This is the last class that I'll give before Sashin, so I want this class to be a meditation instruction for Sashin, which you can use as you will, or use at your will. So please think about this teaching today in terms of how you apply it to your sitting. and maybe after some presentation we can actually discuss how you put this into practice. I hope during Sashin also to bring in Zen stories which are the enactment of this teaching and which are further instructions in the subtlety of this form of meditation. To that end, I would introduce a simple version of Zen practice, which you may have heard, and that is, first, clean, then sit.

[01:23]

This is also a simple version of the Eightfold Noble Path. First clean means clarify your view. Develop right view. That's the first of the Eightfold Noble Path, right view. Clean up your philosophy. Drop all false views about reality and just adopt the right view, which we call the middle way. or Madhyamaka. Then you have, what is it, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and then eight is sit. So first clean, and then sit. That includes a whole Eightfold Noble Path. All the things between cleaning up your view and sitting are included between those two.

[02:29]

This is a simple version. So what this teaching is about here is to develop the right view, and then we yogically engage with that right view in our sitting. OK, so I'd like to go back again to just what we did last night, and that is we reached the 22nd character. And so we realize that when the dependently coerisen object is clean or clean of all imagination, that is

[03:34]

The accomplished. That the accomplished is the dependently co-arisen object of awareness wherein this imagined realm is absent. Or the accomplished is the fact that this is always separate from this. This is an overlay on this. And when this overlay is completely separate from this, or when this is completely free of that, this is what we call the accomplished, which is the realm of non-discriminating wisdom, the realm of enlightenment. It's the realm where this independently co-arising world, which is the world where rainbows go over the Tassajara Valley and land at the Zendo. It's that world.

[04:36]

So, 23, oh, and that's 21, then 22 is that when there is not the accomplished, there is not the dependent. When there is not the accomplishment, when there is not non-discriminating wisdom, when you have not yet realized non-discriminating wisdom, then the world of dependent co-arising is also not realized. So this says going up and attaining mean cleansing or cleaning the world of willows and flowers of all imagining that then you go up and attain the realm of enlightenment. Attain the realm of enlightenment you go down and this realm of enlightenment gets transformed into this, into dependent core rising.

[05:46]

Therefore, the bodhisattva path of dedicating ourselves to attain enlightenment and return to the world to transform beings. And then again, dropping all imaginations, attaining the way, and again, coming down to transformed beings. Round and round we go until the whole thing's homogenized. So in the realm of the Mahajamaka teaching we talked about before, we talked about renouncing our belief in inherent existence. First step in that is to wish to renounce and to wish to become free of the belief in inherent existence of all self and phenomena. Second phase is to confess that we do believe in the inherent existence of things and we do attribute inherent existence of things.

[06:58]

And the third, after that confession, is renunciation proper, where after you've admitted what you're up to, you can examine what you're up to and drop it. One, two, three, not easy, but that's how you do it. Similarly here, the first phase in renunciation would be to want to train yourself in the practice of Vijnapti Matratta City, to want to train yourself to accomplish the state wherein there's just near concept. Next would be to admit that you do attribute imaginings to Vijnapti Matra. By the way, I also mentioned here, we have That means mere concept. And then there's which is the state of mere concept.

[08:02]

Just like there's impermanence and there's the impermanent. In that example, what is it? Where is it? 22. 22. Oh, in Karaka 22 it says, like impermanence and so on. So there is the impermanent, which is anicca, and there's the impermanence, which is anicca-ta. Similarly, there is vijnaptimatra and vijnaptimatra-ta. And there's shunya and shunyata. There's the empty things and there's a state of emptiness. So the first is to make the vow to realize the state of vinyapti-matrata, to accomplish vinyapti-matrata, which means vinyapti-matrata city. City means to accomplish.

[09:04]

Also parinishpana means to accomplish or consummate. Okay, maybe that's enough for starters. Okay, so 23, the nonsubstantiality of all elements has been preached for the sake of establishing the threefold nonsubstantiality of all substances. 24. The first, first is the imagined nature, fabricated nature, hariculpita, is non-substantial in terms of characteristics. The other, the other dependent, the dependently co-arisen, is again one that possesses no self-nature and as such is a different form of non-substantiality.

[10:13]

So the concepts or the objects of awareness that occur in this realm are different from the concepts and objects that appear in this realm. Concepts and objects that appear in the realm of Harikalpita, of the imagined are mere concepts, mere imaginations. The ones that appear here are dependably co-arisen. Characteristics is a Sanskrit word for lakshana. So a phenomena, a dharma, and one understanding of the root of the word dharma is, the root, I think, is something like dharm.

[11:20]

Do you know what the root of dharma is? The root of dharma, which Dr. Jaini says means something that can bear something or something that can hold something. And the thing in dharma can hold is a characteristic, a mark, a lakshana. So it's saying that the first kind, this one here, these imaginings cannot bear characteristics. The dharmas that arise under dependent co-arising can bear characteristics. They can have marks. I will, yeah. So this is nonsubstantial in terms of characteristic. This has no marks. And this has no marks. We say these have no spa laksina. In other words, they have no own marks. They have no marks of their inherent existence.

[12:21]

But they do have marks. They do have characteristics. Okay. So example. An example would be A unicorn. A unicorn is an example of which of these two? What? What? What? First? How many vote on the first? How many vote for the second? Why do you vote for the second? Yes, it's mythical. This is the realm of imagination, this one. So which one do you put? Huh? The unicorn has symbolic meaning? Okay, so you put it over here. Is that right? I would suggest that the unicorn, when I say unicorn to you, what do you see?

[13:29]

What do you think of? A horse with a horn, right? Now, where would you put that horse for the horn? Which of these categories? You put in the first one, not the second one? I put it in the second one. Okay. Why? Because it is a codependently produced concept. I even asked you what it was like And you told me, and we all agree. What's purely imagined, ladies and gentlemen? Unicorn exists. What? Believing that the unicorn exists. Anything else? Huh? Is there anything else that's purely imagined? Besides believing things that exist? Besides attributing inherent existence to things? That's basically it.

[14:31]

It's like it says. A carrot is a... A carrot? Yeah, a carrot. What do you mean by a carrot? I mean, something like a unicorn, but a horse. Yeah, a horse is the same as a unicorn. Yeah, a horse is the same as... Yeah. When we're talking about... Right now, when we're talking about horses, unicorns, and Jordan, they're all the same. They're all simply codependently produced concepts. So it's when we believe it? It says right here, what does it say? It says Karaka 20, right? Whatever thought, whatever thought through which an object is thought of as a substance, that indeed is the fabrication. Definition of this is that thought through which An object is thought of as having a substance. So, now notice the difference, ladies and gentlemen, between the image of a unicorn, which quite a few of you were able to conjure up, right? Notice the difference between that and the operation of believing that a unicorn exists.

[15:37]

Can you believe a unicorn exists? If you can't, let's take one step back then. Let's take Tayo. Do you know, Tayo, will you please stand up? That's Tayo, right? Now, in the case of Tayo, did you have an image of him, a concept of him? That's a codependently produced concept, which we all can share in, which has effects, right? For him and for us. It has lakshana, it has characteristics. Tayo... Well, we'll talk about that later, but anyway. Now, can you notice that you believe that he exists? When he stood up, I had no thought that he necessarily existed. You don't have to do that. I don't say you have to. You don't have to do that. It's not required. As a matter of fact, it's good not to. However, Unless you're already perfectly enlightened, you have to find out when you do do that.

[16:41]

That's why I chose the unicorn, because most of you don't do that with unicorns. So, those of you who have attributed some existence to Tayo, or if not Tayo, then maybe take somebody else, like for example, yourself. Imagine yourself and look to see if you think you exist. And if you're not sure, then notice the difference in existential status that you give to unicorns and yourself. Can you see the difference? Can you catch that you're doing something with the concept of yourself that you don't do with unicorns? Can you see that? Hmm? Yeah. That difference is this. Now, I propose to you, go ahead and try to do that with unicorns. You should be able to do it. You can do it. Matter of fact, You can do it. You can do it. You really can do it. You can do it to anything. You can do it to horses. Why can't you do it to a unicorn?

[17:42]

You can do it to yourself. Why can't you? You can do it to a unicorn. And when you do it to a unicorn, when you attribute existence to it, that's what we mean by a dependently co-arisen thing, because the image of the unicorn is dependently co-arisen, right? Then mix that in with, attribute then an imaginary substance to that. That converts the dependently co-arisen into the imagined. That puts this coding of illusion and imagination around it, and then you've got the world of birth and death. And you don't have to do that to unicorns. As you see, a lot of you didn't do it to unicorns. Some of you did, maybe. Some of you didn't even think you could do it to unicorns. But ladies and gentlemen, you have the ability to do it to unicorns because you have an imagination. You can imagine that unicorns exist and you can get into it. Okay?

[18:43]

But you must be able to identify that you are into it sometimes. Otherwise, you're not being honest. That is not good. you must be honest, in other words, in order to tell the difference between actually dropping this stuff and basically saying, I don't attribute existence to the things. Sometimes you don't, fine, but sometimes you do, not fine. So just as in realizing through the Madhyamaka teaching, realizing that practiced emptiness, you have to be able to notice that you attribute inherent existence, here too you need to notice that you attribute inherent existence to concepts. Not all of them though, because I just thought of one for the example, for that very reason, that many of you do not sort of carry around the idea that unicorns do inherently exist. Charlie?

[19:46]

Is it possible? It is possible. It is possible. That's the whole point here, that it is possible. Now, bodhisattvas are those who think that they actually personally could realize that state. Not just that some bodhisattvas have, but that they could do it. Other people think it's a great idea and would like to support those who do it, but don't think that they can do it. It's not for me to tell you you can do it. but I really think you all can because you all have that ability to perceive codependently produced concepts and you also all have the ability to infect them. So you have the possibility then of removing the infection. Yes? It occurred to me when you were talking about unicorns that the more... Can you hear him? No. It occurred to me... It occurred to me when you were talking about the unicorn that the more prevalent contemporary

[20:53]

belief is unicorns do not exist. Would that fit the pattern the same? Exactly. Yes. Can you tell that you really do believe that it's true that unicorns don't exist? See the difference there? There it is. They're both beliefs. They're both beliefs, and you actually think there's a substance to the belief that unicorns don't exist. You feel that kind of weightiness there and that thought of there really aren't any out there? And if one showed up, I really would think that it was kind of a Hollywood prop or something. There is some level of experience. Usually there are viable different horse in the unit. Yeah, and those are other concepts that we use to do that. Right. It seemed like was saying that he imagined that the first problem was of all things that weren't experientially verifiable.

[21:58]

everything that we think of between that. But maybe that's my mystery. At any rate, does the difference between a horse and a unicorn in terms of experiential therapy by a villain show up in this breakdown? The unicorn as an experientially verifiable event is the concept of unicorn which you now see floating before your mind. That's it. There's the experience. You got it? Yeah. That's it. That's the only one you're going to come up with probably. Right. So where is the distinction between the boys and the unicorn? Right today in this room? The distinction is that they're two different concepts which we all both have available to us right now. We have both of them available to us right in this room, right? Horses and unicorns. They are different concepts, too, because they have different codependent origination. The difference between them is the difference between their Lakshinas. Okay? Now, notice the difference, ladies and gentlemen, between...

[23:02]

The way you attribute, or I should say, rather than try to trick you, try to find the difference between the way you attribute substance to horses, the concept horse, and the way you attribute substance to the belief that unicorns don't exist. Or maybe not such a complicated example. Try to notice the difference between the way you believe and attribute substance to horses and the way you attribute substance to cows. What characteristic can you find to distinguish those two imaginings? Is there any characteristic you can find? One person says, you know, any other opinion? Can anybody find anything else? Any way, any mark, any characteristic by which you can discriminate the difference between the way you attribute substance, that's what you said? Feelings. You have a different feeling of the way you attribute substance to horse and the way you attribute substance... Oh, I'm sorry, that's your unicorn hand person.

[24:05]

No, just talking about now the attributing of substance to something like a cow, a horse, or a unicorn. Start with an easy one. Watch the way you attribute substance to cow and horse. Do you see any difference? Can you characterize any difference between the way you do those two acts of attributing substance? I don't think so. If anybody wants to say so, though, this would be interesting. So, yes? Yeah, but the picture of the cow and the picture of the horse is not this... But your feeling might be different, too, between picture of cow and picture of horse. Okay? But the point is, picture of cow and picture of horse is not what I'm asking you. Those are different, because they have different marks. Okay? That's the difference between them, is their marks, their characteristics. They're both dependently co-arisen, and also we can discuss and verify these marks among us. Because these lakshinas make these images have causal efficacy.

[25:10]

Namely, we can interact with them. We perceptual process beings can all interact about these dependently co-arisen things, like Willows and flowers. We feel differently maybe about willows and flowers, okay? Because they're codependently produced in different ways. They have different marks. They have different effects on us. We have different feelings about them, okay? What I'm asking is, When you attribute the belief in the inherent existence, or anyway, when you attribute substance to the flower and you attribute substance to the willow, can you identify any difference in the way you attribute substance? And we're being told by Basu Bandhu that you cannot find any characteristic by which you differentiate the two. Therefore, there's no characteristic There's no characteristics in this imagined realm. It itself also lacks inherent existence.

[26:17]

It has no substantiality. The attribution of substance has no substantiality either, but you can't find its emptiness through identifying and looking at its characteristics. It's a different form of non-substantiality than the non-substantiality of dependently co-arisen phenomena. For example, dependently co-arisen concepts, which are the objects of our knowledge. There are lots of dependently co-produced things, but Buddhism is focusing in on the dependently co-produced phenomena, particularly objects, in the process of perception. Because among all the dependently co-produced things, those that occur in the realm of perception are the ones that we most get hung up on and cause us the most misery because the sense of self arises in conjunction with the process of perception and so on, which we've gone through already. So among the many, many kinds of codependently produced things, which is everything in the universe, we're focusing in on codependently produced objects of knowledge, the mere concepts.

[27:18]

Everything else in the universe is also codependently produced, but they're not problems for us. Okay, yes. And you want... What do you want me to say? Tell me what you want me to say. Tell me what it is you want me to say in a different way. When you were starting with your response to Pooley, you were talking about... But it's like, it seems like it's a characteristic. But the process of... I mean, it seems like we are so funny, a process of attributing substance, looking for a characteristic of that and not being able to... Right. So whenever you attribute substance to different things, which you do all the time, you'll notice that the way of attributing substance is basically an ungraspable process and you can't feel the difference in the way you zap existence on things. It's always the same, basically.

[28:20]

There's no characteristics of how you do that by which you can see that now I'm zapping inherent existence on Mary, now I'm zapping inherent existence on Dorothea, and the way I zap it onto you is different from the way I zap it onto you. There's no way to differentiate in terms of characteristics there. It's insubstantial, the whole process, but not in terms of lakshina. It's insubstantial, or rather, it is insubstantial in terms of lakshina. There's no way that it bears any substantiality in terms of lakshina. Whereas the image of a unicorn image of a cow, the image of you, those do have lakshina, but what they lack is inherent existence. They don't have any inherent existence, but lakshina don't. If you look at what a cow is and start examining it, you will never find out what a cow is. A cow is as hard to get a hold of as the process of attributing substance to things.

[29:21]

You can't get a hold of either one of them. However, in the case of imagination, There isn't even any Lakshina involved. There's no characteristics at issue here. Yeah, imagination is that you imagine these things. Imagining a unicorn is not this. Imagining a unicorn is not the imagined nature. Imagining a unicorn is dependently co-arisen nature. What is an imagined substance? Well, you can say so, but the way it dependently co-arises is such that the way it's empty is not empty the way the other one's empty. The way the other one's empty is empty in terms of lakshana. The way this is empty is in terms... The way the other one's empty is in terms of own being. The way this is empty, this is empty or insubstantial in terms of lakshana. Okay? So you can say this is dependently co-produced, but the main way this is dependently co-produced is...

[30:23]

by virtue of our tendency to attribute substance. That's the main dependent co-producing factor here. Whereas in the case of imagining a unicorn or a cow, the main dependently co-producing elements are the lakshana. Because you're not producing, in this case, substance, you're creating a concept, not a substance. And the way you make concepts is with colors and shapes and feelings, with these characteristics. You use these characteristics to make the objects of knowledge. Objects of knowledge are composed of these characteristics. That's how you build these concepts. That's not how you build substance into these concepts. You build substance in these concepts by the fact of your tendency, your inclination, your disposition to do that.

[31:28]

So the imagined nature is also dependently co-produced, and it's empty for that reason, but it's empty for another reason. Namely, there's not even the lakshinas there, the characteristics that there are in composing the world of willows, flowers, and turtles. Yeah. walk that walk, it does have, I disagree with you, it does have a real view. In my imagination, in this sort of conceptual world that the example is in this world, it has, it's right in the world, and the horses. Uh-huh. With this, this feeling of it, it's separate and it has its own being. It's the first honest person to date. There it is.

[32:30]

He thinks that cows and unicorns have own being. There it is. That's it. That's the imagined nature. Good. You got it. Huh? It doesn't have real being. It has own being. What's real being? Real being is when I had other, further concepts on it. to this imaginable sexual dominant example. And then I say, well, then that is really out there. That's a whole other kind of activity that I could put on top of it. Yes? Well, I'm going to be like a area. And it's related with him with that at some point, you know, that they also make distinction. That they're about. Really exist, even though.

[33:34]

And doesn't really. And I'm wondering, do we really throw all the stuff all into the same pot of non-agnostic food? Or if we do that, Well, you asked several questions. Yeah. One question you had, do we throw all this stuff into the same pot of non-existent, is that what you said? Yeah. What do you think about all this stuff?

[34:37]

Well, in other words, we as a group in general, it seems to be a unicorn and a cow. On one level, in that we believe cows really do exist in the physical world. And we don't believe unicorns do. uh... And the reason why we don't believe unicorns do is because we think there is no such thing as a unicorn. Right. And we think there really is such a thing as a cow. We have this concept called imaginary or fantastical objects, and unicorns belong in some concrete way to this category, whereas we have this other concrete category. And we really believe they belong in this category. But I don't understand what you're saying in terms of I don't understand the distinction you made between unicorns have own being but not real being.

[35:42]

And if you're... So you want to... Yes? Well, I wonder if it's that unicorns or, you know... or perhaps magical cities. Or, for example, our hot ship. There are all members in the class of things, namely, quote, imaginary concepts. And we think there is such a thing as that class. We think there is such a thing as imaginary concepts. All these things belong to that class. In fact, . What? What?

[36:51]

Well, I don't hang out, wander around. Yeah. In the realm of magical cities and unicorns, I see codependently produced phenomena. But the unicorn that I see right now is a codependently produced unicorn. It's a concept. Right. For me, horse and unicorn and magical cities, as I imagine them right now, are codependently produced concepts. And I can also subdivide those three categories and put horses into another concept called concepts of just ordinary things of the world and concepts which are fantastical creations. But both the concepts, when I look at them, I see

[37:54]

I see visual images, and I see in both cases that visual images of both realms are codependently produced, and the difference between each entity is in terms of its lakshana. That's what I see. What do you see? Don't we share this realm? This is the realm of concepts. See, in the realm of concepts, we can have talk. We can verify these concepts. That's why I'm talking this way, just to verify actually what you're seeing. And you can tell me what you're seeing, and by talking back and forth, I can find out what image you have somewhat. So I'm trying to find out, what do you see here in terms of the realms of concepts? And do you see something other than Lakshinas working together to create images? We're depending upon some kind of trigger to produce the same image in one and the other. And you say... They don't produce the same image, no. Well, we're depending upon some kind of... We're depending on language or background of language.

[38:55]

We're depending on some shared process that human beings have and... We can talk back and forth and we can verify, although we can't share the image that we have inside of us, and we can verify that basically it's the same image, although we can't see the same image. But we can verify. We can talk back and forth until you say, well, it's got horns, two horns, got eyes, eyes are under the horns, and then finally you say, oh, it's basically the same concept. And you can say, and I would put that concept over with farm animals, and I'd put this concept over with put them under the concept of parmanal. Parmanal is another concept that has lakshina, and the lakshinas are codependently produced. And then you can have another magical creations, and you can put then unicorns and other things in that category. In that category, it's another category, another concept, which is codependently produced. And the codependently produced things are said to lack inherent existence because they are conjured up by compositions of lakshinas.

[39:55]

So that's the way they're empty. They're empty of own being. Now, there is a special kind of imagination which is to imagine that codependently produced things which are codependent and if they're concepts, they're codependent compositions of lakshana, to imagine that that confabulation has inherent existence, that's a different kind of imagination than the imagination of this concept. That's the imagination of this concept has inherent existence. That's this. of unicorn, the concept of cow, the category of farm animals, and the category of imagined beings, those are all concepts, each one of which I can just talk about their characteristics and back and forth for you to see if we have the same characteristics. Some people don't. And as we grow up in society, we make some deals with each other to sort of say, yeah, that's a unicorn. Some people think unicorns are blue, probably, and some probably think they're white. So maybe we can agree about that. But we're talking about loxians when we talk about blue and white and horns and farm animals and stuff like that.

[41:00]

These things lack inherent existence because they depend on these characteristics. Now, to say that these have inherent existence is something which we do, and when you attribute inherent existence to these, then you have this type of situation. This situation is not just imagination flat out going around, I imagine things exist. It's not that by itself. It is the imagination of the existence of things mapped onto willows, flowers, unicorns, horses, and people. And not necessarily mapped onto everything. Like when I first said unicorn, some people maybe didn't do it that time. What they did instead was they just, as Jim said, they switched over. They already had done it in the past. They've already attributed inherent existence to unicorns as being in a category, really, of non-existent.

[42:00]

So we're getting into questions and we're not moving through the text. Okay, so, 24, the first, that's the imagined, the parikolfita, is nonsubstantial in terms of characteristics. And I would say it has no causal efficacy in this world. Again, the other, the dependent Paratantra is one possessed of a self-nature and as such is a different kind or a different form of non-substantiality. No causal efficacy. The imagination has no causal efficacy. Okay. Now, this second one is a dependently coerced concept.

[43:03]

And this second one, which is a dependently co-rism concept, is the foundation of reality. It's on this that you build reality. Reality is when this is realized as it is. It's upon this dependently co-rism concept, it's upon this this other dependent form of existence that we build, that reality is built. And reality is for that to just be as it is. And this co-dependently produced concept produces effects which can be shared and verified by other experiential processes or other beings.

[44:09]

What can we verify? Verify. Prove. You can prove to me back and forth that you actually can't share it, we can't verify it back and forth. Can we verify the fantasy? Can we verify the fantasy? As an image we can verify it, yes. as a concept. So, dependent co-arising produces events, dharmas. And again, the understanding that this is a dependently co-arisen dharma, that understanding is dharmata. There is the dharma, and then there is the dharma nature, or the state of the dharma. dharmata, reality. Understanding that dharma, that events are dependently co-produced, that is the realization of reality, of dharmata. What?

[45:20]

What has good characteristics? The foundation of reality has characteristics. The foundation of reality are dependently co-produced concepts. They have characteristics. Yes. And because they have characteristics, they are empty of inherent existence. Because their creation depends on characteristics, that's why they are empty of inherent existence. So, the realization that dharmas are dependently co-produced is the realization of reality. And that's also the realization of Buddhist epismology. Buddhist knowledge is based on non-inherently existing phenomena. And I want to say one more thing about this, which is really cute, the way Watcher Rejigger puts it.

[46:29]

This imagined nature, this other dependent nature, this... I'll just read it. Hi, little fellow. Okay, I'll just remember it. This affirmed what this negates. In other words, this affirms what is negated by this one. This affirms what is negated by this one.

[47:33]

What does this one affirm? This affirms characteristics. Characteristics are negated here. This affirms what this negates. This affirms what this negates. What does this affirm? Say it, folks. This affirms inherent existence, which this negates. Dependently coarisen Phenomena, dependently coerced concepts, negate inherent existence and affirm characteristics. Imagined nature negates characteristics and affirms inherent existence. So the champion of inherent existence is this one. The champion of inherent existence

[48:33]

is birth and death. Birth and death is the champion of inherent existence. And boy, I mean, look at it. When a baby's born, isn't that a champ of an inherent existence? Wow, you've got to step back for that one, boy. This is real. And death, too. Birth and death are the champion, are the exponent. They really affirm inherent existence. They really affirm own being. They really affirm misery. And they negate characteristics. When you used to have a baby born or somebody died, that's just a baby born and somebody died. That's just red flowers and green willows. But then somebody comes up and goes, this exists. That's this one. But the way it does that, the way it does this little trick of imbuing this process of life and death with inherent existence, has no characteristics.

[49:40]

So it's nonsubstantial in that way. Yes? Can you be a little more clear about the absence of causal efficacy and the ancients call black light? It can be on that illusion. Isn't that causal efficacy? Well, the way I understand that is the ancients look at a sentient being and see that sentient being attributing inherent existence to things and then try to find some way to help that person. For example, call black white as white in order to help them realize what they're up to. Isn't that help with causal efficacy of entering the realm of power and helping? No, you do this, this activity is occurring in the realm of dependently coerisen phenomena. That's where the ancients functions. The ancients don't, ladies and gentlemen, this is not just symmetrical, this process, okay?

[50:42]

I told you last night, this is not the same as this. They are not identical. They are separated. The ancients live over here. They do not go over here. What is calling black as white though? Calling black as white is the ancients come into the realm, it's this, going down to convert. That's calling black as white. It's coming back into the realm and totally functioning willingly in the realm of dependently co-produced phenomena, which if you attribute substance to them is dependently co-produced birth and death. But the ancients don't see it that way, even though they're in exactly the same world. It's the same world of willows and flowers. Same world. They come into that world. They live in that world, and their wisdom is nothing other than that world.

[51:44]

But they do not attribute substance to it. They only appear to it. Yeah, they only appear to it to people who attribute substance to it themselves. But when they look at each other, they don't see each other doing that. And they can tell who is attributing substance to things, you can tell by their pain. So the placebo effect of that activity is still not causal efficacy in the realm that it pretends to be? Well, I don't know if it's pretending to be in that realm. Anyway, it is causal efficacy, therefore it's in the realm of dependent core rising. That's where they work. They work in the world, the real world, which is always the same. They don't go over into the realm of imagination, the imagined world which never exists. They don't do that. However, they also recognize that that world has existence.

[52:46]

It is there that people do that. It is so that people attribute substance to things. That is so. There's no substance that they attribute, and there's really no people there. But those people who are doing that, there is reality to that. That's what draws these people into the world. That's what draws this accomplished nature into the dependably co-arisen world. But the people who are imagining substance are totally hooked into that world too, so you can relate to them there. The dependably co-produced world is where the world of birth and death and the world of dependably co-arisen suchness need each other. We still haven't got 25. But I did say that part about that thing about that this affirms what this negates and this affirms what this negates. Got that? It's really chopping this thing. We're going to have it. Hey, Lee, are you going to get a picture of this?

[53:50]

He puts it over his head. Now, this is an example. This is not a unicorn that's happening. Get a picture of this. This is not a unicorn. Wait, wait, wait till we tell you. What? I'll do that at the end. This robe is a plastic robe and it doesn't adhere to itself. It's totally unattached to itself. Okay, 25. The third is the ultimate meaning of events because it is also suchness. Since it remains such all the time, it, indeed, is a mere concept. Third, this one, the accomplished, the world of enlightenment, okay, is the ultimate meaning of events. And because, it, because, it is also suchness.

[54:52]

Now, since it remains such all the time, it's a mere concept. So the ultimate meaning of events is also a mere concept. There's nothing to it. That's why it's dependently co-arisen suchness. Now, the Sanskrit here is really nice. I'll try to read it. Why don't you read it? Okay, so listen to this. Okay, always... It's such all, always, always, all the time. Sarva Kalam, like Kali. Sarva Kalam. Tata Vyavat. It's all the time such. Okay? This ultimate, this way here.

[55:56]

This one here is all the time such. The way this world is, is dependently co-arisen world. The way it is, is always such. This one is the always suchness of this world. Since this world always has the same substance because it's just the way it is and it's nothing more than that, this is just mere concept. A big leap? It's a very big leap. And also you can do it. Which is saiva vijnapti matra. It says vijnapti matra, it doesn't say vijnapti matra though. Oh, it says sarva vinyapti matrata. It doesn't say sarva vinyapti matrata. Right? What? It says sarva vinyapti matrata.

[56:56]

It does not say sarva vinyapti matrata. Wait. I've said the same thing twice. First time I said it does say that, second time I said it doesn't say that. Is that right? One time I said it the way you agreed with it, and the next time you didn't agree with it. Don't forget you didn't agree the second time. I'm not asking you to agree the second time. I mean, it's the state of mere concept. Yeah. It's the state of mere concept. Okay. Now comes 26. As long as consciousness does not terminate in this vijnaptimatra, okay, in that case it's vijnaptimatra, vijnaptimatra, excuse me. As long as consciousness does not terminate in vijnaptimatra, what? As long as consciousness is not situated... Ah, that's better.

[58:01]

Well terminated doesn't mean it ends, it means sort of like, that's its address. As long as consciousness doesn't have the address of mere concept of the Jnaptimatra, as long as that happens, so long will the, it says dispositions for the twofold grasping not cease. The other translation says, as long as consciousness is not situated in perception only or concept only, and this one says it differently, it says, the residuals of the dual apprehension will not come to an end. That's quite different. I will, don't worry. The word dispositions in this case is not the same word dispositions that we've been using before. Before the word dispositions was samskara, usually when we said dispositions. Or the vasana, the bijas, the seeds.

[59:09]

Now he's using the English word dispositions, but the Sanskrit word is anushaya. And anushaya are inclinations or tendencies, latent inclinations or tendencies. So inclination would be a good translation. And in the other translation he says residuals. Now listen to the difference between saying as long as the mind is not in the state of mere concept, these inclinations of the twofold grasping will not cease. The other one says the residuals of these twofold grasping, but the residuals of these twofold grasping is the residuals of the grasping is that they cause a tendency. And the tendency they cause is they cause mere concept to be made into something that has existence. So because of these inclinations, which are built up out of the process of perception around these two graspings,

[60:13]

these two graspings, the way they go, they develop these inclinations, and then these inclinations hit this dependently co-arisen concept, which is just a concept, and they convert it into this. So the poor little process of perception of Ascension B is cooking along there, right? And then these inclinations come over to it, and they push it right over into here. This is saying, so long as this does not, isn't situated in just mere concept. These inclinations will always push it over in this direction. I would say, so long as you do not make your mind like a wall, you will be susceptible to these inclinations which make you turn this concept which is dependently co-arisen and therefore not inherently existent. You turn this non-inherently existent thing into an inherently existent thing. and you won't be able to stop it because the tendency, the habit, the inclination, it's very strong.

[61:20]

Because so many times when there was grasping and grasped, so many times we saw that what was grasped was an independently existing thing, separate and independent of the grasping. We did that so many times that we have a strong inclination when we see an object to think of the object as the independent of the consciousness. Like I wrote that thing in the void, those two things, we have a tendency to see the environment, we have a tendency to see the passive aspect of consciousness as independent of the active aspect of consciousness or the passive aspect of thinking as independent of the active aspect. Because we did that so many times we have a strong tendency to make objects mere concepts into substance. And also so many times when there was grasping and a grasper, an agent of it, we saw the agent as independent of the grasping or the knower as independent of the knowledge.

[62:26]

We did that so many times. We have a strong thing. There's no way we can fight it unless we can somehow, you can't just sit there and just, you have to make your mind like a wall. Then you have a chance to not flip over into earth and death. If somebody, like, hits a swing at you, you know, broom or something, you just see it coming and you duck. Does that imply, at that instant, belief in impairing the existence, or is that a kind of a karmic reaction that is itself not karmically active or created, you know, for your involvement? Are you saying that to imply what? Well, if you had no belief in your own existence, I suppose you wouldn't care necessarily. Oh, but you see it coming.

[63:27]

So what's the point of view of a being that does not... What is the behavior of a being who clearly observes and for whom no words can reach that concept that they're aware of? What is their behavior like? Under any circumstances, what is their behavior? What are they looking for in this phenomenon? What are they like? What's the point of view there? They might not look for the intention of the person swinging the balloon. They might be looking for the intention of the person swinging the balloon. It could happen. Yes. Anybody who just ducks when something's coming their way is in tune with what's happening, I must say. Same world. A dependently co-arisen event, right? Yeah. Right, dependently co-arisen. Namely, here's his face, here's a broom coming, various causes and effects causing me to duck.

[64:29]

Uh-huh. That's what I was getting at. It's the same world. The duck. That's all I wanted to know. The duck is always brought about by dependently co-produced events. All things that happen are that way. So you want to know what's the difference between these two worlds. In one case, the person over there. Whatever happens, whatever happens is always co-dependently produced. The content of non-discriminating wisdom is the karmically created. Non-discriminating wisdom is not operating on a being that is not involved in karma. Buddhists are involved in karma. The content of Buddha's wisdom is the karmically created stuff, like brooms, head, ducking, and not ducking. Also, to not duck would also have been dependent on the core of wisdom. And we have some Zen masters that are really slow.

[65:30]

So when you swing him from a man, you'll hit him, so be careful. Houdini said that anybody can punch him in the stomach anytime. So some college kids came to him after a show one time and said, we hear we can punch him in the stomach anytime. And he said, okay, he said, go ahead. And they punched him before he got ready. He hurt his stomach. Ruptured his, I think, kidneys or, yeah, headaches. So... Tell it before you swing at somebody you think is enlightened. Tell them you're going to do it. Because they might be slow. And then you have a dependently co-produced bang on the head. It's always dependently co-produced world. That's all there is. There's no other world. That's all we've got available. The only thing is, do you attribute substance to that? Yes. Or not? If you don't, I guess you do. My point was, if you're going to wobble away from Vijnaldi Natasa, It's probably going to be when you're under stress. But you're going to be tempted away from that.

[66:33]

It may well be when something is really putting screws to you. Is that true or not true? No. Did you hear what he said? He thinks that If you're a practitioner and you're training yourself at Vishnaptimatra, you're trying to clearly observe what's happening and trying to not let any kind of words or attribution of substance reach it. Just trying to stay with dependent core arising, settle with dependent core arising. Lakshina is coming together to produce phenomena. like for example, what do you call it, a broom swinging at your head. He says that in that case, he says that when you would stray away from Vijnapthi Matrata, it would probably be when you're under stress, is that not so? And I would say that when you have strayed away from Vijnapthi Matrata, you are under stress. I was referring to physical stress. Oh, a karmically created stress?

[67:33]

Well, yeah. I would say definitely not. There's a dog chewing on your leg. I would say definitely not. I would say that the characteristic of pain, the dependently colorisant pain, is definitely not the thing that causes you to veer away from your concept. That's not what does it. As a matter of fact, it is the most helpful of all phenomena. The thing that causes you to veer away is not what's happening. It is the dispositions. Are the strongest dispositions associated with the strongest stimulation or whatever you want to call it? That's actually my question. Stronger stimulation related to stronger dispositions? You know what you once said in a fly? You once said... You once said... So this all sounds good.

[68:38]

If you guys all come up here and start pounding on me with your fists, then we've really got the scene. So... That's more or less the same question. Well, let's look at that now. Let's go. Well, I would say at this point that it's very likely that when the people start pounding on you, it's not that you switch from vijnapti mantra to siddhi concentration, but that you weren't there in the first place. And you just now are becoming aware of it. Because when people are stroking on you and you're attributing substance to that, you don't really notice that you're getting upset for a while.

[69:38]

And eventually you start noticing that you're getting upset. But being attacked gives you more instant reaction, so you more quickly feel like you've lost your cool. But if you didn't have your cool in the first place, I would propose as a real possibility that you already weren't doing it. So I would say then, you know, revising what I said then, although it may look like I'm doing pretty well, if you start pounding on me, you may find out that I'm not. It may not be that the pounding on the person is what causes them to give up their conviction to practice Dharma, but rather that it shows that they haven't been. And so that's part of Dharma practice sometimes, is when somebody thinks that they have been, or maybe has been, then to put a little stress on them to see if they really have been. Not so much would they give it up. So we don't put stress on people, basically, unless we think they're already here.

[70:39]

People who are over here, no point in getting stressed. Let's try to get them over to looking at this from this point of view. And then use stress to test them. So if I look like I'm pretty good, then test me by stressing me. What would stress me? Codependently stress me. And see what happens. But I don't think if I'm practicing it that I'm going to somehow switch because I'm stressed. I don't think so. I think the dispositions... But, you know, let somebody look at it. Do the dispositions favorably, do they kick in more strongly in stress than not in stress? I don't think so. I think they're pretty indiscriminate. I think they basically click in all the time. Is that a concept?

[71:42]

What I just said? That happened. That happened. Person in that state, that situation. Or it's just a concept? I'm not quite following what you're referring to. The person in the what? Or it's over there. Is this a concept? Yeah. Yes, that's what it says. That's Clark 25. Clark 25 says that because this is the same all the time, it's a concept. This is just a concept, too. This has no inherent existence, either. This has no inherent existence either. This has no inherent existence. This has no inherent existence. But the way they have, the three ways that they don't have inherent existence is different. See? So do you understand now the way these three realms or these three kinds of being don't have being? This doesn't have being because in terms of having no characteristics. This doesn't have any being in terms of it has no own being. This doesn't have any meaning because it's just mere concept.

[72:43]

And mere concept is Buddhist. So they all lack inherent existence. There's nothing substantial in the entire universe. However, if we can leave dependently co-arising phenomena alone, we'll have no doubt. And this is the mind of Buddha. And it's 10 o'clock or so. So please make your mind like a wall as soon as possible to protect yourself and others from the dispositions which have developed over this long career of seeing the knower and the known as independent. There's more here, but I think maybe we should stop. It's 10.08. Yes? It seems to say that the reason that such a serious concept is because it is such a crux.

[73:48]

Yeah, it seems to say that, yeah. Is that the crux? Is that the crux of wine? Well, that's the crushing karaka. Maybe some other genius could think of some other reason to prove that it's mere concept. But anything that stays the same all the time, there's no such thing, right? It's just a mere concept. We have a concept of something that stays the same all the time, right? And people do say that, too. Have you heard him say that? It's shocking. You hear about the Buddha taught impermanence, right? And then they say, but suchness remains, is there always. It's eternal. Buddha nature, all beings are the Buddha nature, and it exists eternally. Buddha nature is permanent. But didn't Buddha say everything was impermanent? But this is permanent. Therefore, it is just a concept. But it is, you know, logically speaking, it is permanent because everything is always such the way it is, right? Everything always is the way it is. Yes, what are you talking about? What is it? The 27th is extremely important.

[74:49]

And you should, if I can believe, 28. I don't know if I'm going to break. Let's get watching. Um... I think we should stop. How many people want to stop? For a break. Well, how many people want to stop? Okay, three want to stop. Four. Let's stop. We don't want to proceed. There's more to this practice period than meets your eye. There's more to this practice period than it's dreamt of in your philosophy or ratio. I just want to ask you, you remember the other night you said that you had a fun story about the old girl? Yeah. And it dealt with that argument already. How language, how words may reinforce goods. Have I dealt with it? I'm sorry, Jim, I haven't dealt with it yet, but... Well, I mean... I've thought to it a few times.

[75:54]

But I don't think I've dealt with it much. You can say more about it, I guess. Anderson's fairy tale. Anderson's fairy tale. Spelled S-T-E-N. Oh, S-T-E-N, sorry. That's okay. Same initials. A-C-E-N. Make your mind like a wall? Like in the fall practice period a couple years ago, I think you were there. The theme of the fall practice period was wall gazing. A spring flower opens behind you or in the back. Just wall gazing means make your mind like a wall. It means when something happens, have no involvements. It means exhaling, having no involvements.

[76:55]

Inhaling, not dwelling in body and mind. That's what this is about. It means this is an explanation of what it means to just sit. You see that? Not even that. What you just said, what that really is, is to not even do what he just said. If he did what you said, he would be not to even do that. If you actually put into practice, realizing that these two are separate, if you actually put into practice this being entirely free of that, if you were actually to put that in practice, you wouldn't even do that. Because if you do that, then this, the person who's sitting there doing that and thinking about doing that practice, then this, in fact, is not free of this.

[78:05]

because you think there's such a thing as doing that practice which you just talked about. To actually do that practice, to actually do it, which you really should, that's non-discriminating wisdom. Non-discriminating wisdom is when this is completely free of that. But if you sit down and try to see this, or get this to be free of this, or try to see that these two are separate, if you try to do that, then this is now affecting this. To realize that these two are separate, to realize that this is free of this really, always, to realize that this world is free of all imagination, to do that practice is to not even do that practice. In other words, just sit. And also just sitting. All right? Don't even do that. So what's the effort? The effort is not to move. Ever.

[79:06]

The effort is to be just in the moment, in the present, and not move. And anything other than just being there is just a mere concept. Any other practice you do besides that is just a mere concept. And also, just sitting would not be to get rid of those concepts. It's just that those concepts don't reach the practice. They do not reach it. They're there. all the time, flying all over the place, but they don't reach your practice. Your practice is pure. This is the realm of purity. This is the realm of just sitting, which means that whatever's happening to you, however you feel, whatever you're thinking or sensing, it's just that. Meantime, all around our imagined, all the time, because of these tendencies, there's a constant assault of imaginations, of things that you are doing, that you believe you're doing, that have inherent existence.

[80:11]

All the time you're being assaulted in this way. Your effort is to be just like a wall on a situation, not to do anything about any of that. Then the spring flower will bloom in the back. A gift will come to you. What? Not even to imagine you're doing that practice. However, you probably will imagine you're doing that practice, and it's a lovely imagination. As a matter of fact, we have theme songs that we sing to create positive imagery around this person who's not doing anything. And see if that person cannot grab even at the accomplished. And we give lectures and we present you with more instruction about how to meditate. And you're supposed to not let that get to you. All the instruction is to see if nothing can get to you. And nothing can get to your practice. And that's what the instruction is. The instruction is to say, don't let this get to you. Don't let this touch you.

[81:11]

Don't let this touch the world. Let the world be as it is. Let the world be as it is. And including, don't let what I just said get to you. It also is just a mere concept. It's a well-intentioned mere concept. I misheard that popular song, you know? What I thought it said, I thought it said, I'm just a fool whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood. Huh? It's just a soul. It is a soul, but I feel like more I'm a fool. I'm just trying various things. Don't misunderstand me, okay? Please. But since I'm a fool, it's pretty hard not to. Now we can check out how we're doing. Oh, please. No, no, no, no. You check out how you're doing by having him hit you without warning. Yeah.

[82:13]

Uh-huh. I think he's a good person to do it. He's very gentle, actually. He'll stop just before he gets to your head. So we could use a broom in the Zendo instead of a Kiyosaku. And go up with the head instead of the shoulders. You know. Face the other way. And also, please remember that in Zen, the Zen monk is not told that the most important thing is enlightenment. They aren't told the most important thing is the accomplished. They aren't told the most important thing is the realm of bliss and release. They don't say that. They say the most important thing is birth and death. The most important thing is this realm. That's the most important thing because if you can give up this realm everything else will take care of itself.

[83:18]

So you have to be a wall and admit you live in the realm of birth and death. I have to admit that. I'm constantly subject to inclinations to attribute imagined existence to things. I live in birth and death. It's welcome to my house. And in that house I hope to be like Bodhidharma and just make my mind like a wall. I hope to be like our ancestors and realize the way which we supposedly can realize if we make our mind like a wall. But we do that most of the time in birth and death. Let's not try to promote ourselves out of it. We will immediately be released from it and we'll discover the world which is free of this as soon as we just drop this stuff. But we can't drop it until we admit what we're doing. Can we really see what it is?

[84:19]

Can you see what it is? Yeah. No. What you see is what it is. Right now you see what it is. This is what it is. What isn't is the attributing of inherent existence to it all. But this actually is the... What's going on inside of you? Can I really see when you say something? Can I really... I can't really... But what's going on inside for me, in me, is not what's happening for you. What's happening for you is this face over here. That's what's happening for you. Okay. And you can see that. You can see what's happening inside you. You can see what's happening on the surface of me. That's your world. That is the world. That really is the world. And it's always going to be that world. If you can just stop attributing inherent existence to what's happening inside you, that's called coughing and sighing in the mind. And if you can stop attributing inherent existence to me, that's called involvements of me. Then this world as it is, then the world, which is going to be the same way, exactly the same, will be the world as it really is.

[85:23]

And then you will be this great, beneficent being in this world. Okay? Same world, just dropping this attribution of imagined existence, that's all, which is very difficult. So mostly we're confessing that we're making mistakes. But as a friend of mine said, mistakes are the ornament of freedom. Oh boy. If there's no freedom, there's no mistakes, folks. In the realm of freedom, on the big Christmas tree of freedom, the ornaments are mistakes. So I'd like to end with my Amish to Birth and Death. This is a poem for my son Peter.

[86:26]

who I have hurt in a thousand ways, whose large and vulnerable eyes have gazed in pain at my ragings. Thin wrists and fingers hung in boneless despair. Pale and freckled back bent in defeat. Pillow soaked by my failure to understand. I have scarred forever through weakness and impatience.

[87:31]

your frail confidence because when I needed to be strict you were there to be hurt and because I thought you knew that you were beautiful but now I see that no one knows that about himself but must be told and retold until it takes hold. For I think that anything can be killed after a while, especially beauty. So I write this poem for life, for love, and for my son Peter. My beautiful son Peter. who I love very much age 10 going on 11 so I'm sorry if I hurt you I'm just a fool

[88:57]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_90.79