there's sort of a relationship between the amount of suffering produced and what we say is cruel. So it seems to me that they're deeply interconnected. Yeah, I think so. Well, like we say, delusion is a condition for suffering. But we don't call all delusions cruel. So cruelty is a little bit more like, it's very close to suffering, isn't it?

[23:48]

Yeah, because it arises out of suffering and it creates more. Yeah, yeah. So to say that it's not provable is like saying that suffering also isn't real. I thought that the first noble truth was that suffering is kind of one of the conditions Yeah, okay, so the first noble truth could be understood. Suffering is real. But it also could be understood that we're going to find out the reality of suffering, that there's a truth of suffering rather than suffering is true. And so then the next thing we find out is that there's a truth of the origins of suffering, that suffering depends on something. So then we hear that there's an end to suffering.

[24:55]

But we don't end to something that's real. We actually hear that there's an end to something that's not real. That's the truth of suffering. And if we can find conditions for suffering, for example craving, which depends on ignorance, then we can realize that suffering can end, can cease. And Bodhisattva precepts are about the end of suffering. Yes, Brandon. Do you say the end of suffering, the end of delusion, like delusion is something that's not real? Is delusion considered real?

[26:01]

In a sense, I'm proposing that delusion's real, but that which it's considering is not. So there's a production... of things which you can't establish. Delusions can think of things that don't exist, that can't be really established. But there is the production of these illusions. So it would be good to study the illusions. And the Bodhisattva precepts study the delusions. Like going for refuge in Buddha, implies studying delusion. Buddhas study delusion. If you study delusion, it's possible. So part of what I'm saying is that it's hard to be free of reality.

[27:07]

So if delusion is real, studying it wouldn't necessarily release it from it. But if it's not real, if we become free of it, if we study the bodhisattva precepts, that includes studying delusion. And if we study the bodhisattva precepts and become free of them, that's also good. We actually don't want to just be free of suffering. We also want to be free of freedom from suffering. So by studying our delusions, we can become free of delusion and misery, and we can also become free of freedom from misery, which some of us may not be that concerned about, but that's part of the deal. Yes?

[28:13]

Were you talking about a proof of the reality of something? Do you say that the absence or alleviation of suffering would be a proof of something's reality? In this teaching, the teaching of the Buddhas, Freedom from suffering is one of the proofs. However, that proof is somewhat indeterminate. That's part of what I'm bringing up here. The contents of freedom from suffering is indeterminate. The criterion, you can use the criterion, but the criterion is also not clearly definable and the data that you use to come to that coherence about what freedom from suffering is, that also cannot be totally pinned down. So that's part of the quality of the experience of verifying freedom from suffering.

[29:27]

So how does it would be when we start to work with that in the current situation by situation? Well, you work with it by being committed to the precepts, by studying yourself. You work with it by studying your karmic consciousness. And then you notice if you're getting deterministic about your studying of your karmic consciousness. And if you are, then you hopefully will get feedback that this is not an appropriate way to study your consciousness. This is not an appropriate way to study your thinking, to be determined. Even though the Buddhist seems to be really clearly encouraging us to study delusion, highly recommending it,

[30:34]

then if we take that in a deterministic way, it teaches us, no, don't take it that way. This will make the whole thing not possible. I'm telling you that the Buddhists study delusion, they study dependent co-arising of delusion. They do this, that's all they do, and then they really totally do that completely, and it means that they're not rigid about it. So by deterministic you mean it's not a form of delusion? I mean, it's not strict determinism. I mean, it's not like, it's not about getting under control here completely. And yet, it is about that the Buddhists do. And if we don't do this, we won't understand. But even when we say, if we don't do this, we won't understand, that's not completely for sure. that that absolutely cannot happen. Because this isn't the story of dependent co-arising, the story of karmic cause and effect, the story of practicing the precepts that the Buddhas are teaching, all for the sake of liberating beings from suffering.

[31:43]

And if it was deterministic, there would be no possibility of liberation from suffering. We would just already set, and it would be all over, there would be no point in practicing. So if you give yourself to practice, wholeheartedly and then over humanistic it becomes antithetical to what we're doing here. So what are the principles and how can you practice them wholeheartedly which means to do it so wholeheartedly that you don't do it strictly and rigidly. And that's part of our That's part of the way things really exist, is they exist by causes and conditions, but not, according to this teaching, but not strict determinism. Otherwise there would be no possibility of freedom and no point in practicing. But there is a point to practicing, the Buddha says.

[32:45]

The Buddhas do practice, but how do they practice? How do they study the reality of things? Well, they're emphatic and then they backpedal. Then they're emphatic and then they backpedal. They're emphatic to give us something to concentrate on. You know, like, here it is. Please accept this and work with this. But now, what's happening there? Now they should have accepted it because I gave it to you. Now, work it. Play with it. Throw it out the window in a respectful way. Question it. Don't grasp it. Love it. Love it so fully that it can't be deterministic for you, that you don't put it in a box. But sometimes unless somebody puts something in a box, we can't even orient. So Buddha's put in a box so we can orient towards it. And then Buddha says, thanks for orienting properly.

[33:49]

Now the real proper orientation will be to not take this deterministically. Jolena? It's my understanding that wholesome and unwholesome are relative or in relationship with each other. Yeah. And so I guess that's why I'm confused why you're suggesting that reality... I'm not exactly sure if you said good is reality or there's this relationship between good and reality. understanding that reality is, in an ultimate sense, is beyond good and evil. Yeah, and that's good. That's good. In our conventional sense. Or even beyond your conventional sense, it's good. And thoroughly understanding that is good. It's not bad to thoroughly understand that. Understanding it a little bit, but not completely,

[34:49]

is a kind of evil. But I guess my concern is that saying it's good is just locking it into another... That's where good usually is. It's already locked. For most people, good is already locked into a relative context. And so I'm saying the liberating potential of good is its reality. The reality is that you can't really find good. But when you study good and try to practice good wholeheartedly, you realize good. So it's a little bit of a trick there. is reality. Reality is what's good. That's what I would say. And reality is free of any categories.

[35:52]

And we need to be free of categories in order to be fully alive and unafraid and full of love for all beings, which I'm proposing we all want, and we're heading in that direction. So I'm proposing, and I'm talking about a way of studying them, which I think is the precepts themselves, namely, which is going for refuge in Buddha. Yes? When I was a kid, I was taught that good always triumphs over evil. And I verified this by looking at... comic books that I read than by looking at the history books, which I later found out were that way because they were written by the winners. And so then I now have some doubt on whether good always triumphs over evil or whether it's just the people who triumphed who are left around to say that, well, that was good.

[36:59]

And also some of the, some of the illusions also said the same thing. I don't remember seeing that. Well, that's because they didn't triumph. Their teachings have been eliminated by the winners. But some of the losers also said good triumphs over evil. But they said it in a different way than the ones that you hear. How do they say it? I don't know. They're not around anymore. How do you know they said it? Huh? How do you know they said it? I know these things. So does good tramp over evil? According to me? Yeah. Well, I would say, for me, it's at peace with evil.

[38:01]

That's nice. It's a lot easier to believe. Or it's at peace because, you know, you could say it transcends, but it doesn't transcend by eliminating it. It transcends by understanding it. And understanding evil is going for refuge in Buddha. Buddhas understand evil. Buddha is intimate with evil. He often recommends avoiding it, but I think avoiding it in this peaceful, compassionate way. So yes, avoid evil, but the implications of avoiding evil were maybe not fully drawn out at the time of the historical Buddha.

[39:08]

And now, then later we find out, perhaps now we find out, that avoiding evil means love evil. But Buddha said it at that time. The Buddha did not say in the early days of the tradition, love evil. He said avoid it. He didn't say hate it. He did not say hate evil. I didn't hear him say hate anything. Matter of fact, I generally heard him say don't hate. But then I didn't hear him say love evil. I heard him say avoid it. But then we have a bodhisattva way of saying that avoid evil, which was not avoid evil, but avoid forms and ceremonies. And then practicing forms and ceremonies, sometimes people don't love the forms and ceremonies, they attach to them.

[40:09]

So then we have a further teaching which is not implied by embrace and sustain forms and ceremonies. People don't get that that means not attach. and be prejudiced towards, but love them. Love them so fully that you practice them with your whole heart and are not attached to them. This is avoiding evil. This is finding peace. This is loving evil and all evil beings. All evil beings are objects of compassion. That's a bodhisattva precept. Be compassionate to all evil beings. Love all evil beings. Be gentle and kind to all evil beings. That's going for refuge in Buddha.

[41:11]

And this is proposed as really where we're heading. So another meaning of reality is ...heading. What we will finally realize is going for refuge in Buddha. But obviously we're challenged to always be feeling that we're going for refuge in Buddha and feel confidence that we can demonstrate that. And what the demonstration might look like would be love for all beings. That would be the demonstration. the main demonstration, to prove by a love that convinces everybody that that's the way to go. Yes? I have a question, but Shana has had a question for a while. I think you haven't seen her. You'd like to defer to her for a little bit? I don't think of it as a deferral, but... What would you like to do?

[42:13]

I'd like to see what you weren't seeing. You'd like to see what I'm not seeing? Anybody else want to see what I'm not seeing? Yeah. Me too. Did you have something? Yeah, I had a question about, like many others, about reality. And I've been thinking a lot about the five aggregates, and I think that really helps me to understand how my perceptions are formed, and how I exist, and how I form my understanding of what's real through these . So maybe that differentiation of things that are real, we can enjoy, you know, things that aren't real, we can be free from.

[43:16]

When he said that about the noble truth, it was true for me. So the aggregates, or the skandhas, these categories of, these ways to analyze and categorize experience, those are the Buddha actually has a knowledge that you can see your experience and all your types of experience would be of these five types. It's the kind of knowledge that the Buddha has. The Buddha gives this teaching or this knowledge and you can use this knowledge to see reality. So the knowledge isn't isn't reality, but you can use the knowledge to see reality. So, for example, the five skandhas. Now we have also, for example, the precepts. Going for refuge in Buddha is a knowledge that you can use to see reality.

[44:20]

But also, and the five skandhas are examples. She's studying the five skandhas. That's an example of going for refuge in the Dharma. going for refuge in Buddha's knowledge, Buddha's teaching. So that's another way to talk about reality, is it's that which the knowledge is directing us towards. Yes? I was thinking about that part of the Lotus Sutra that bodhisattvas don't hang out with people who aren't practicing. And then I was thinking, if everybody's in fact practicing the precepts, what is that about? Yeah, so bodhisattvas are those who, I mean, a full-fledged bodhisattva devoted to the welfare of all beings, but if somebody doesn't want to study dharma now, bodhisattvas may keep at a distance from them.

[45:32]

until they're ready. Dharma, and then they give themselves to the person. Does that mean that bodhisattvas sort of require a certain degree of understanding of reality of other beings in order to relate to them? Well, they do relate to them, but... No matter what level of understanding the bodhisattva does relate to, the bodhisattva is committed to them, no matter what. But they don't get close to them. They don't. They don't get close to them unless it would help them. And to get close to someone and reject you might really be harmful to them. So the place where she's referring to is in the Lotus Sutra. And the Lotus Sutra is a place where the Buddha says, I do not want to give this teaching to someone who will reject it. It would be really bad and have them reject it.

[46:42]

It's better to wait. Then they don't reject it. Wait until they want it. Wait until they yearn for it really wholeheartedly and then give it to them. and then give it to them wholeheartedly. Seems like maybe we'll need to add your presentation of reality. We'll need to add a fascicle to the Lotus Sutra with this presentation of reality, which I think is great. I don't think we're going to be able to get it in. You want to prove that good is reality. No, I think it's just going to be a commentary. No more admissions to the Lotus Sutra. Make him a new sutra, maybe. But Lotus Sutra is done for now. Thank you. Yes, Bernd and Sigurinn. So, I don't really know what I'm going to say, but I feel I would like to express myself.

[47:46]

At the end of last week, I really admired your wholeheartedness in expressing yourself. let's say the issue of cruelty as an expression of the Buddha way, I witnessed, just I, my subjectivity in this class, witnessed coming up over 14 years since I came here. You witnessed what? Since I came here first. Okay. Well, the issue of cruelty as an expression of the Buddha way is coming up in various disguises and rhetorics. Oh, you've been experiencing that for 40 years? Fourteen. Oh, fourteen. And It has been and is a big challenge for me. And that's why I appreciate it. And I felt last week I could open up to it.

[48:49]

So because of that, I just want to say I'm kind of disappointed that you're taking it back. And because of what you just said, I would simply kindly like to ask, is it because you got the feedback that we weren't ready for this? Oh, I see. I don't have that story. I think what you... Because of your exchange. Go on. I wonder, so I could also more openly say, what made you change your mind? I have a story to change your mind. Could you explain, maybe? Changing your mind? Tell us about your story. My story still is, everything, everything is an expression of taking refuge in the store. Everything...

[49:52]

Everything deeply wishes to open up to selflessness. My story. And I heard it recuted from you today. That was my story. So that, let's say... Actually, I came into this discussion last week because, still, it was so strong for me that I felt I had to say, also culturally, I'm very aware of that, as a German. So if my fellow former SS women and men would have realized ...that taking refuge in Buddha, they would have stopped forcing people to walk in through the gas. And that's the depth of this argument.

[50:55]

Now today, I feel you took this path. And I don't really understand why I'm disappointed And that's maybe why I should stop. It's kind of disappointing. How do you feel we took it back here? By basically saying that cruelty is not taking refuge in Buddha. I felt that what we are maybe not open to, what is radical on your part, was to say last week, yes, of course, what we conventionally conceive of as cruelty as everything else, taking refuge in Buddha. That's a big difference. Of course, it creates a separation that, let's say, this radical stance turned up.

[51:57]

Make any sense? Yeah. May I respond to you? Maybe what you heard last week was said in a context of ultimate reality, and today what you're hearing is ultimate reality. Is that possible? It's possible. Is it probable? So where am I? I don't know. I think now is a good time. So am I saying that cruelty is an expression of Buddhadharma? I thought you were asking me, am I saying that?

[53:02]

Am I saying that cruelty is going for refuge in Buddha? Yes. I've heard you say that last week. Yeah. So, shall I say cruelty is going for refuge in Buddha, however, it hasn't yet realized going for refuge in Buddha? And if we realize going for refuge in Buddha, there will be no cruelty. And the Bodhisattva vows to realize the precept of going for refuge in Buddha with perhaps the encouragement that it can be realized because it's reality. And then there will be no cruelty in that realization. And if there's any cruelty, there will be kindness towards all cruelty in that realization of going for refuge in Buddha.

[54:14]

And all beings are heading in this direction I'm proposing. Is that good? You said earlier about loving the Yeah. And conclusion. Yeah. And if that emerges, then it's not possible to see there aren't any evil beings. Yeah. Just checking. So again, and without saying evil beings, just say sentient beings, sentient beings means non-Buddhists. So there's Buddhas and sentient beings, so being devoted to the welfare of sentient beings, wishing to lead them to the best situation involves verifying that there's no sentient beings to be led to the best possible situation, and then continuing to be devoted to sentient beings.

[55:34]

I just, I'm an evil sentient. Like, we've talked about evil as kind of epic, far away, historically far away, and this is an unsure thing of evil sentience. Are you inviting love? Sure. Brendan? You mentioned earlier that most people, I don't know if you said most people or a lot of people, are locked into an idea of the relativity of good and evil. I hear that expression in, I don't know... Carolina said that, right? Yeah. That people are locked into the good and evil categories? Yeah, and you said... Yeah. And you said that we... We're moving in the direction of being free from that idea.

[56:39]

I'm suggesting that we're moving in the direction of becoming free of these categories, becoming free of our rigid attachment to them. Okay, so that rigid attachment can also apply to people who are locked into an idea of good and evil. This is who have a deterministic idea of good and evil, as opposed to a relative idea. if you have a deterministic idea of good or evil, you say, well, this person is evil and this person is good because of this and this and this, and you don't approach it with the relativistic idea that, oh, you know, that an act for one person can be a good act, but the same act for another person can be an evil act. We don't approach it that way. Right, you say, well, All of these acts are evil, and all of these acts are good. And if a person commits this act, an evil act, then they're evil, and if a person commits this act, then they're good.

[57:43]

Yes, okay. There's such views. And I was just wondering what you had to say about those views, but it seems to me like those are also kind of a rigid way of approaching it. But I guess I thought that the more relative view of good and evil was... of looking at it, but you're saying you can get locked into the relative idea as much as you can get locked into the deterministic idea. Did you hear what he said? Okay. So I'm also saying that the bond to the different scenarios you said is not, I'm saying, it's not deterministic. And because it's not, there can be freedom from any of those scenarios you mentioned. However, there's also the story of according to this way of causation, we get locked into any of those scenarios you said.

[58:52]

So there's no scenario you can mention that you can't get attached to. However, now that I've said that, I would say that that wasn't deterministic. I didn't mean that deterministically. Okay. I got it. Because, you know, we're not set up. If we made a deterministic statement in that vein, then we'd be rigid about it. Yes. Right. But the Buddha is proposing, this is the way it works. And he's saying, if you really want to practice what I'm teaching, you really keep this in mind. And then after he gets that clear, then he wants to now release you from the focus. So, like, you could actually open up to the possibility of there being a fixed idea of what is good and what is evil.

[59:56]

Yes. And then you're free from the relative idea. Careful not to get locked into the term of that. Right. And you could, you know, and by this way you could get locked in. Or by this way, when one is locked in, one gets locked in this way. But one doesn't always get locked in. You don't always... But he does tell stories of, for example, when there's clinging, clinging depends on craving, and craving depends on feeling. But... How does that apply to this? How does it apply to this? the relativistic versus the, you know, concrete views. Well, because he teaches this and he says that this depends on this, but he doesn't ... is deterministic.

[61:03]

The fact that I depend on you doesn't mean that you determine me strictly. Kind of goes back to something you were talking about last week. So necessary and sufficient the Buddha does not teach. It teaches necessary, but not necessary and sufficient. So it doesn't teach determinism. And I would say the science that I like doesn't teach determinism, strict determinism. It doesn't teach necessary and sufficient, although it recognizes that necessary is determinism. Was there a hand there? Yes, Chris? I remember last week you mentioned that historically looking at or studying the precepts as the ones for this advanced study. And so I'm kind of saying, okay, I can kind of follow to a certain extent the conversation.

[62:05]

So I don't think that's why it was originally held back from students or whatever. So I'm wondering, is it because it's one level to intellectualize and another level to actually embody or experience these things, and that's why you waited or teachers would wait to study with their students in this way? That could be part of the reason why they wait. Another part of the reason they wait is they watch to see if the students have been working for a long time together do they have a sustained commitment to the precepts. And if they don't have, if they don't evince, if they don't seem to demonstrate according to some kind of verification committed to the precepts, you wouldn't move forward into repeated verification of that there are no precepts.

[63:11]

because they obviously can't tolerate that information and continue to be . So if they keep working with the student on the precepts or on the stories, if they keep working with the student on their karmic consciousness and they keep realizing the indeterminacy of their karmic consciousness while they're studying it, but they continue to study it, then they can move into studying the precepts. If they demonstrate or continue to be committed to studying their karmic consciousness and studying their precepts, if they keep doing that while they get less and less attached to their views, but that's the last thing they want to bring up, to test if they can literally let go of the precepts. Now that they've demonstrated that they, excuse me, that they can literally let go of them, and let go of the literal precepts while still being committed to them.

[64:18]

Because they demonstrated they could let go of some of their understandings and still be committed to the precepts. Now can we actually look at the precepts and study them and let go of our understanding of the precepts and continue to be committed to them. So the dangerous part of what I'm doing here is Know you all well enough to know that you're committed to the precepts. That's why I call this class, this class is about the precepts, but it's also somewhat dangerous because I don't, I don't want you to give up your commitment to the precepts. As a matter of fact, I would like to deepen your commitment to the precepts at the same time your attachment to your ideas of what they mean, which you seem to be open to loosening them and now I'm wondering are you also, do you feel, along with that, more committed to them?

[65:19]

So I'd like to know, do you feel more committed? But before that, a word from Jane. I have this idea that talking about good and evil is actually kind of viral. It's actually kind of an example of raising itself at the expense of others. And we say we can't find good and evil, but we talk like we can. I mean, we use the language in a way that is as if we can find them. I think there's a lot. Yeah. I'm just going to go with that.

[66:25]

Abby? Oh. Well, you didn't, what? Oh, did I respond to that? Well, I guess I'm responding by saying nothing about it, because that might be violent. Well, you could be violent. I could be violent, but I'd rather do it later. Well, then, Jane, would you say again what you said? Please. I wasn't actually mean to imply anything was violent. What I said was that I have to say, talking in terms of good and evil, it's kind of like praising self at the expense of others.

[67:30]

because we're judging, putting value judgments on things. And I think there's another, like if we talked about somebody who's so scared that they can't tolerate any difference, and they... and trying to establish some kind of sense of control, they killed people. Then I think a little less. It doesn't have that same feeling for me as labeling it as evil does. Can I ask you a question?

[68:36]

If you label your own behavior as evil, are you placing yourself above another? Well, is the labeling evil? I don't generally try to do that. I don't behave evil if I can help it, only because if I do that, I'm usually not really, it usually takes me more in the direction of rejecting instead of loving. Can we speak of evil without judging it so that it's not? Yes, it's not judgmental. Or can we speak of evil and judge it, but love it?

[69:41]

Some of you may be able to look at yourself and say, well, that's evil, but in a loving way. Others may feel like, I can't really get into saying that what I'm doing is evil without rejecting it, without being cruel to it, so I hesitate to use that language. Mm-hmm. And so you just kind of know, for me, this is not a good word to use. But maybe later I'll be able to use it. I can kind of use that word now, but it's just like what you said about you don't know that well, and so therefore I think it's a dangerous word. dangerous language because you don't know how actually people are really hearing. Anyway. Or know the person well enough to know that it's accurate. Well, this particular rendition of the Bodhisattva precepts does not mention evil.

[70:46]

However, when we look at the precepts, like the first one, we look at going for refuge in Buddha and people bring up Cruelty. So there it is. It's in the room. Let's take care of whatever comes up here. This is a nice big group of people. We can take care of almost anything. So I welcome it. And I hope that when it comes forth and when it's brought forth, the language, certain kind of language, if it comes forth, I would love to be able to love it. That's what I'm feeling is going for refuge in Buddha, is to love all things, and to be free of like and dislike, and to be free of good and evil. How about you?

[71:50]

Did you then go on to speak to the thing that you thought you would say later? I didn't really think of something I was going to say. I just thought, if you'd like, I could be violent at some point, if that would be helpful. I'm willing to do that. I'd be willing to do that as an opportunity for you all to practice love. Is this later? This is later, but I didn't particularly feel like now was the time. Do you think it is? No. No. So that's what I really want, is for us to be able to love whatever comes, because stuff is coming. violence, and some of it will be cruelty. So how can we meet it with love? That's what I think these precepts are about. And I also think that these precepts are about reality.

[72:53]

That it's not just that the reality of the situation is that this is where we're tending. This is what we came here for, is to learn to love all things. and to be free of like and dislike. However, when dislike arises and like arises, both of those things, I would like to be able to love them. even though this is kind of evil, the like thing. Like, I like it when you're like that, and I don't like it when you're like that. It's kind of evil. It's kind of like twisting life into a little knot. But I would like to like those little twists. I would like to love them, I mean. I think that's my vision of a Buddha, is to love all the different twists of beings and that this love opens up to see how all these beings, all these little twists and turns are actually heading towards the same inconceivable wisdom and compassion, these Bodhisattva precepts.

[74:06]

This is to return to ultimate enlightenment. Oh wait, just a second. Abby, who postponed her contribution. I heard you saying earlier that Buddhas help to liberate sentient beings, good and evil. I don't know if they do, but that's what I think they're about. I don't know if they've been successful yet, but they say they have, so... And by doing that, they love them. And by loving them, they... They do that. By loving them, they do that. And by loving them, do they also realize their insubstantiality? Yes. And by realizing their insubstantiality, they're committed to sentient beings. Yes, and also by realizing their insubstantiality, they can actually help sentient beings.

[75:08]

The love helps sentient beings, but the main way the love helps sentient beings is to help sentient beings realize their own insubstantiality, which they don't realize, which is properly, so that's why... and twisted. And so I don't hear you saying that because ultimately they're insubstantial, then they ignore sentient beings because that's... Yeah, that's what I was talking to Chris about. If you work with people about loving things and then they realize the insubstantiality of the thing that they're loving, if you continue to love, then you support them to realize more insubstantiality. But if they realize the insubstantiality of their own evil or their own good or other people's evil or other people's good or the teachings, if they realize the insubstantiality and then they are less devoted and less loving, then you... until they reestablish their commitment. But it also sounds like for that reason, then that's inspiration for all of us to be even more committed to the precepts.

[76:17]

Right. So that's what I'm asking. Do you feel more committed to the precepts in this discussion about the precepts? That's what I'd like to know. Malvern, I mean, you or you? So, if as a sentient being I'm labeling others as being evil, is that part of me being unable to that I am also capable of that evil and therefore prove that I'm not fully taking refuge in Buddha. That all sounds good to me. But another turn of the wheel is, kind of a nice way to end the class, I think, is it's kind of a miracle.

[77:26]

The scholar Edward Kahnse called this the Mahayana miracle. is that you're devoted to beings and because you love beings and are devoted to them, because you're devoted to them, because you know how to love pretty well, you realize they're insubstantial. And somehow you're able to continue to be devoted to these insubstantial beings. So you're devoted to sentient beings, but in some sense you're devoted to beings who you think are evil. But then you're so devoted to them that you realize they're ...insubstantial, and they're insubstantial, but somehow you're able to continue to be devoted to them and even be more unhinderedly devoted to them than you were before, realizing again that there's nobody there to be devoted to, and then go right ahead and be devoted to nobody there. This is a miracle of the Bodhisattva precepts. And the same with the precepts. You be devoted to them and realize they're insubstantial, and then be more devoted to them.

[78:30]

Be more like, all I'm doing is being devoted to these precepts and these beings, none of which can I actually find. So, again, do you feel more devoted to the precepts? Now, I want to know if you feel more devoted to them, more wholehearted about practicing, more mindful of them throughout the day. And if you are, I'm very happy if you are. And if you're not, I'd like to hear how not. Because I don't want anybody to be less committed to these ungraspable precepts, which are real. Yes? Not less, but... Well, in a sense, the evil is in the first pure precept. That's the one, that's evil. Once you're avoiding evil, you're free to do, you're free, your action is now free to do good. The first precept, by practicing these forms and ceremonies in a proper way, we become free of evil.

[79:57]

The first one is to test our attachment. And we choose these forms as the mode to test our attachment. And one of the forms is the precepts. So the first one is to receive these precepts and practice them wholeheartedly. And by practicing wholeheartedly, avoid evil. Just do good. But you have to do that with this constant purification process of being committed to these precepts while loving them so fully that you're not attached to them. That's the way we have to be with the precepts in order to practice the precept of doing good. So the Buddha is completely committed to the precepts and completely can't find the precepts. And the Bodhisattva is completely committed to beings and can't find beings. But we need to actually look at the precepts that we can't find them.

[81:02]

We need to be that devoted to them. And I don't know if we got to that point where we're that devoted, but at least you feel more devoted than you were before. And if that devotion becomes more and more radiant, burning, then I think the precepts will be the same as liberation. Yes? In answer to your question, I wanted to... In answer to the question that you're asking, I noticed that in the last summer, in the last ten minutes, I opened to some new evil in my heart. I mean, it appeared and... Yeah. So does that encourage me, do you think? I hope so. Yeah. I think if you come to this class and open to more evil in ourselves... I think that's part of what being devoted to the precepts can reveal, is our own evil.

[82:10]

But then to love it, because the precepts are telling you how to deal with evil in your own heart. And again, do not say to be unkind to any evil you discover in yourself. And the precepts are not about looking for other people's evil. It's being devoted to all beings who you know have problems, but you're not looking at what their problems are, you're looking at how you love them. Your job is to love them, not to be keeping track of their evil. But you are supposed to keep track, I am supposed to keep track of my own evil, my own karmic consciousness. So I'm trying to love your karmic consciousness and keep track of my own and love mine as I open to it. So anyway, I hope I'm not the only one who feels more devoted by doing this class to the bodhisattva precepts.

[83:19]

I hope you become more devoted and more devoted to these precepts. And I bring up this reality part basically to help us not attach to them. But I don't want you to become not attached. I'd rather have you be attached to them than not attached to them and not devoted. Same for me. I'd rather be devoted and attached than non-attached and not devoted. But best is to be so devoted that there's no attachment to them. Totally, all the time, without attachment to them. totally remembering them without trying to remember them. That's where we're heading, I think. I like that story, that this is where we're heading.

[84:19]

How about you?

[84:22]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_85.59